Plasma Cosmology, Nucleosynthesis

[Wangler]

Plasma Cosmology no show on hard, definate predictions?

It is cool that these primordial abundances can be calculated to such precision.

It seems as if the underlying equations are not too difficult, if one is familiar with basic cosmology and astrophysics, as well as nuclear theory.

So, it begs the question of why PC adherents cannot publish some estimates based upon their theories.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It is cool that these primordial abundances can be calculated to such precision.

It seems as if the underlying equations are not too difficult, if one is familiar with basic cosmology and astrophysics, as well as nuclear theory.

So, it begs the question of why PC adherents cannot publish some estimates based upon their theories.

.
Sadly, it would seem that all 'PC adherents' have decided to go post in forums other than JREF.

For what it's worth, you can find much the same behaviour all over the internet ... in forums where there is a focus on science or critical thinking, these adherents tend to be very energetic for a while, posting great numbers of links (helps with their Google rank?), not answering questions, then either leave or get banned (happens a lot in forums that have rules which require good questions actually be answered).

But don't take my word for it; if you're interested, do some googling yourself ... (I would be happy to suggest the names of forums that are not so open one's brains fall out ...)

 

[Dancing David]

It is cool that these primordial abundances can be calculated to such precision.

It seems as if the underlying equations are not too difficult, if one is familiar with basic cosmology and astrophysics, as well as nuclear theory.

So, it begs the question of why PC adherents cannot publish some estimates based upon their theories.

Well there is only the behavior of three adherents here to track. One basicaly just spams for themselves and had never offered any data to support thier theories

Another sort of offers data but then gets involved in strange semantic twirling.

the other one admits to mistakes but won't change thier behavior.

I am amazed that no one will tell me what scale Perrat's model would be blown up to a galaxy. Really I am ,that is why i ask.

Or what would keep a black hole from forming.

Or in the case of Zeuzz what specificaly about Birkeland charged ball experiment relates to a solar process.

So it seems the same as the behavior of many people and nothing extraordinary:
1. Point out alleged holes in a theory.
2. Provide vague, overgeneralized or incorrect information about a model.
3. Rely on a small number of sources or pop science sources. Attack a straw man when ever pssoible.
4. Engage in appeals to emotion, appeals to authority and all sorts of tactics to avoid the issues when presented.
5. Avoid presenting evidence but then claim that it has been presented and you are just dumb for not getting it...

Seriously check out the Patterson-Gimlin Film thread on General Scepticism, now those are some truely masterful trolls. Or any thread started by Yrreg in the R&P forum.