Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[iantresman]

Like Zeuzzz you have confirmed plasma cosmology as what it is: a collection of a dozen or more, arbitrary, often mutually inconsistent theories many of which have been debunked.

I wrote, nor confirmed, nothing of the sort. I referred those interested to various peer-reviewed articles, not the contents of a post, or my interpretations.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Ian, welcome back!

 

[Reality Check]

I wrote, nor confirmed, nothing of the sort. I referred those interested to various peer-reviewed articles, not the contents of a post, or my interpretations.

Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.

 

[iantresman]

Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.

No problem. Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.

 

[sol invictus]

Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.

That's because it's Anthony Peratt's website.

Domain name: PLASMASCIENCE.NET


Administrative Contact:
Peratt, Anthony a.peratt@att.net
551 Brighton Dr.
Los Alamos, NM 87544
US
505 672 6410 Fax: 000-000-0000

 

[Reality Check]

No problem. Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.

The rest of the links are the standard stuff that I have seen before. Lots of standard plasma physics and some old theories.
A good thing about science is that scientists keep on making observations. Science is about theories that match observations and predict the results of future observation. This means that theories have to be updated to account for new observations. This is certainly true for Standard Cosmology.
Perhaps you can give us a link to a peer-reviewed paper on Plasma Cosmology that addresses more recent data, e.g. the COBE and WMAP data:

• The cosmic microwave background which is a perfect black body thermal spectrum.
• The power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

iantresman: There is no definitive one-line descriptions of Plasma Cosmology, as it is a combination of theories developed by more than one person. This seems to be no different from Standard Cosmology which includes theories and hypotheses that are continuous under development/refinement and change.

But you can discover more about Plasma Cosmology and the Plasma Universe, from reliable peer-reviewed or academic sources, which includes the quantitative details that are often omitted in these informal discussions.

Suggested reading (not necessarily the best, but available):

As RC has noted, almost all this material, inc. the various "peer-reviewed articles" listed, is at least a decade old*.

There has been an enormous change in the observational base for the study of cosmology in the past decade, in just about every class of phenomena/question - CMB, large-scale structure, evolution of galaxies, Hubble relationship, ...

Do you have anything to offer wrt why there is such an apparent dearth of published papers, on PC or PU, in the last decade? Why none of those who seemed to be so active in the 1970s, 1980s, and even the 1990s have apparently not availed themselves of any of the freely available, highly pertinent, much higher quality observations of the last decade or so?

* two exceptions: those in the section "ENERGETIC AURORAS: NEAR-EARTH MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PLASMA UNIVERSE", and ~3 in the preceding one.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

iantresman: Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.

In the material you cited in your earlier post, what PC/PU aspects do you think have not been shown to be quite inconsistent with independent, multiple, high quality observations?

I know that's a question with a huge range, so let's start with just one: non-standard (i.e. PU/PC) explanations of the observed redshifts of galaxies, where the observed redshifts are 0.05 < z < 0.5.

Or, to express this another way, the Hubble relationship for galaxies with observed redshifts in the range 0.05 < z < 0.5.

 

[sol invictus]

In the material you cited in your earlier post, what PC/PU aspects do you think have not been shown to be quite inconsistent with independent, multiple, high quality observations?

A variant on that question - can you give one specific and concrete example of a quantitative prediction of PC which is not also a prediction of standard cosmology?

I asked Zeuzzz this same thing, and he failed to come up with anything. If indeed there is nothing, PC cannot be regarded as science.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A variant on that question - can you give one specific and concrete example of a quantitative prediction of PC which is not also a prediction of standard cosmology?

I asked Zeuzzz this same thing, and he failed to come up with anything. If indeed there is nothing, PC cannot be regarded as science.

I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm


Let me have a go again RealityCheck. Since you persist in posting clearly false things about plasma cosmology.

First, there is the matter anti-matter theory of Alfven back in the 80's, which, although not completely ruled out, recieves little to no attention today. Since then the same appraoch has been continued by various scientists, Lerner, Peratt, Snell, Meierovich, etc, which were generally more sucessful than the previous model, but came at a time when no-one was interested, as they were all getting excited over all the new data and Big Bang focussed projects.

