Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your welcome I used the Google box of the search feature on 'orders of magnitude galactic magnetic' and then used the EDIT>FIND in IE7 functions on magnitude to speed it up. Took about ten minutes.
 
[seven beers]

OK, reading ReailtyChecks list of the definition of plasma cosmology, maybe I have not been specific enough throghout the thread in distinguishing between papers that are consistent with the plasma cosmology approach, and 'core' PC theories. I think much of this could be resolved by addressing which category publications fall into by considering the difference betweem:

(a) Klein's cosmology (not really discussed here)
(b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (neither)
(c) Plasma Cosmology
(d) The Plasma Universe
(e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I'm going to off for a week on holiday, going to jamaica to catch up on my tan :D

Cyas all later!

[/eight beers]
 
[seven beers]

OK, reading ReailtyChecks list of the definition of plasma cosmology, maybe I have not been specific enough throghout the thread in distinguishing between papers that are consistent with the plasma cosmology approach, and 'core' PC theories. I think much of this could be resolved by addressing which category publications fall into by considering the difference betweem:

(a) Klein's cosmology (not really discussed here)
(b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (neither)
(c) Plasma Cosmology
(d) The Plasma Universe
(e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I'm going to off for a week on holiday, going to jamaica to catch up on my tan :D

Cyas all later!

[PS] And thanks robinson for asking those questions, I'll get back to you when i'm back, and a considerable tone blacker :) :D :)

[/eight beers]
 
Last edited:
wow, I killed the thread.

I really need to learn to turn my PC off when I'm under the influence. Probably not even advisable to be posting this considering I'm in jamaica ;)

I know. PC is a more realistic cosmology than its counterparts, and the Big Bang is woo.

Go!
 
And another quick note, I have noticed that Lerner often uses a plural when referring to PC, often calling then plasma cosmologies. If you have a look at his website; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ he has a link that says "Wikipedia article on Plasma cosmologys[url]" This website is a very good reference for PC material, If you ignore the slightly cheesy webpage setup and confusing links (I get the feeling that Lerner is not the best webpage designer in the world, despite being a prolific science writer with 600 articles published!)

Im not sure exactly why he uses the term plasma cosmologies. I will email him and ask. As Iantresman acknowledged defining PC definitively is hard, many people will have their own interpretations, but I have noticed that there is a definate PC style of scientific material, that was inspired by Alfven and is seen throughout the publications in PC journals. RealityChecks list is what I will work with when I return fully to get some sort of consensus on plasma cosmology(s)
 
Zeuzzz said:
And another quick note, I have noticed that Lerner often uses a plural when referring to PC, often calling then plasma cosmologies. If you have a look at his website; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ he has a link that says "Wikipedia article on Plasma cosmologys[url]" This website is a very good reference for PC material, If you ignore the slightly cheesy webpage setup and confusing links (I get the feeling that Lerner is not the best webpage designer in the world, despite being a prolific science writer with 600 articles published!)

Im not sure exactly why he uses the term plasma cosmologies. I will email him and ask. As Iantresman acknowledged defining PC definitively is hard, many people will have their own interpretations, but I have noticed that there is a definate PC style of scientific material, that was inspired by Alfven and is seen throughout the publications in PC journals. RealityChecks list is what I will work with when I return fully to get some sort of consensus on plasma cosmology(s)
Click to expand...
Hmm ...

If all plasma cosmologies share the following, taken from a post of yours earlier, then they are all woo (as in "not science"):

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

I went over this, step by step, in an earlier post, principally for robinson's benefit.

Any time you rule out an unambiguous prediction from an incredibly successful, broad theory (General Relativity, in this case), by fiat, then you know you're in woo-woo land.

Now there may very well be other good reasons for concluding that PCs are woo, but let's focus on one at a time, shall we?

And lest you are tempted to lessen this core precept of PC, any PC, please keep in mind that it is almost certainly stated (or very strongly implied), in one form or another, in all the PC material you have presented ...
 
a little bump since Zeuzzz seems to be active again:
Hi Zeuzzz, have you redefined, reformulated, reworked, redone or otherwise created a version of plasma cosmology that is a scientific theory yet?
Or do you even more theories to add to the collection of often mutually inconsistent theories that makes plasma cosmology the non-science that it is?
 
