Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[robinson]

But what difference will this post of mine make? Likely none.

Don't be so pessimistic. That is a great link, I read the entire page, even put it in my notebook. It actually increased my understanding of this most mysterious issue, measuring EM fields of very distant objects. Fascinating stuff.

You will ignore or quickly forget the content here, and pretend that Zeuzzz's position is uncontradicted.

Now you are just being silly. Why you would think I agree with Zeuzzz's position is baffling. I don't even know what his position is, much less agree with it.

Good information is IMNSHO, the best counter to bad information. For example, concerning Plasma physics and such, I want to know what we know about it, far more than I want to know anything else about it.

Like the solar wind, as well as the galactic wind. It is mostly hydrogen, split into electrons and protons. Right? The energy it took to create the plasma, the free electrons and protons, wouldn't the same amount of energy be released when the electrons and protons get back together to form hydrogen? Does the solar wind/plasma turn into hydrogen at some point? If so, where? Can we measure the energy of this happening? If it doesn't, does the plasma just stay plasma? Do we know? What happens to all the plasma shooting away from all the stars? Is the galactic wind faster or slower than the sun's motion through the Galaxy? If plasma is rotating around the Galaxy, does that mean it is effected by gravity after it reaches a certain distance from the sun?

What about the plasma shooting up and out of the plane of the Galaxy? Does it rotate? Or leave the plane, never to return? How is it effected by the Galaxies EM field? How far out does the EM field of the sun really reach? How far does a Galactic EM field reach?

That kind of information is a counter to crackpot theories.

I'm not just asking you, anyone who can answer those questions will impress me. Especially if they explain how we know the answers.

Even a good hypothesis would be interesting.

 

[robinson]

We know the velocity of the sun about the galactic center, as well as how far away it is, so we can calculate an acceleration.

What is the velocity/speed/acceleration of the sun around the center of the galaxy? Is it relative or proper speed?

What is the same figure for the interstellar medium? Is that the same as the galactic wind? If not, what is the acceleration/speed/velocity of the galactic wind?

Is it plasma? Or plasma and gas and dust? How do we know? How do we measure these things?

And if you know, dumb it down enough that ordinary people can at least have a chance to understand it. Complex maths and exotic formulas lead to a TEGO effect.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the velocity/speed/acceleration of the sun around the center of the galaxy? Is it relative or proper speed?

The relevant velocity is obviously relative to the center of the galaxy. And what on earth do you even mean by "proper speed"? As for values, look them up on Wikipedia. You can find the velocity quite easily, along with the distance to the center of the galaxy. Combine the two appropriately and you can figure out the acceleration yourself.

What is the same figure for the interstellar medium? Is that the same as the galactic wind? If not, what is the acceleration/speed/velocity of the galactic wind?

We are currently moving through what's known as the local interstellar cloud. It's motion relative to us is outwards, not backwards or forwards. If the reason you're asking is in the hopes that the interstellar material might obey the PC galactic rotation curves even though we don't, you're wasting your time The sun is still accelerating towards the galactic core at a rate which cannot be explained by the gravitational attraction of the visible matter in the galaxy, OR by magnetic fields. The PC alternative to dark matter cannot be rescued from impossibility by the interstellar medium.

 

[Tubbythin]

In the other thread I posted a list of some of the scientific results that contradict PC ideas. All of which "we've" been through at some point or another:

The Hubble relation
General Relativity
The second law of thermodynamics
Solution to Olbers' paradox
The bullet cluster
WMAP
Hydrostatic equilibrium of stars
Neutrinos...

At Zeuzzz's request I'm going to go through some of them again. Being a sensible, logical physicist I'm gonna start ... at the end.