Ians page has some good info about the history and founders of PC here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_cosmology

As I said before: "There have been numerous plasma cosmologies proposed over the years. This has lead to a generalising of the term plasma cosmology, and the term is often now used to describe any cosmology created within a plasma cosmology framework, instead of a specific cosmological theory. This can be compared to the various cosmological models formed within the Big Bang framework; the Big Bang itself would not be called a cosmology by itself, but cosmologies formed within this framework are. The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén, those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]), and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson, CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others. While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed."

P.S. RealityCheck, you dont 'debunk' a scientific theory. Theories do not have a position on veracity, thats why we call them theories.

 

[Dancing David]

Theories can be shown to be wrong.

Yours can't be shown to be right!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Zeuzzz: The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén,

Shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments, even while Alfvén was still active as a scientist.

those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]),

Not sure about the "et al", but for all the Peratt and Lerner "theories" presented by either Z or iantresman in this thread, to date, have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments.

and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson,

What is this? Per what's been presented in this thread, it's a paper in arXiv that has not been published yet. And no wonder, it contains some pretty gross misunderstandings of textbook quantum physics.

CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others.

Not sure about the "and others" (J Jensen?), but in terms of what's been presented in this thread, so far, these ideas have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments.

While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed.

Now as Z has decided to not read this post, he is in no position to comment (unless someone quotes it), but "some" is, in fact, as presented in this thread so far, "all".

Of course, I may have missed something, so maybe a reader could point out which areas in the material posted by Z are:

a) individually consistent with the relevant, independently verified observations and experiments AND

b) consistent with a corresponding aspect in another item in the list.

Thanks Z; gross misrepresentation is a pretty good sign of woo (sol has also commented, several times, on your apparent extreme ignorance of even the most basic of aspects of physics, so it's possible that you yourself do not understand how gross your misrepresentations are).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

General Question: in this Science etc section of the JREF forum, when someone persists in refusing to engage in discussion, but merely repeatedly posts the same (debunked) material over and over and over, what happens?

Specifically, how does the thread end? how can it end??

 

[Reality Check]

I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

See Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" for problems and errors with these predictions.
One of his points to do with Big Bang cosmology is correct: there is a problem with the predicted abundance of lithium - it is out by a factor of 2.
There is no problem with the large scale structure and voids - Lerner just ignores dark matter. The LCDM computer simulation gives good matches to what we see.
The first year fit to the WMAP date from BB cosmology was not good but that fit is outdated. The fit to the 3 and 5 year WMAP data is much better. No sign of Lerner's fit to the WMAP data yet inless I have missed a paper.

Let me have a go again RealityCheck. Since you persist in posting clearly false things about plasma cosmology.

First, there is the matter anti-matter theory of Alfven back in the 80's, which, although not completely ruled out, recieves little to no attention today. Since then the same appraoch has been continued by various scientists, Lerner, Peratt, Snell, Meierovich, etc, which were generally more sucessful than the previous model, but came at a time when no-one was interested, as they were all getting excited over all the new data and Big Bang focussed projects.

Ians page has some good info about the history and founders of PC here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_cosmology

As I said before: "There have been numerous plasma cosmologies proposed over the years. This has lead to a generalising of the term plasma cosmology, and the term is often now used to describe any cosmology created within a plasma cosmology framework, instead of a specific cosmological theory. This can be compared to the various cosmological models formed within the Big Bang framework; the Big Bang itself would not be called a cosmology by itself, but cosmologies formed within this framework are. The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén, those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]), and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson, CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others. While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed."

Nice history. Where is the core of plasma cosmology?, i.e. a set of consistant theories that match existing data and make falsifiable, testable predictions? It would be good if this was current, e.g. updated in the last 5 years.

P.S. RealityCheck, you dont 'debunk' a scientific theory. Theories do not have a position on veracity, thats why we call them theories.

You may be confused between the English definition of theory (an idea) and the scientific definition of theory (an idea that explains data, makes falsifiable, testable predictions and is refined (or discarded) as new data is obtained).

But you are sort of right. You can state that a theory is based on incorrect premises (e.g. ignores gravity), does not fit observations (e.g. tries to compare mass distribution with hot star distribution (spiral arms)) and makes predictions that are not observed (200 billion plasma filaments that are as wide as galaxies, 1000's of light years long and powerful enough to spin galaxies).