Reality Check said:
a little bump since Zeuzzz seems to be active again:
Hi Zeuzzz, have you redefined, reformulated, reworked, redone or otherwise created a version of plasma cosmology that is a scientific theory yet?
Or do you even more theories to add to the collection of often mutually inconsistent theories that makes plasma cosmology the non-science that it is?
Click to expand...


Yep plenty. I think to clear up your list I need to distinguish between papers that are;

a) relevant and part of plasma cosmologies
b) papers about the the plasma universe
c) standard plasma astrophysics papers
d) Alfven-Klein plasma cosmology

As your list is kinda blurring all four. I'll get back to you on this....
 
Zeuzzz said:
Yep plenty. I think to clear up your list I need to distinguish between papers that are;

a) relevant and part of plasma cosmologies
b) papers about the the plasma universe
c) standard plasma astrophysics papers
d) Alfven-Klein plasma cosmology

As your list is kinda blurring all four. I'll get back to you on this....
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Do you think that will be before or after you have answered the dozens of open questions, dating back almost to its inception, about the material you presented in this thread?
 
Lets have a look at this list again then.


Reality Check said:
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 a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not 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 crackpottery.

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.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"
The PC collection includes:
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.
Click to expand...



I'll make some quick changes. This is hard to do though, as comparing two completely different paradigms is like comparing chalk and cheese. There are more philosophical issues in this than I can personally get my head around, like what makes a cosmology a cosmology, what it actually has to explain (different cosmologies say different things), the distinction between metaphysics and physical physics, importance of both reduction (exclusive focus on efficient cause) and emergence with both bottom-up (efficient causality) and top-down causation, uncertainly increase back in time and expressing this in a coherent way, etc, but I'll give it a go. I highly recommend reading this article for some of these issues: (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.3191.pdf) SOME EPISTEMIC QUESTIONS OF COSMOLOGY

And many people I have spoken with online give different definitions, Peratt thinks that any paper about the plasma universe makes it a PC paper (as most other cosmology relevant papers are based on speculations and unverifiable assumptions, like energy creation out of nothing, steady state theories, LCDM, etc). This is why I considered any paper in a PC journal to be part of PC. So that’s a completely different sort of cosmology than others to begin with, since even papers that have no relation to large scale structure fall under the scope of cosmology, and even includes theories that are not 100% consistent with each other. Which most people would dispute. More a framework than a cosmology strictly speaking. Lerner thinks.... I'm not sure, he's hard to contact (always busy with his fusion devices :D) and other people all seem to have their own plasma cosmologies, but reject unspecified areas of other parts with no particular reason. Anyways, lets have a go.


Firstly: A simple definition of plasma cosmology is that it is a simple extrapolation of laboratory physics to space that does not start with the assumption of an initial event of creation. While most cosmologies rely almost exclusively on mathematical constructs, based on various fundamental theories like GR and quantum gravity to find out ‘definitively' when the universe originated, then all work thereafter is formulated from this base, they are always subject to extra assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true. For this reason PC rejects these as a valid proof of an origin in space and time, and leaves the origin of the universe more open until concrete astrophysical data can accurately predict, in many independently verifiable ways, the distant epochs from which the universe is thought to have originated. PC’s position is that currently we do not have the knowledge to accurately know the exact and true origin of the entire universe, it is too hard to know this definitively for something that happened that long ago, the universe is assumed static and infinite, this is a default assumption in PC. Though the details are a bit more complex (see points below)





Now to my edit of RC’s definition of PC:

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. Alfvén's hypotheses regarding cosmology can be divided into three distinct areas.

1. The cosmic plasma, an empirical description of the Universe based on the results from laboratory experiments on plasmas
2. Birkeland currents (force free filaments), a proposed mechanism for the formation of large scale structure in the universe.
3. ambiplasma theory, based on a hypothetical matter/antimatter plasma.

Since this, the third point has received little or no experimental verification. Thus rendering the Alfven-Klein plasma cosmology incorrect.

The PC approach to cosmology of points one and two has been continued since by various scientists, with slight variations. 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 in the 1980's and 90's, 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 certainly are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistent, and it is likely that future plasma cosmologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed.

