Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma?

Nice try BAC, but no cigar ...

Here is a question of mine, asked twice now, that you have chosen to ignore:

For the gas/plasma in question (that which pervades rich clusters of galaxies [such as the Bullet Cluster]), what - specifically and quantitatively - are the differences in those properties (gas vs plasma), as they pertain to astronomical observations of those clusters, or potential observations of those clusters?

Would you please answer it now?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Tidying up a loose end ...

One of the many inconsistencies that makes PC, as presented in this thread by Z, woo is redshift.

Actually, it's a set of related inconsistencies.

Start with observation: for galaxies (and other objects) beyond the Local Group (the MW, M31, M33, the Magellanic Clouds, etc), distance and redshift are closely related - the greater the redshift, the greater the distance. This was first noticed by Hubble*, nearly a century ago now, and the distance-redshift relationship is today called the Hubble relationship. There's some scatter about the trend line, and a quantitative measure of that scatter correlates well with the objects membership of groups and clusters (the richer the cluster, the greater the scatter). To the extent that they have been measured, redshifts in different wavebands are the same (for the same object) - a galaxy's redshift measured in the x-ray waveband is the same as it is in the UV, or IR, or microwave, or radio waveband. Further, the atomic (or molecular) transitions that give rise to the lines used to measure redshift are many, from highly ionised iron, to moderately ionised oxygen, to neutral CO and H; hence the physical environments in which the excited species exist span an amazing range of temperature, density, and so on. Those are the observational results.

As Plasma Cosmology (PC) is universal in its scope (at least according to Z, per his posts in this thread), a good, consistent (PC) explanation of these observations should be available.

Surprisingly, there is no such explanation.

Instead (per Z anyway) there is a mishmash of creative ideas, speculations, and nonsense, with no apparent attempt by any PC proponent to produce anything definitive.

Curiously, most of these PC explanations involve mechanisms or processes that have never been seen in any lab here on Earth, a fact which would, no doubt, cause Alfvén to turn in his grave (a more egregious violation of his actualistic approach would be hard to imagine!); the ones that have been observed in labs pretty obviously do not apply to galaxies or objects whose redshifts have been measured in widely separated wavebands (say, radio and visual).

Even more curious, perhaps, is how uncritically PC proponents (including Z) embrace the published papers of Arp, Bell, et al ... curious because (among other things) there's even less in the way of potential (plasma) mechanisms for Arpian 'intrinsic redshift' than there is for that of the Hubble relationship**, and because if there really were such 'intrinsic redshifts' most of the works of most PCers (such as Peratt and Lerner) would have to be extensively edited, if not completely re-written.

In a way, the uncritical acceptance of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' for quasars is a rather nice summary of PC as a whole: not only are there no papers by any of the founders of PC on the existence of such an effect (recall that PC proponents are very big on 'predictions'), not only are there no plasma-based mechanisms for such an effect, but PC proponents are quite unconcerned about lensed quasars, which provide about as clear an observation-based case as you could ask for that quasars are at distances consistent with their (Hubble relationship) redshifts (example)!

Saying this another way: uncritical acceptance of inconsistencies, of many kinds and at many levels (and the extreme reluctance to even acknowledge that any inconsistencies exist), shows that whatever PC is, it is not a science or based on science.

Can we get on to new questions now? Like whether PC is more akin to religion or to conspiracy theories?

* actually it was almost certainly noticed by someone else earlier, but Hubble gets the credit (for being the first to publish a paper on it?)

** with one exception: AFAIK it is possible (and maybe even easy) to construct models for some subsets of the line spectra of unresolved quasars using standard physics; however such models are inconsistent with more general observations of quasars

One more item, of the 'tidying up' kind ...

I think quasi-stellar objects ('quasi-stellar radio source' later 'quasar', and 'QSO') were first recognised as high redshift objects in 1962 or 1963, though some had been claimed a few years earlier. In any case, within a year or so 'faint nebulosity' was observed associated with at least two quasars (not counting 3C 273's famous jet), and before long such faint fuzz around the point source was interpreted as the quasar's host galaxy.