So... neutrinos. What exactly do they disprove?
Any electric star model. Why? because EM interactions can't produce neutrinos as they only couple to the strong force (and gravity).
Before anyone objects, yes I have heard of the solar neutrino problem. This has, however, been solved: neutrinos oscillate in flavour. How do we know this? Because we can see it with atmospheric muon neutrinos and with neutrino beams (see e.g. http://neutrino.kek.jp/news/2004.06.10/index-e.html).
I have also heard the objection "But how do we know the neutrinos come from the Sun they could come from anywhere?" This was true in the past (eg the original Homestake mine experiment couldn't answer this question). However, SuperKamiokande and SNO both observe neutrinos from electron scattering and can use this to infer the directionality of the incoming neutrinos (see e.g. http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/11/article6/article6.html). As a result, any none solar origin for the neutrinos would have to come from a source that mimics the position of the Sun very well. As far as I'm aware there are no such explanations in electric Sun theories.

 

[robinson]

As for values, look them up on Wikipedia. You can find the velocity quite easily, along with the distance to the center of the galaxy. Combine the two appropriately and you can figure out the acceleration yourself.

So, you don't know, and it's too much trouble for you to look it up? Or even link to it?. Like I said, those you call crackpots provide vast amounts of data, papers, stuff, to show why they believe something. You just say "look it up yourself".

I agree with you. A link with partial quotations that supports a point made in a post is great.

If the Plasma people hadn't posted such a wealth of links and quotes, I wouldn't have bothered to follow any of this. That there is such a wealth of physicist and scientist who publish and research plasma stuff was at first surprising. If you listen to those who claim to know everything, only nutcases research plasma and cosmology and stuff.

Crackpots certainly supply an overwhelming amount of references or quotes but that does not make them scientific.

Nobody said it did. What it does do, is allow interested parties to do research and read stuff, rather than just take your word for it.

In the other thread I posted a list of some of the scientific results that contradict PC ideas. All of which "we've" been through at some point or another:

Again, no links, no information, just a claim "I posted a list", which considering this topic, should have been posted here.

I don't know about anyone else, but lazy annoying insulting anonymous peeps who claim to know stuff, but provide little or no evidence, are boring. And get ingored.

But that is just me.

But to get back to topic, I found this site
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
which seems to be a plasma cosmology site. It also addresses many of the issues and questions raised here. And has a huge but difficult to follow list of references. It seems whacky, but talks about almost all the issues brought up here, and may fit the definition of plasma cosmology, in regards to woowoo.

 

[robinson]

This is just one of many examples of what I see all the time here. Somebody brings up something:

The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show ....

And the response is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff.

Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 10⁴. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• 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

continuing from that publication:

And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/

Even with the Mods editing, it is a huge chunk of data, and reflects the effort and time some put into putting forth their views.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This is just one of many examples of what I see all the time here. Somebody brings up something:



And the response is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff.



Even with the Mods editing, it is a huge chunk of data, and reflects the effort and time some put into putting forth their views.

That's true.

May I enquire as to how much of this material you have read?

And may I ask when I read the "huge amount of information and links and references and stuff" posted earlier in this thread (in many, many, many, many posts), and responded with detailed and specific questions, rebuttals, and "huge amount of information and links and references and stuff" of my own, did you read what I wrote? Did you appreciate "the effort and time [DRD] put into putting forth" analyses (etc)?

May I ask where I can find (as in, which specific posts) answers to the questions I formed from reading the "huge amount of information and links and references and stuff" presented?

 

[Reality Check]

Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 10⁴. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• 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

continuing from that publication:

And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/

I don't know anything about the Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light so I cannot really comment on the papers. It seems reasonable that the CREIL effect will have some effect on the light emitted by quasars and so on the observed redshift and spectrum.


But...

• Redshifts (and Type 1a supernovae) are not the only technique used to measure the distance to quasars. The distance to a number of quasars have also been measured using gravitational lensing from closer galaxies. These measurements agree (within the usual astronomical uncertainties) with the redshift measurements. This indicates that the CREIL effect has a relatively small effect on redshift.
• The Lyman-alpha forest is also measured using the spectrum from galaxies. Thus the Lyman-alpha forest is not just a result of CREIL. So the forest from quasars will be the result of the normal absorption by the neutral hydrogen cloud between it and us plus some contribution from CREIL. This will make it appear that there is even more neutral hydrogen in the early universe than results of the conventional Lyman-alpha forest analysis.