The definition of what makes a cosmological theory a "plasma cosmology" is that it follows a series of requirements, all with a common thread. A cosmology may be categorised as a plasma cosmology if it: (Note: this is off the top of my head, I may need to reconsider some of these after some thought)

A) Emphasizes the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos. (Especially the link between the vast and varied properties of laboratory and space plasma, which have the potential to offer alternate explanations for many current theories where none existed previously.)

B) Does not require the introduction of hypothetical entities that have not been experimentally verified in controlled laboratory experiments, such mathematical constructs like inflation, dark matter and dark energy (or others, like quantum loop gravity, brane theories, etc)

C) An origin in time for the universe is rejected, due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.

D) It is accepted that the further backwards in time we go, the larger is the uncertainty about the state. This approach does not necessarily lead to a “creation” at a certain time, nor does it exclude this possibility. In principle, it is also reconcilable with a universe which is “ungenerated and indestructible,” as Aristotle expressed it.

E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.

F) Since the universe is nearly all plasma (>99.99%), electromagnetic forces are in equal importance with gravitation on all scales. This negates the need for a finite collapsing universe, or a definitive beginning, as the exclusively attractive field of gravity is not the only force at work.

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling See the Astrophysical application section for details of Peratts work on this scaling. Also see the Similarity Transformations for particle energy, velocity, potential, current and resistance, which are the basis for much plasma cosmology work. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

PC is well aware that the two or three laboratory experiments on gravity, that form the base of cosmology today, is an untested extrapolation over 14 orders of magnitude. Which is a quite a remarkable phenomenon.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Firstly: A simple definition of plasma cosmology is that it is a simple extrapolation of laboratory physics to space that does not start with the assumption of an initial event of creation. While most cosmologies rely almost exclusively on mathematical constructs, based on various fundamental theories like GR and quantum gravity to find out ‘definitively' when the universe originated, then all work thereafter is formulated from this base, they are always subject to extra assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true.
Click to expand...

This part is so unbelievably stupid I can't stop myself from debunking it. It's just so completely contrary to reality... Zeuzzz, do you know anything about physics? Or just the history of physics in the 20th century? Did it somehow escape your notice that nearly everyone believed in a steady-state cosmology, until observations ruled it out? It was looking through telescopes that showed us that the universe is exapanding, not some "mathematical construct".

Einstein, when he realized general relativity didn't allow steady state solutions, actually tried to modify his theory to accommodate them (he failed, because there are none that are stable). Not only is what you said false, it's actually the opposite of the truth.

It's you and your fellow woos that ignore reality in favor of some really bizarre plasma fetish. These ideas that you can just scale up lab-sized plasma phenomena to astrophysical scales, all because they look kinda similar, is just.... moronic. It's something a salad vegetable would come up with. We know[/i[ what the laws of physics are, especially as they apply to plasmas, and so we know how astrophysical plasmas behave. We don't need to operate as if physics were some kind of post-modern pseudophilosophical mystical bs - we can solve the equations and FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Lets have a look at this list again then.






I'll make some quick changes. This is hard to do though, as comparing two completely different paradigms is like comparing chalk and cheese. There are more philosophical issues in this than I can personally get my head around, like what makes a cosmology a cosmology, what it actually has to explain (different cosmologies say different things), the distinction between metaphysics and physical physics, importance of both reduction (exclusive focus on efficient cause) and emergence with both bottom-up (efficient causality) and top-down causation, uncertainly increase back in time and expressing this in a coherent way, etc, but I'll give it a go. I highly recommend reading this article for some of these issues: (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.3191.pdf) SOME EPISTEMIC QUESTIONS OF COSMOLOGY

And many people I have spoken with online give different definitions, Peratt thinks that any paper about the plasma universe makes it a PC paper (as most other cosmology relevant papers are based on speculations and unverifiable assumptions, like energy creation out of nothing, steady state theories, LCDM, etc). This is why I considered any paper in a PC journal to be part of PC. So that’s a completely different sort of cosmology than others to begin with, since even papers that have no relation to large scale structure fall under the scope of cosmology, and even includes theories that are not 100% consistent with each other. Which most people would dispute. More a framework than a cosmology strictly speaking. Lerner thinks.... I'm not sure, he's hard to contact (always busy with his fusion devices :D) and other people all seem to have their own plasma cosmologies, but reject unspecified areas of other parts with no particular reason. Anyways, lets have a go.