As far as I know, while several 'alternative' explanations of quasar redshift (such as the laundry list in an earlier post by Z) might be plausible for a true point source, none would work for objects that each extend over hundreds or thousands of parsecs.

So, does the faint nebulosity surrounding the very bright quasar point source have the same (or similar) redshift as the quasar itself?

Yes it does. This 1980 paper may report the earliest observations of this (no surprise that it's 3C 273!), and this 2008 paper illustrates just how far observational techniques have come, in terms of obtaining spectra of the host galaxy of a quasar (here is a Gemini Observatory article with a non-technical summary).

Just one more set of good observations that all relevant PC theories and hypotheses needs to match ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Is this a "Plasma Cosmology" paper?

Ideal magnetohydrodynamic simulation of magnetic bubble expansion as a model for extragalactic radio lobes

Wei Liu, Scott C. Hsu, Hui Li, Shengtai Li, Alan G. Lynn

Nonlinear ideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the propagation and expansion of a magnetic "bubble" plasma into a lower density, weakly-magnetized background plasma are presented. These simulations mimic the geometry and parameters of the Plasma Bubble Expansion Experiment (PBEX) [A. G. Lynn, Y. Zhang, S. C. Hsu, H. Li, W. Liu, M. Gilmore, and C. Watts, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. {\bf 52}, 53 (2007)], which is studying magnetic bubble expansion as a model for extra-galactic radio lobes. The simulations predict several key features of the bubble evolution. First, the direction of bubble expansion depends on the ratio of the bubble toroidal to poloidal magnetic field, with a higher ratio leading to expansion predominantly in the direction of propagation and a lower ratio leading to expansion predominantly normal to the direction of propagation. Second, an MHD shock and a trailing slow-mode compressible MHD wavefront are formed ahead of the bubble as it propagates into the background plasma. Third, the bubble expansion and propagation develop asymmetries about its propagation axis due to reconnection facilitated by numerical resistivity and to inhomogeneous angular momentum transport mainly due to the background magnetic field. These results will help guide the initial experiments and diagnostic measurements on PBEX.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Readers of this thread who have only minimal knowledge of the use and application of plasma physics in astrophysics may have formed the impression that the PIC simulations reported by Peratt in the ~4 papers Z has cited many times are the only plasma physics simulations that are astrophysically relevant.

By now such readers should have formed the opinion that this is highly unlikely to be the case, but may be wondering what sort of plasma physics computer code simulations, of relevance to astrophysics, there are.

Athena is one such recent code. Some interesting things:

* Athena is open source, and free

* an older code is called ZEUS

* the authors (developers of Athena) do not cite Peratt

* the preprint does not once mention "plasma cosmology".

Given the availability of astrophysically relevant simulation codes that incorporate plasma physics, I guess PC proponents can offer no excuses for the decade+ long lack of published, quantitative work based on PC assumptions ... and maybe in the next year or so we will see arXiv preprints - by robinson, BAC, or Zeuzzzzz (or even Thornhill, Scott, or Lerner!) - reporting results from their use of Athena.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.



This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
• Iron Sun?
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

 

[Tubbythin]

Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe.

ROTFLOL! The definition of a plasma is "ionized gas".

From the latter of the two quotes it would seem BAC believes any degree of ionization makes a gas a plasma. But the air we breathe is subject to ionizing radiation and so is ionized to a small degree. So that would make air a plasma. So from the former quote we must assume that air behaves very differently to a gas!

 

[The Man]

If it isn't considered a plasma, then it isn't a plasma. That is how science works. If the majority believes it isn't plasma, then it can't be a plasma. Wikiality at work.