So Peratt's scientific theory of galaxy formation is

• Based on false premises.
• Does not fit observations.
• Makes false predictions.

I think I will summarize this as a debunked (false, incorrect) scientific theory.

I agree with you - the Big Bang theory has been much too successful and we are running out of falsifiable testable predictions. We should throw it away and start all over again !

 

[tusenfem]

Actually, it might be interesting to hear from others who have participated in this thread too, on the question of why they think PC is woo (or not) ... and what they understand PC to be.

I think that the problem is that PC is not really well defined, as has been shown numerous times, and one should see it in a larger context. I know that several scientists discuss the plasma universe (in the context of magnetospheric physics) but they hardly mean an electric sun. There is a gray zone here.

Let's take an example, the book by Peratt "the plasma universe." Most of that book is regular plasma physics, where it is interesting that an important place is given to the diocotron instablility, which you will not find often in a plasma physics book, which is there, because Peratt wants to use that instability later in the book to create structures in plasmas. I have no problems with that book (not that I use it much) until chapter 8, which is an introduction to his ideas about galaxy formation. The book only shows the basics of PIC simulation of cosmic plasmas, which is okay, but the IEEE paper on galaxy formation, I think he is overdoing the "plasma stuff" and there it gets woo, IMHO.

The other part is that there are a lot of self-educated "plasma-astrophysicists" who seem to very much cherry-pick plasma physics, only taking out the bits that suit their ideas, and never properly have been "forced" to go through the nitty-gritty in college (like myself). This leads to the idea, e.g. of the infallibility of Hannes Alfvén, anything he wrote or said must be gospel, and why exactly should that be? Is that not why we had the reformation?

So, in the end, PC, depending on who you listen to, can either be as mainstream as Hilton Paris, or as woo as George Bush, there is no real bifurcation line, but like I said above, a large gray region. PC is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tusenfem]

I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

Actually, there is a very LARGE paper discussing the development of the universe, based on mainstream physics (including the BB), which discusses the 5 stages or ages of the universe as it gets older (assuming that the universe is eternally expanding). I cannot find the paper, I hope some of the other people have a link to the pdf. There is a LOT of prediction in there on how the universe will develop itself (quite scary in some places).

ETA: Ah I found at least a website with this story here from the university of Michigan.

I also would not give Lerner the benefit of the doubt, one only has to read this page listing all the errors in Lerner's book.

ETA: oops, just saw that RC had already put this link in.

 

[Dancing David]

General Question: in this Science etc section of the JREF forum, when someone persists in refusing to engage in discussion, but merely repeatedly posts the same (debunked) material over and over and over, what happens?

Specifically, how does the thread end? how can it end??

It doesn't, until the thread participants stop posting.

 

[sol invictus]

I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

I didn't ask you, Zeuzzz, I asked Ian. You and I have already been through this, and you failed at it over and over again throughout months of squirming. I don't care to go through that again.

There are literally millions of predictions of standard cosmology/BBT I could mention off the top of my head. Every time a telescope explores a new region of space, every time an instrument with better resolution looks at something we've already observed, basically, every astrophysical observation made anywhere in the world - standard cosmo predicts the results of nearly all of them. That's because cosmology is a real physical science.

As for PC, I won't hold it to anywhere near that standard. I don't care if the prediction is actually a postdiction. I just want one specific and concrete phenomenon which PC explains in a way which is consistent with data but different from standard cosmo.

 

[tusenfem]

Interestingly, with respect to the sun being influenced by electromagnetic forces, while reading through the "errors in BBNH" page I found this calculation about the magnetic force or the electrostatic force holding the sun in its orbit around the galactic centre.

 

[sol invictus]

Interestingly, with respect to the sun being influenced by electromagnetic forces, while reading through the "errors in BBNH" page I found this calculation about the magnetic force or the electrostatic force holding the sun in its orbit around the galactic centre.

Yes, and of course he comes to the same conclusions we did. He's being extremely generous to PC in his numbers, so his result for the force is that it's merely 17 orders of magnitude too weak (I think we came up with 22 or 24, I can't remember for sure).