Firstly: A simple definition of plasma cosmology is that it is a simple extrapolation of laboratory physics to space that does not start with the assumption of an initial event of creation. While most cosmologies rely almost exclusively on mathematical constructs, based on various fundamental theories like GR and quantum gravity to find out ‘definitively' when the universe originated, then all work thereafter is formulated from this base, they are always subject to extra assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true. For this reason PC rejects these as a valid proof of an origin in space and time, and leaves the origin of the universe more open until concrete astrophysical data can accurately predict, in many independently verifiable ways, the distant epochs from which the universe is thought to have originated. PC’s position is that currently we do not have the knowledge to accurately know the exact and true origin of the entire universe, it is too hard to know this definitively for something that happened that long ago, the universe is assumed static and infinite, this is a default assumption in PC. Though the details are a bit more complex (see points below)





Now to my edit of RC’s definition of PC:

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. Alfvén's hypotheses regarding cosmology can be divided into three distinct areas.

1. The cosmic plasma, an empirical description of the Universe based on the results from laboratory experiments on plasmas
2. Birkeland currents (force free filaments), a proposed mechanism for the formation of large scale structure in the universe.
3. ambiplasma theory, based on a hypothetical matter/antimatter plasma.

Since this, the third point has received little or no experimental verification. Thus rendering the Alfven-Klein plasma cosmology incorrect.

The PC approach to cosmology of points one and two has been continued since by various scientists, with slight variations. 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 in the 1980's and 90's, 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 certainly are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistent, and it is likely that future plasma cosmologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed.

The definition of what makes a cosmological theory a "plasma cosmology" is that it follows a series of requirements, all with a common thread. A cosmology may be categorised as a plasma cosmology if it: (Note: this is off the top of my head, I may need to reconsider some of these after some thought)

A) Emphasizes the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos. (Especially the link between the vast and varied properties of laboratory and space plasma, which have the potential to offer alternate explanations for many current theories where none existed previously.)

B) Does not require the introduction of hypothetical entities that have not been experimentally verified in controlled laboratory experiments, such mathematical constructs like inflation, dark matter and dark energy (or others, like quantum loop gravity, brane theories, etc)

C) An origin in time for the universe is rejected, due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.

D) It is accepted that the further backwards in time we go, the larger is the uncertainty about the state. This approach does not necessarily lead to a “creation” at a certain time, nor does it exclude this possibility. In principle, it is also reconcilable with a universe which is “ungenerated and indestructible,” as Aristotle expressed it.

E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.

F) Since the universe is nearly all plasma (>99.99%), electromagnetic forces are in equal importance with gravitation on all scales. This negates the need for a finite collapsing universe, or a definitive beginning, as the exclusively attractive field of gravity is not the only force at work.

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling See the Astrophysical application section for details of Peratts work on this scaling. Also see the Similarity Transformations for particle energy, velocity, potential, current and resistance, which are the basis for much plasma cosmology work. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

PC is well aware that the two or three laboratory experiments on gravity, that form the base of cosmology today, is an untested extrapolation over 14 orders of magnitude. Which is a quite a remarkable phenomenon.
Click to expand...
So ...

... after almost 1,000 posts we've made essentially no progress?

Z, you were asked, way back at the beginning of this thread, to present a definition of PC that the discussion in this thread could be conducted within (or with reference to).

You refused to provide any such.

Close to the (current) end of this thread you got around to doing so.

That definition is quite stark, and somewhat surprising ... it explicitly and unambiguously declares PC to be non-science! :jaw-dropp

And you've done it again, in this post I'm quoting.

Has this thread been little more than a great waste of everyone's time and effort?
 
sol invictus said:
This part is so unbelievably stupid I can't stop myself from debunking it. It's just so completely contrary to reality... Zeuzzz, do you know anything about physics? Or just the history of physics in the 20th century? Did it somehow escape your notice that nearly everyone believed in a steady-state cosmology, until observations ruled it out? It was looking through telescopes that showed us that the universe is exapanding, not some "mathematical construct".
Click to expand...


But many people who look up through the same telescopes come to quite different conclusions. The inflation field is just that, a mathematical construct that has no experimental verification from in situ controlled experiments. Observations imply it, but observations can be misleading. And alternatives exist.