Actually, that is not how it works, if it fits the definition of a plasma then it is a plasma, regardless of what you (or any perceived majority) consider or call it. Plasma is just a highly ionized gas (which is its definition). Whether it is in a plasma TV, used in the plasma etching to make the integrated circuits you use every day (even now in seeing this) or in astrophysical plasmas. If it is a highly ionized gas, then it is by definition, a plasma.

The definition is decided upon by consensus. That is the very definition of wikiality. Like when Pluto stopped being a planet. because the definition of a planet was changed. By consensus. By some ruling body of scientist.

So Pluto is no longer a planet. By definition.

It is the same thing with a meter, a kilo, or any other made up term/definition. It is what it is, because we say it is.

Funny I do not recall voting for, joining or opposing any consensus of any of those definitions or classifications and I doubt you did either, yet you choose to define that as a majority or consensus. “Ruling body of scientist”, wouldn’t that make it possibly a minority decision even among scientists. So I guess “Webster’s” would be a ruling body of Lexicographers, some more definitions, you, me and a majority never did form a consensus on. You have only confirmed what I said before that the definition is “regardless of what you (or any perceived majority) consider or call it”.

Much like Plasma Cosmology itself. You can't say it is woo/nonsense until you define what it is. If you define it as woo/nonsense, then by definition, it is woo.

If enough people agree it is woo, as defined by them, then it has to be woo. By definition.

Actually, we can only say it is woo based on how the supporters of Plasma Cosmology choose to define it, so it is them, not us who first have to define it. If they can not define it as a set of self consistent theories that are consistent with each other, then it is by the lack of that definition what we must call it woo (as Reality Check points out).

 

[robinson]

If you choose to call something "woo", or as Randi would say, "woo woo", it is up to you to define what you mean by woo.

Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered woo.

 

[The Man]

If you choose to call something "woo", or as Randi would say, "woo woo", it is up to you to define what you mean by woo.

Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered woo.

Not at all, certainly you can create your own definition for any word and “Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered…” that word. But it does not have to be your definition, as the definitions of most words are not yours alone. You can simply use someone else’s or, better still, a generally accepted definition (or use) as you would normally do. Then by that general definition and for general purposes it is considered woo.


http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

woo-woo
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/woo_woo/

woo-woo
adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs. Subjects: English

Citations: 1986 Carol M. Ostrom Seattle Times (Wash.) (June 20) “In The Spirit—New Age Adherents Follow A Personal Path” p. E1: Of course, not everyone who thinks that science doesn’t tell all would think it’s reasonable to believe, as Gibson does, that one can program crystals with thought energy. But Gibson says there is ample evidence—both scientific and subjective—that crystals can help in healing and transformation. “You can say it’s woo-woo,” she says with a laugh. “But it works. I go with what works.” 1990 [Annie Szvetecz] Usenet: ran.ragforum (May 28) “thoughts on the bombing”: My thoughts on the this past weekend…(emotional but not too woo woo). There is no logic to the outrage, the helplessness, the constant frustration, and the relentless struggle that we as activists feel on an ongoing basis and for this particular event in our lives. 1992 Howie Movshovitz Denver Post (Colo.) (May 29) “Muddled ‘Poison Ivy’ implies more than it delivers” p. 6F: The movie jumbles Cooper’s occasional poor insights with something like a bad book on adolescent psychology, a worse self-help book and a thoroughly unoriginal horror story. You can see the movie reaching for importance and a kind of woo-woo seriousness. 1995 Sean Mitchell Los Angeles Times (Dec. 31) “Following Her Instincts” p. 10: I didn’t give a good audition either. I’ve always felt that {the late} Jean Rosenthal, who was the real Ginger, helped me get the part. That sounds kind of woo-woo, but we’re in L.A., so what the hell. 1996 [Laura Marple] Usenet: bit.listserv.dorothyl (Mar. 22) “Theater/Blanche/Starving/Mr. Moto”: Some of the spirituality stuff was a bit “woo woo la la” for my tastes, but not so much so that it was a problem. 1999 Lee Caroll, Jan Tober Indigo Children (May 1) p. 131: She considers my metaphysical matters rather woo-woo. 2001 Julia McCord Omaha World-Herald (Neb.) (July 22) “Charity Event Rubs Donors the Right Way” p. 5B: When a friend suggested 10 years ago that Deb Oetken get a massage, she scoffed. “Yeah, right!” she thought to herself. “What kind of woo-woo stuff is that?” 2002 Eric Mortenson Portland Oregonian (Mar. 22) “Gresham’s 2002-03 Budget Draft Balances With Whacks And Freezes” p. C2: Not to get too woo-woo about symbolism, but the boiler broke down at Gresham City Hall on Thursday, providing an appropriately chilly atmosphere as interim City Manager Rob Fussell prepared his budget message. 2003 Jennifer Jordan Usenet: rec.arts.mystery (Apr. 9) “Re: Connolly, _White Road_”: To be a proper woo-woo, you must follow these rules: …Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something.…Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle.…Don’t accept mainstream science.…Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series.…Always claim that the other guy is “closed-minded.” 2004 David Ramsdale Red Hot Tantra (Mar. 1) p. 118: Leave it to his kooky sister to think that sitting around with a bunch of woo-woos was going to get him a date. 2005 [Mimi Smartypants] Mimi Smartypants (Chicago, Illinois) (Apr. 6): I am curious how they handle this particular song, since surely our slightly woo-woo preschool, which decorated paper Easter eggs for “spring” while seemingly making an effort not to actually mention Easter, does not sing the “Teddy Bear, Teddy Bear, say your prayers” line that I learned back in the jump rope days.

 

[robinson]

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

woo-woo
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

By that definition Plasma Cosmology isn't woo.

See? It depends on how you define something.

 

[Dancing David]

True, PC is based upon wishful thinking, speculation and an amazing lack of evidence!

 

[The Man]

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html


By that definition Plasma Cosmology isn't woo.

See? It depends on how you define something.

Well I certainly see how you prefer to have things depend on how you choose to define them. “By that definition Plasma Cosmology isn't woo” is a conclusion not a definition. Although you may agree with the above definition of woo, you have not defined Plasma Cosmology as far as I can recall. As the definitions that have been given for Plasma Cosmology and woo are neither mine, nor yours the conclusion that the definition of Plasma Cosmology conforms or does not conform to the definition woo is independent of how you or I might define those things. That people can draw different conclusions from the same definitions, clearly makes that difference in the conclusion independent of definitions used.

 

[robinson]

In both cases, the definition of woo (I prefer woowoo) and Plasma Cosmology are done by others. If deciding who gets to define what is woowoo and what is PC is the issue, there is no way to settle the matter.

It becomes up to each person.

 

[The Man]

In both cases, the definition of woo (I prefer woowoo) and Plasma Cosmology are done by others. If deciding who gets to define what is woowoo and what is PC is the issue, there is no way to settle the matter.

It becomes up to each person.

But that is not the issue, even though that issue can be easily be settled by finding definitions the parties concerned agree upon. The issue is whether the definition of Plasma Cosmology as presented on this thread by its supporters conforms to the general definition of woo, which would be a conclusion not a definition. That you feel this is a personal issue of who gets to decide definitions and not an issue of a conclusion drawn from the definition provided by those PC supporters, only leads to the conclusion that you are simply not interested in addressing the issue of that conclusion.

 

[robinson]

Again, your definition, your decision to decide.

When science is a matter of consensus, (like deciding Pluto is no longer a planet), then what something is, is up to the person defining the words.

 

[robinson]

In regards to this topic, asking the question doesn't mean the question is valid.

Is Plasma Cosmology considered a non-standard cosmology? According to Scientific consensus it is.

 

[Reality Check]

In regards to this topic, asking the question doesn't mean the question is valid.

Is Plasma Cosmology considered a non-standard cosmology? According to Scientific consensus it is.

You are right about Plasma Cosmology. But it turns out that this is not what the forum is discussing.

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
• Iron Sun?
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

 

[The Man]

Again, your definition, your decision to decide.

Agian, not my definitions.

When science is a matter of consensus, (like deciding Pluto is no longer a planet), then what something is, is up to the person defining the words.

What a consensus of one? Which is it “science is a matter of consensus” or “what something is, is up to the person defining the words”? You have been spewing crap for so long you no longer notice the stench.

 

[The Man]

Robinson,
The point I have been trying to get across to you is conclusions from data. Which is the bases of science as well as classifications (as in the case of Pluto) and even definitions, as I tried to demonstrate in my post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3860727#post3860727, where I included the references (or data) that the conclusion of that definition was based on.


Conclusions can certainly be personal as, hopefully, you draw them from the data for yourself, but they do not have to be. Definitions can be as well but likewise do not have to be. As was the purpose of this thread, to allow PC supports to define for everyone else what are the theories and data of PC. Whatever conclusions anyone might draw from the data of that or any other definition or classification (not of their own) are of course still their own conclusions, but in this case the defining aspects of PC and woo, are not mine, but my conclusion certainly is, as it seems that of others as well.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You are right about Plasma Cosmology. But it turns out that this is not what the forum is discussing.

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology" is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

[/LIST]The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

I could work with this list, but whats the point? Should we create a long list of all the various theories developed in the framework of other cosmologies? even the inconsistent ones? And you can remove, [*]Electric Universe + [*]Iron Sun?, never seen either mentioned in a PC journal, and I don’t know what you mean by electric universe. And by the way, that’s probably the best way to define what is PC material, if it’s published in a PC journal.

And various other journals would have publications that meet the criteria for acceptance within PC, which I outlined before.

And you can add one more to your list for now, since you seem content on copying this list, The Van Allen Hypothesis, The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars

And put some links next to the others, so people can actually see what you are referring to. You could end up assembling quite a handy list here. I'll make it easy for you, I’ll copy some links from another list that are about the few PC models you listed;


•Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.

I would remove this, its a bit vague. The mechanisms are much more specific and well established laboratory effects; simply labelling any alternative explanation as ‘tired light’ doesn’t do them justice at all.
Lets try these, which are the two alternative explanations for discordant redshifts that have the most experimental verification and subsequent work conducted;


• The Wolf Effect

• Wolf, Emil Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines (1987) Nature 326: 363—365
• E. Wolf Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987 (176K)
• D. F. V. James, M. P. Savedoff, and E. Wolf Shifts of Spectral Lines Caused by Scattering from Fluctuating Random Media, Astrophysical J., 359, 67, 1990
• James, Daniel, The Wolf effect and the redshift of quasars (1998) Pure Appl. Opt. 7: 959-970.
• Wolf, Emil, Redshifts and blueshifts of spectral lines caused by source correlations (1987) Optics Communications 62: 12—16.
• Bocko, Mark F., Douglass, David H., and Knox, Robert S., Observation of frequency shifts of spectral lines due to source correlations (1987) Physical Review Letters 58: 2649—2651.
• Roy, Sisir; Kafatos, Menas; Datta, Suman Shift of spectral lines due to dynamic multiple scattering and screening effect: implications for discordant redshifts Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.353, p.1134-1138 (2000)
• Gallo, C.F. Redshifts of cosmological neutrinos as definitive experimental test of Doppler versus non-Doppler redshifts Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003
• Spectral shift of a Gaussian Schell-model beam beyond a thin lens IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, Feb 1998 Volume: 34, Issue: 2

• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)

• Moret-Bailly, J. Propagation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, Dec. 2003 Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1
• J Jensen, J Moret-Bailly - Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma Arxiv astro-ph/0401529
• Jensen, Jerry; Michelot, Francoise, Moret-Bailly The Key to the Computation of the Spectra of the Quasars and Cosmic Acceleration American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2004
• Engelhardt, David Abnormally Large Non-Doppler Red-Shifts from [*]Quasars due to Coherent Raman Interactions. American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2003, April 5-8, 2003 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Light emission of very low density hydrogen excited by an extremely hot light source; applications in astrophysics. arXiv:0801.0925v2
• Moret-Bailly, J. Interaction of light beams propagating in 2S, 2P atomic hydrogen ; I spectroscopy Plasma Science, 2006. ICOPS 2006. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts. The 33rd IEEE International Conference on
• The Parametric Light-Matter Interactions in Astrophysics First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 822, held in Moncao, Portugal, 23-25 June 2005

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.

• Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660
• Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778
• The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491
• Electric space evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, 1996

• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.

• Eric J Lerner, On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149
• EJ Lerner, Galactic model of element formation, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 17, April 1989, p. 259-263.
• EJ Lerner, Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements - an alternative to the big bang

• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.

• Chu, Yaoquan; Wei, Jianyan; Hu, Jingyao; Zhu, Xingfen; Arp, H Quasars around the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 3516 Astrophysical Journal v.500, p.596
• ]H Arp The Distribution of High-Redshift Quasars near Active Galaxies The Astrophysical Journal, 1999
• H ArpThe Origin of Companion Galaxies 1998. The American Astronomical Society.
• H.C. Arp, E.M. Burbidge, Y. Chu X-Ray–emitting QSOs Ejected from Arp 220 - arXiv:astro-ph/0101538v1
• Galianni, Pasquale; Burbidge, E. M.; Arp, H.; Junkkarinen, V.; Burbidge, G.; Zibetti, Stefano The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 620, Issue 1, pp. 88-94, 2005
• E. Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, Halton C. Arp, Stefano Zibetti QSOs Associated with M82 The Astrophysical Journal, 2003
• Russell, David G. Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp.577-602 2005

• Lerner's explanation of the CMB

• Lerner, Eric J., Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation (Dec 2000) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 935-938
• Lerner, Eric J., Prediction of the submillimeter spectrum of the cosmic background radiation by a plasma model IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 43-48.
• Lerner, Eric J., Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, p. 63-68
• EJ Lerner. Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium, Astrophysics and space science, 1993, vol. 207, no1, pp. 17-26
• Lerner, Eric J., An Alternative Explanation Of The Cobe Data 1994, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science Date: 6-8 Jun 1994
• EJ Lerner., Intergalactic radio absorption and the cobe data Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995
• W. Peter and A. Peratt, Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, part 3, pp. 493-501, 1988
• A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985
• C. E. Navia, C. R. A. Augusto, and K. H. Tsui On the ultra high energy cosmic rays and the origin of the cosmic microwave background radiation February 1, 2008

• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).

• A. L. Peratt Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660
• A. L. Peratt Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778
• A. L. Peratt The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491
• Lerner, Eric J. Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies. I. Laser and Partical Beams, 1986, Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 193 - 213
• Lerner, Eric J., Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies. II. Laser and Partical Beams, 1986, Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 215 - 222
• Peratt, Anthony L. Physics of the Plasma Universe Physics of the Plasma Universe, XII, 372 pp. 208 figs.. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
• Barnouin, O. Williams, M.J. Lerner, E.J. Javedani, J.B. Peratt, A. Miley, G.H. Optimized electrode configuration for various plasma focus gasmixtures Plasma Science, 1995. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts., 1995 IEEE International Conference on

• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc

• Lerner, Eric J. Magnetic vortex filaments, universal scale invariants, and the fundamental constants, (Dec 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702
• Sylos Labini, F.; Gabrielli, A.; Montuori, M.; Pietronero, L. Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale arXiv:astro-ph/9605135
• Fractal Cosmologies Today Astron. Obs. Belgrade, 2006.

• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).

• Lerner, Eric J. Magnetic vortex filaments, universal scale invariants, and the fundamental constants, (Dec 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702
• Lerner, Eric J., Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation (Dec 2000) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 935-938
• A. L. Peratt The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)
• What Laboratory-Produced Plasma Structures Can Contribute to the Understanding of Cosmic Structures Both Large and Small W. Bostik, Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on

• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)

(Not published in a PC journal, but certainly seem consistent with the main concepts in PC material.)

• Hypothesis for a Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe as an Implication of Phenomenon of Universal Skeletal Structures First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, 23-25 June 2005
• A.B. Kukushkin & V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov Similarity of structuring in the range 10^-5 cm to 10²³ cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe 2002
• Kukushkin, A.B. From macroscopic signs of nanodust in space to probable significance of electrodynamics at cosmological length scales Plasma Science, 2006. ICOPS 2006. IEEE Conference Record
• A.B. Kukushkin, V.A. Rantsev-Kartinov Self-Assembling of a Fractal from Nanodust in Electric Discharges: from Laboratory to Space
• Kukushkin, A. B.; Rantsev-Kartinov, V. A. Evidences for and the models of self-similar skeletal structures in fusion devices, severe weather phenomena and space arXivphysics/0512245
• Similarity of skeletal structures in laboratory and space and the probable role of self-assembling of a fractal dust in fusion devices

• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?

No. I should probably clarify that Alfvens cosmology involving ambiplasma, matter symmetry, etc, have been shown to to be incorrect. Wikipedia has information about this old version of PC here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology and the revised version of plasma cosmology, which holds all the core principles of the original plasma cosmology of alfven but not the specific theories he used, is what plasma cosmology is considered today. Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe (not the pseudo plasma universe ) Some of the main models behind the revised version of plasma cosmology can be seen at this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-41


• All standard plasma theories.

No. Only theories that have an actualistic approach, none that use pseudo plasma, none that require a big bang (or things closely related to the finite timescale of the Big Bang), none that require new physics, none that require new matter or energy to be invoked to explain observations, and none that require loads of free parameters. The vast majority of people who model plasma model it is pseudo plasma, which has mathematical elegance and can be fitted into models easily, but are a far way away from the true properties of plasmas. Such plasma rarely make any sucessful predictions. This is the whole point of plasma cosmology, applying the real properties of plasma to space.



Take a look at this article that has been published recently on a website by NASA for example, which is written in a definitive PC style; http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm

In the preceding two parts of this monograph we have treated the most recent phases in the formation of planets and satellites. In doing so, we have adopted the actualistic principle. Starting from the present properties of planets and satellites, we have traced their history back in time in an attempt to find how these bodies have accreted from smaller bodies [..........]

15.3.1. General Considerations

As a result of new factual knowledge, the "first approach" has been proven to describe only the properties of the "pseudo-plasma," a fictitious medium, which has rather little to do with real plasma. Hence we must now take a "second approach" [….]

15.3.2. Pseudo-Plasma Versus Real Plasma

The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although....

....in reality synonymous, convey different general notions. The first term gives an impression of a medium that is basically similar to a gas, especially the atmospheric gas we are most familiar with. In contrast to this, a plasma, particularly a fully ionized magnetized plasma, is a medium with basically different properties: Typically it is strongly inhomogeneous and consists of a network of filaments produced by line currents and surfaces of discontinuity. These are sometimes due to current sheaths and, sometimes, to electrostatic double layers. [……….]
In the solar atmosphere the border between the photosphere and the chromosphere marks a transition similar to that between the two auroral states. The photosphere can be approximated as a homogeneous medium, at least to some extent, but in the chromosphere and upwards we have a typical plasma, a basic property of which is inhomogeneity manifest in filaments, streamers, and flares. To describe the chromosphere by means of homogeneous models and according to the pseudo-plasma theories is a, fundamental mistake that has often led to conclusions and conjectures that are totally divorced from reality.

Well, make those changes and your list is slowly getting closer to reality. I'll add plenty more when I've the time.