Brynjolfsson's Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma preprint of 2004 does not seem to have been published (last version in Oct 2005).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This is just one of many examples of what I see all the time here. Somebody brings up something:



And the response is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff.

{stuff on CREIL, posted by Z}

Even with the Mods editing, it is a huge chunk of data, and reflects the effort and time some put into putting forth their views.

Let's see now ...

I shall copy and paste an earlier post in this thread; note that the post contains many links to external material, that allows a great deal of opportunity for investigation and study of stuff:

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 ...

So, assuming you have availed yourself of the opportunity for investigation and study of stuff, robinson ...

... may I ask you if you understand why CREIL cannot explain why the observed redshifts of the parent galaxies of quasars have essentially the same redshift as the quasars themselves (such as 3C 273 and PG 1426+015)?

I note that you did not ask any questions about the two posts I wrote (linked to above), neither about the content nor any of the huge amount of information and links and references and stuff therein, so it is not unreasonable of me to conclude that you understood it and know why CREIL won't work.

 

[Corsair 115]

Again, no links, no information, just a claim "I posted a list", which considering this topic, should have been posted here.

Uh, did you miss the rest of the post below that where he went on to discuss neutrinos and posted two links?

So... neutrinos. What exactly do they disprove?
Any electric star model. Why? because EM interactions can't produce neutrinos as they only couple to the strong force (and gravity).
Before anyone objects, yes I have heard of the solar neutrino problem. This has, however, been solved: neutrinos oscillate in flavour. How do we know this? Because we can see it with atmospheric muon neutrinos and with neutrino beams (see e.g. http://neutrino.kek.jp/news/2004.06.10/index-e.html).
I have also heard the objection "But how do we know the neutrinos come from the Sun they could come from anywhere?" This was true in the past (eg the original Homestake mine experiment couldn't answer this question). However, SuperKamiokande and SNO both observe neutrinos from electron scattering and can use this to infer the directionality of the incoming neutrinos (see e.g. http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/11/article6/article6.html). As a result, any none solar origin for the neutrinos would have to come from a source that mimics the position of the Sun very well. As far as I'm aware there are no such explanations in electric Sun theories.

 

[Tubbythin]

If the Plasma people hadn't posted such a wealth of links and quotes, I wouldn't have bothered to follow any of this. That there is such a wealth of physicist and scientist who publish and research plasma stuff was at first surprising. If you listen to those who claim to know everything, only nutcases research plasma and cosmology and stuff.

Please show us, with links, anyone who has stated only nutcases study plasma and cosmology?

Again, no links, no information, just a claim "I posted a list", which considering this topic, should have been posted here.

I reprinted the list! After that I didn't feel there was much point in providing a link to the page where the original list was, since the list I reprinted was exactly the same.

I don't know about anyone else, but lazy annoying insulting anonymous peeps who claim to know stuff, but provide little or no evidence, are boring. And get ingored.

Funny that. Remember this post? I never did get a reply.

 

[Dancing David]

Where is this calculation? it was likely;

a) Probably using a central magnetic field, which is nothing to do with Peratts model

You were there, it is the galactic magnetic field as measured. Did you forget already. we are discussing the rotation curve model, not the formation model.

b) To lower charge on the star

I have asked you this before Zeuzzz, given the measured magnetic field of our galaxy, what charge would a star need to be accelerated in Perrat's model? Does it match observation?

c) Not considering the interaction of the star with it local environment

What does that have to do with the measured magnetic field? How is it going to change, i don't understand?

d) Using to low density for the ISM (or, dare i say, not even including the ISM in the calulation)

What is that going to do to change the magnetic fild and accelerate the star I don't understand?

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

I have no knowledge of any such thread. Here again is the difference between sides. PC proponents would have provided a helpful link to the thread, allowing me to decide if there was a thread, as well as read the thread.

Ooops, sorry, you were posting someplace else, how inconsiderate of me.

here you go:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107779&referrerid=6535

 

[Dancing David]

Generally its the angular momentum.

Really, how does that work. We are talking about a really large mass and over time it will collapse.

Many other people have this exact opinion on many BH candidates actually being neutron stars, that why I think its likely, for the reasons they have given.

Astrophysics of Neutron Stars - Facts and Fiction about their Formation and Functioning




And this later publication also considers some viable alternatives to black holes, as white dwarfs binaries with large accretion disks; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf




Angular momentum.

So what force keeps the neutron star or accretion disk from undergoing collapse? i am confused, the model of collapse is based on some very sound math.

I looked at the abstract and the paper, they do not give an explanation for how the mass of 300 suns, much less 300 million suns would not undergo gravitational collapse. I see that they talk about how some of the observations could be explained by the model, but not how they avoid the gravitational collapse.

Now i am confused, i am asking how does this system avoid collapse past an event horizon?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, you don't know,

I don't have the numbers memorized, that is correct. And?

and it's too much trouble for you to look it up?

For you, yes. You spout endless challenges, yet you will do no work yourself, and ignore or forget when work has been done. Why should I do any work for you again?

Like I said, those you call crackpots provide vast amounts of data, papers, stuff, to show why they believe something. You just say "look it up yourself".

I've linked to this stuff before. You've been in thread where I've linked to this stuff before. You ignored it then. I'm not going to bother when you'll just ignore it again.

Nobody said it did. What it does do, is allow interested parties to do research and read stuff, rather than just take your word for it.

You could easily do the necessary research yourself, you just won't. Instead you whine to me that I won't do it for you. No thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Referenced by Zig here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3446770&postcount=192

here is the post!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3420696&postcount=54
on this page:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3420696#post3420696

MM’s Pionerer anamoly calculation:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3525491&postcount=465
Olokow’s factoid:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3441160&postcount=174


So there you go, oh doubters!

Zeuzzz has been down this road and been in these conversations in the past. But as has been stated, he then acts as though he never has, which is demonstrated in a wide number of places and topics. Si it is rather a strange one when Zeuzzz just ignore what has been presented to him before and then others say that Zig is at fault.

And you were there Robinson, and you were there Hank and you too Zeke.

 

[Dancing David]

So, you don't know, and it's too much trouble for you to look it up? Or even link to it?. Like I said, those you call crackpots provide vast amounts of data, papers, stuff, to show why they believe something. You just say "look it up yourself".



If the Plasma people hadn't posted such a wealth of links and quotes, I wouldn't have bothered to follow any of this. That there is such a wealth of physicist and scientist who publish and research plasma stuff was at first surprising. If you listen to those who claim to know everything, only nutcases research plasma and cosmology and stuff.



Nobody said it did. What it does do, is allow interested parties to do research and read stuff, rather than just take your word for it.



Again, no links, no information, just a claim "I posted a list", which considering this topic, should have been posted here.

I don't know about anyone else, but lazy annoying insulting anonymous peeps who claim to know stuff, but provide little or no evidence, are boring. And get ingored.

But that is just me.

But to get back to topic, I found this site
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
which seems to be a plasma cosmology site. It also addresses many of the issues and questions raised here. And has a huge but difficult to follow list of references. It seems whacky, but talks about almost all the issues brought up here, and may fit the definition of plasma cosmology, in regards to woowoo.

here is a list of prior references:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=bigb...=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

But to get back to topic, I found this site
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
which seems to be a plasma cosmology site. It also addresses many of the issues and questions raised here. And has a huge but difficult to follow list of references. It seems whacky, but talks about almost all the issues brought up here, and may fit the definition of plasma cosmology, in regards to woowoo.

That's interesting.

Especially in light of what you have written these last few days.

Why?

Well, because Zz has provided links to pages on that site - not once, not twice, not even three times (but more) - earlier in this thread.

Did you not click on the links he provided? Did you not investigate and study that stuff?

There's more ...

There are three sub-headings under "Evidence for Plasma Cosmology" on the page that your link takes one to, "Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances", "Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe", and "Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed".

This thread has examined all three, in considerable detail.

Zz was asked many, many, many questions about that stuff; most of those questions remain unanswered.

Numerous inconsistencies, inaccuracies, errors, etc in that stuff were posted in this thread.

I don't recall you, robinson, asking any questions, either of that stuff itself or of the rebuttals (etc); nor do I recall you posting answers to questions asked.

Usually I would politely ask you to refresh my memory, and point to specific posts in this thread where you contributed to the discussion of PC material under those three sub-headings. However, in light of your lack of knowledge of a quite recent thread in which you yourself actively participated, I won't.

By use of this ointment - one shilling a box -

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3420696#post3420696

Thanks for digging up the link. My post was #54. I'd just like to point out that posts #64 in that thread was by robinson himself.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

... snip ...

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

... snip ...

If I may, I'll take you at your word, and in a later post I'll walk you through one aspect of the deep inconsistencies in "plasma cosmology" (at least as presented by Z, here in this thread). I shall try, hard, to keep the level sufficiently low that you can follow along, but I trust that you will respond in accord with the spirit of what you have written here, and ask questions about stuff you don't understand.

... snip ...

As promised.

Aim: walk robinson through one deep inconsistency in "plasma cosmology".

Scope: "plasma cosmology" as presented by Zeuzzz in this thread; specifically as presented in post#684.

Key assumption: "plasma cosmology" is intended to be a major contribution to contemporary science, and assessed accordingly (this is, after all, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of this forum).

Let's begin.

A central aspect of "plasma cosmology" is the following:

"Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory."

This is entirely consistent with the Copernican Principle (crudely, the Earth does not have a special place in the universe), and a deeper principle explicitly used in modern physics (crudely, that 'the laws of physics' are the same everywhere in the universe).

No doubt you have heard of the General Theory of Relativity (GR), first published by Einstein in 1916.

This theory is universal in its scope.

It has been tested extensively, in laboratories on Earth, throughout the solar system, and beyond.

Clifford Will's "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" contains a summary of those tests; you may find the most recent version of this document here, and its arXiv abstract is here. There is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff there, allowing for investigation and study of stuff.

This next part is very difficult.

What happens when you take GR and apply it to the universe as a whole? I can give you lots and lots of excellent references robinson, but I know of none that present this application at a technical level suited to you.

When faced with these kinds of situations, what do you do robinson? How do you go about verifying for yourself that conclusions from using something beyond your technical level are sound, in terms of the science (this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of this forum)? If you could let me know, I'd be happy to walk you through how the conclusion follows from GR, using a method suited to you.

Here's one result: a scalar expansion is predicted from the FRW metric.

What does that mean?

In simple words, it means that the further an object is from us, the faster it will seem to be moving away from us. In other words, GR predicts the Hubble relationship. If you'd like to learn more about the Hubble relationship, may I suggest that John Huchra's website The Hubble Constant is a good place to start? There is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff there, allowing for investigation and study of stuff.

That completes the first part of my walk-through for you robinson.

"a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"

Those are words from the source Zeuzzz quotes, in post#684, concerning plasma cosmology.

We may call this a central tenant of plasma cosmology, a core belief, an essential pillar.

Notice anything strange?

Recall this: "Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos".

We are at the end of the walk-through; here is one deep inconsistency (or intolerable conflict) in "plasma cosmology": on the one hand there is clear statement of the Copernican Principle; on the other, an arbitrary exclusion of GR.

Now the extent of this inconsistency (or intolerable conflict) may take some time to sink in, so let me expand on it a bit.

The "not accepted" part of the central tenant of plasma cosmology is not only a denial of GR and all the experimental tests to which it has been subject; it is also a clear, unambiguous statement that the Hubble relationship must be wrong, that the distances or redshifts (or both) must be wrong.

So what? Well, for one thing, it makes plasma cosmology something other than science - it contains a core element that ought to be eminently testable (by observation and experiment) but which has been declared off-limits for any testing. It declares GR to be an illegitimate theory of physics, by fiat, by declaring that its stated scope (universal, remember) is false.

If you are a fan of Karl Popper, a robust conclusion is that plasma cosmology is not falsifiable, and so cannot be part of science.

No doubt you have many questions; if you would care to write them down, I would be happy to try to answer them.