Einstein, when he realized general relativity didn't allow steady state solutions, actually tried to modify his theory to accommodate them (he failed, because there are none that are stable). Not only is what you said false, it's actually the opposite of the truth.
Click to expand...


"However, proofs of a universal singularity in the past all rely on additional hypotheses, which may or may not be true. For example, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis argued that generating the thermal, isotropic cosmic microwave background necessarily implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero.[59] Their calculation of the density of matter and thus their conclusion rested on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization. But in highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, as Lerner points out in his theory of the microwave background.[60] With such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity." (link)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462 By repsected astronomer Richard Lieu

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models.[....]
Click to expand...


Well, he certainly seems to agree with my position. And so do many others.


It's you and your fellow woos that ignore reality in favor of some really bizarre plasma fetish. These ideas that you can just scale up lab-sized plasma phenomena to astrophysical scales, all because they look kinda similar, is just.... moronic. It's something a salad vegetable would come up with. We know[/i[ what the laws of physics are, especially as they apply to plasmas, and so we know how astrophysical plasmas behave. We don't need to operate as if physics were some kind of post-modern pseudophilosophical mystical bs - we can solve the equations and FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS.
Click to expand...



It's you and your fellow woos that ignore what I am actually saying half the time. No-one is saying that you can "scale up lab-sized plasma phenomena to astrophysical scales, all because they look kinda similar" The founders of plasma cosmology are the people that have created all the models for plasma scaling still used to this day. Look at the wiki page for plasma scaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_scaling), every reference on there is from Peratts or Alfvens work. Look at the similarity transformations. Look at all of it. Look at any publication that uses similarity transformations in plasma, they will all reference Alfven or Peratts work guaranteed. Their material is what all experts in this field still use to this day. If anyone can teach anyone about plasma scaling of phenomenon its them.

I'm sorry, do you have some alternative plasma scaling models? Hint: dont use any of the magnetohydrodynamic scaling models, because they were derived by Alfven too.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
So ...

... after almost 1,000 posts we've made essentially no progress?

Z, you were asked, way back at the beginning of this thread, to present a definition of PC that the discussion in this thread could be conducted within (or with reference to).

You refused to provide any such.

Close to the (current) end of this thread you got around to doing so.

That definition is quite stark, and somewhat surprising ... it explicitly and unambiguously declares PC to be non-science! :jaw-dropp

And you've done it again, in this post I'm quoting.

Has this thread been little more than a great waste of everyone's time and effort?
Click to expand...



I dont know, as your not giving reasons for your assertions.

Anyone can claim this sort of thing about frameworks theories are developed within.

But the "big bang cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not big bang cosmology, and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "The big bang"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread (LCDM, CDM, steady state, etc, etc). This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of energy being created out of nothing in the universe or is an expanding type cosmological theory.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
But many people who look up through the same telescopes come to quite different conclusions. The inflation field is just that, a mathematical construct that has no experimental verification.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with inflation. You have no clue what you're talking about. The relevant observations were done by Hubble in the 1920's. Inflation was invented in the 1980's, and not experimentally confirmed until the 90's.

<snipped irrelevant and incorrect non-sequitor about singularity theorems
Click to expand...

Or, i'm sorry, do you have some alternative plasma scaling methods? Hint: dont use any of the magnetohydrodynamic scaling models, because they were derived by Alfvens too.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. One can simply solve the relevant equations - scaling is just a convenient shortcut. Guess what? Those solutions don't do anything like what you think they do, and they lots of other things you can't seem to handle (like reconnect).
 
sol invictus said:
This has nothing to do with inflation. You have no clue what you're talking about. The relevant observations were done by Hubble in the 1920's. Inflation was invented in the 1980's, and not experimentally confirmed until the 90's.
Click to expand...


And thats whats being disputed, the acceleration of the expansion.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. One can simply solve the relevant equations - scaling is just a convenient shortcut. Guess what? Those solutions don't do anything like what you think they do, and they lots of other things you can't seem to handle (like reconnect).
Click to expand...


And what do you think I think the solutions look like? What claim of mine are you even referring to? Your misrepresenting my position yet again. I dont even know what you think my position is, or even what your referring to when your talking about my position. What publications are you referring to about 'moronic' scaling laboratory plasmas to space physics. Do you even know yourself?

Its ridiculous. I'm debating what you think my position is about something that I dont even know what your referring to, which in fact isn't even my position anyway. Its like arguing about an argument.

You merely adopt the stance of the pseudoskeptic, one of those who shout their objections but don’t take proper note of what is going on.

You dont have a clue what your talking about. Learn some plasma physics.

You would do well to read some of the plasma scaling work of Alfven and Peratt, Alfven even won a nobel prize for his work on plasma, and the MHD terms which include scaling properties. And these two people are the founders of the plasma cosmology you speak so disparigingly of.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
The definition of what makes a cosmological theory a "plasma cosmology" is that it follows a series of requirements, all with a common thread. A cosmology may be categorised as a plasma cosmology if it: (Note: this is off the top of my head, I may need to reconsider some of these after some thought)

A) Emphasizes the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos. (Especially the link between the vast and varied properties of laboratory and space plasma, which have the potential to offer alternate explanations for many current theories where none existed previously.)
Click to expand...
This is just as valid for gravity. Look up some of the 22,000 results in Google Scholar for "experimental tests of gravitation" or the 1874 papers in arXiv.org for the same phrase.

Zeuzzz said:
B) Does not require the introduction of hypothetical entities that have not been experimentally verified in controlled laboratory experiments, such mathematical constructs like inflation, dark matter and dark energy (or others, like quantum loop gravity, brane theories, etc)
Click to expand...
Dark matter is an indirectly and directly observed phenomena -not a "mathematical construct".
Dark energy is an indirectly observed phenomena -not a "mathematical construct".
Infaltion is a bit theoretical and IMHO it would be nice if it was not needed but the universe just doesn't obey my wishes!

Zeuzzz said:
C) An origin in time for the universe is rejected, due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.
Click to expand...
This is philosophy not science. Science accepts any theory that fits the facts. It does not rule out a class of theories just because they do not look nice. Including this criteria make pc definitely non-science.

Zeuzzz said:
D) It is accepted that the further backwards in time we go, the larger is the uncertainty about the state. This approach does not necessarily lead to a “creation” at a certain time, nor does it exclude this possibility. In principle, it is also reconcilable with a universe which is “ungenerated and indestructible,” as Aristotle expressed it.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by this. Maybe you are talking about uncertainties building up as you run equations back in time. We can actually measure the past state of the universe by observing it. The uncertainies in that state are those of the observations which are fairly constant (at least back to the earliest observed galaxy at 13 billion years ago).

Zeuzzz said:
E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.
Click to expand...
If infinite includes eternal (no beginning) then this seems a contradiction - an evolving universe that is static and eternal? But I guess you are just stating that pc rejects expansion of the universe.

Zeuzzz said:
F) Since the universe is nearly all plasma (>99.99%), electromagnetic forces are in equal importance with gravitation on all scales. This negates the need for a finite collapsing universe, or a definitive beginning, as the exclusively attractive field of gravity is not the only force at work.
Click to expand...
All forces are of equal importance (EM, gravity, weak and strong forces). But only gravity is a long-range attractive force at all scales. You know that EM forces tend to cancel out at large scales since they depend on the separation of charges.

Zeuzzz said:
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling See the Astrophysical application section for details of Peratts work on this scaling. Also see the Similarity Transformations for particle energy, velocity, potential, current and resistance, which are the basis for much plasma cosmology work. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

PC is well aware that the two or three laboratory experiments on gravity, that form the base of cosmology today, is an untested extrapolation over 14 orders of magnitude. Which is a quite a remarkable phenomenon.
Click to expand...
See above for the ~2000 papers on gravitational experiments and even more results from Google Scholar. This is not "two or three laboratory experiments on gravity".
PC is unaware that plasma scaling has limitations.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I dont know, as your not giving reasons for your assertions.

Anyone can claim this sort of thing about frameworks theories are developed within.

But the "big bang cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not big bang cosmology, and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "The big bang"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread (LCDM, CDM, steady state, etc, etc). This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of energy being created out of nothing in the universe or is an expanding type cosmological theory.
Click to expand...
OK, ...

Here it is (again):

"E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite."

In other words, no matter what experiments are done or observations made, a core aspect of PC cannot be found to be inconsistent ... ever.

No need for high falutin' philosophy, no need for detailed technical considerations, there you have it, as starkly as you could imagine, a clear declaration of the non-science nature of PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom