Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

[/LIST]Or maybe you are back to the non-science defintion of "plasma cosmology" as

• Anything that is not the Big Bang theory.

So what other alternatives to the Big Bang theory are there, reality check?

Please dont list any of the slight variants of BBT, which are still ultimately BBT with a bit of duck tape on to hold them together. I mean completely different in their metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects, and built from different initial assumptions and axioms.

And no accusations of falsifications of BBT being false dichotomies, please. There is only one universe

 

[Sol88]

Hi Michael, care to explain which data supports your funny electric star model?

Specifically how does the solar wind have positive, neutral and negative particles?

Good question DD, how does the standard solar model explain the solar wind?

Have a crack at the coronal heating problem while your at it!

 

[Sol88]

Wow - you are amzed by stuff that has been known for years.

What discharges and of what?

The spider crater was not formed by an electrical discharge as has already been shown.

Reality check,

Yes, you are correct in your statement of my amazement of the stuff that has been known for years, but not thru what IS known but what happens when those pieces are put together!

How long was that comet (dirty mudball) tail again RC?

 

[Reality Check]

Good question DD, how does the standard solar model explain the solar wind?

Have a crack at the coronal heating problem while your at it!

Solar wind and also have a look for the role of Alfven waves as a driving mechanism in stellar winds.

 

[Reality Check]

So what other alternatives to the Big Bang theory are there, reality check?

Please dont list any of the slight variants of BBT, which are still ultimately BBT with a bit of duck tape on to hold them together. I mean completely different in their metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects, and built from different initial assumptions and axioms.

And no accusations of falsifications of BBT being false dichotomies, please. There is only one universe

There are lots: Non-standard cosmology.

But what is your point? This is the Plasma Cosmology thread.
Raising issues with BBT and stating that this supports plasma cosmology (even very indirectly) is bad logic (probably false dichotomy).
It is the same as saying that all of the flaws in plasma cosmology are very indirect support for BBT, e.g. since the plasma model of galactic formation is totally false then BBT must be totally true !

 

[Reality Check]

Reality check,

Yes, you are correct in your statement of my amazement of the stuff that has been known for years, but not thru what IS known but what happens when those pieces are put together!

How long was that comet (dirty mudball) tail again RC?

Somewhere between a breadbox width and infinity Sol88

It remains that you are wrong about the spider crater bing the result of an electrical discharges due to the solar wind. If you want to say that now it is comet tails then you need to do the math. Otherwise you need to accept that the spider crater is a normal crater.

 

[Sol88]

Solar wind and also have a look for the role of Alfven waves as a driving mechanism in stellar winds.

To parse from wiki:

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles—a plasma—ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed with the passage of time. These particles are able to escape the sun's gravity, in part because of the high temperature of the corona, but also because of high kinetic energy that particles gain through a process that is not well-understood.

The solar wind creates the Heliosphere, a vast bubble in the interstellar medium surrounding the solar system. Other phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurorae such as the Northern Lights, and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the sun.

Brilliant RC that explains those loose ends I had trouble understanding!

Next please

FYI RC the "Solar wind" was only confirmed in 1959!

In January 1959, the first ever direct observations and measurements of strength of the solar wind were made by the Soviet satellite Luna 1.[9] They were detected by hemispherical ion traps. The discovery, made by Konstantin Gringauz was verified by Luna 2, Luna 3 and by the more distant measurements of Venera 1. Three years later its measurement was performed by Americans (Neugebauer and collaborators) using the Mariner 2 spacecraft.[10]

So it is still very poorly understood phenomena and I predict it will remain that way until the role ELECTRICITY plays in this phenomenon is acknowledged!

 

[Reality Check]

To parse from wiki:
Brilliant RC that explains those loose ends I had trouble understanding!

Next please

FYI RC the "Solar wind" was only confirmed in 1959!

So it is still very poorly understood phenomena and I predict it will remain that way until the role ELECTRICITY plays in this phenomenon is acknowledged!

That is correct - it is a poorly understood mechanism with a couple of plasma physics (using ELECTRICITY!) theories to explain it.

So what?

 

[Zeuzzz]

It is the same as saying that all of the flaws in plasma cosmology are very indirect support for BBT, e.g. since the plasma model of galactic formation is totally false then BBT must be totally true !

And is the inverse true? If current models of galaxy formation are totally false, and the only other model that has been proposed is the plasma cosmology one, then plasma cosmology must be totally true? !

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), there are only two balls in this ballpark. So accusations of false dichotomies are ill applied. Theories like MOND, Teves, etc, are still Big Bang based.

I'm having issues accessing IanTresmans plasma universe resouces page with all the full journal articles, books, references and publications, when I've got a new password in the coming days I'll post the relevant material like I said I would. Meanwhile, lets post another couple of smilies to make it look like I'm winning the debate

And as for your list of non standard cosmologies, they are all very different from PC. They are still Big Bang based (even steady state is to an extent, as they just use continual magical creation of energy [which violates the law of conservation of energy], and still has a finite universal timeline)

 

[Reality Check]

And is the inverse true? If current models of galaxy formation are totally false, and the only other model that has been proposed is the plasma cosmology one, then plasma cosmology must be totally true? !

Yes !

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), there are only two balls in this ballpark. So accusations of false dichotomies are ill applied. Theories like MOND, Teves, etc, are still Big Bang based.

You are wrong: You missed Steady State and Quasi-Steady State whhich are not BBT since they have no Big Bang.

And
I'm having issues accessing IanTresmans plasma universe resouces page with all the full journal articles, books, references and publications, when I've got a new password in the coming days I'll post the relevant material like I said I would. Meanwhile, lets post another couple of smilies to make it look like I'm winning the debate

And as for your list of non standard cosmologies, they are all very different from PC. They are still Big Bang based (even steady state is to an extent, as they just use continual magical creation of energy [which violates the law of conservation of energy], and still has a finite universal timeline)

How is the "continual magical creation of energy" any less credible than the postulate of EM forces being significant on cosmological scales (when they are not even significant on galactic scales)?

Amazing how Fred Hoyle, et al completely forgot about the law of conservation of energy when formulating their theories .

However feel free to redefine plasma cosmplogy yet again so that it is a non-scientific collection of mostly invalid theories that exclude all theories based on GR (even GR + a creation field as in the steady state theories).

P.S. the steady state theories have eternal universes not "finite universal timeline".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Logical fallacy of false dichotomy - a simple example

Suppose theory A predicts a value of 25.4 for a certain parameter, and theory B a value of 944.1 for the same parameter.

Suppose initial measurements - whether from observations or experiments - give a value of 20 ± 10. That rules out theory B, but not theory A.

Suppose better measurements are made, and the value determined to be 22.66 ± 0.11. That rules out theory A ... and it also rules out theory B.

Proponents of PC need to show that PC is consistent with the relevant observational and experimental results, independent of how well (or otherwise) LCDM models account for those results.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Suppose theory A predicts a value of 25.4 for a certain parameter, and theory B a value of 944.1 for the same parameter.

Suppose initial measurements - whether from observations or experiments - give a value of 20 ± 10. That rules out theory B, but not theory A.

Suppose better measurements are made, and the value determined to be 22.66 ± 0.11. That rules out theory A ... and it also rules out theory B.

Proponents of PC need to show that PC is consistent with the relevant observational and experimental results, independent of how well (or otherwise) LCDM models account for those results.

But first, the proponents of Theory A need to show why the measured parameter is cosmologically relevant and proves the original prediction of theory A. Merely extrapolating from data used previously to prove theory A is not addressing the full relevance of the prediction to the theory. If they can't do this, then theory B does not essentially have to explain its relevance either (....but it does help)

 

[Reality Check]

But first, the proponents of Theory A need to show why the measured parameter is cosmologically relevant and proves the original prediction of theory A. Merely extrapolating from data used previously to prove theory A is not addressing the full relevance of the prediction to the theory. If they can't do this, then theory B does not essentially have to explain its relevance either (....but it does help)

Theory A predicts a value of 25.4 for parameter Z from their theory.
Theory B predicts a value of 944.1 for parameter Z from their theory.
Any measurment of parameter Z is cosmologically relevant to both Theory A and Theory B.

Or if you want - proponents of both theories have to show that the parameter Z is cosmologically relevant to their theory.
If either theory does not consider that parameter Z is cosmologically relevant to that theory then parameter Z cannot be used to compare the theories and there is no dichotomy. If there is no dichotomy then there can be no false dichotomy.

But the post is looking at the dichotomy between Theory A and Theory B. Thus there is an implicit assumption that parameter Z is cosmologically relevant to both Theory A and Theory B.

Another point in addition to the previous exchange about their being more than 2 cosmological theories (P.S. what about the cosmological theory of Terence Witt ?):
There are also a couple of implicit assumption in your previous posts:

1. That BBT and plasma cosmology cannot both be right.
   If we convert PC into an actual scientific theory by matching the observations rather than arbitrarily excluding explanations for the data and not assuming an eternal universe unless the data shows this then there may be a valid BBT/PC theory.
2. Either BBT of plasma cosmology must be valid..
   But they may be both invalid!
   There may be a young Einstein creating a new theory that will be better than either BBT or PC as we write.

 

[Reality Check]

How is the "continual magical creation of energy" any less credible than the postulate of EM forces being significant on cosmological scales (when they are not even significant on galactic scales)?

On second thoughts this may be wrong: Can you give the citations to the evidence for EM forces extending over cosmological scales?
I will even accept EM forces extending over the small scale (over a million parasecs). Don't bother with the wishful thinking plasma scaling.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Suppose theory A predicts a value of 25.4 for a certain parameter, and theory B a value of 944.1 for the same parameter.

Suppose initial measurements - whether from observations or experiments - give a value of 20 ± 10. That rules out theory B, but not theory A.

Suppose better measurements are made, and the value determined to be 22.66 ± 0.11. That rules out theory A ... and it also rules out theory B.

Proponents of PC need to show that PC is consistent with the relevant observational and experimental results, independent of how well (or otherwise) LCDM models account for those results.

But first, the proponents of Theory A need to show why the measured parameter is cosmologically relevant and proves the original prediction of theory A. Merely extrapolating from data used previously to prove theory A is not addressing the full relevance of the prediction to the theory. If they can't do this, then theory B does not essentially have to explain its relevance either (....but it does help)

No; but first ...

... my post was a simple example of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

RC explicitly stated the part I'd left implied; namely, that logically there are four possibilities:

- A is right, and B not
- A is wrong, and A right
- both A and B are right
- neither A nor B are right.

My example showed the last.

Back to your post. You're right in the sense that both A and B have to meet many other criteria, even to get to this stage. For example, internal consistency, and consistency with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap. I had assumed those criteria were met by both A and B; if not, they're not even in play.

Similarly, if, somehow, the parameter is not within the domain of the theories, they're not in play.

I have no idea what point of logic you're trying to get at here: "Merely extrapolating from data used previously to prove theory A is not addressing the full relevance of the prediction to the theory."

 

[Sol88]

Solar wind and also have a look for the role of Alfven waves as a driving mechanism in stellar winds.

Could you class this as a "wind"?

The Chandra X-ray observatory has taken a closer look at the galaxy Centaurus A, and new images have revealed in detail the effects of a shock wave blasting through the galaxy. Powerful jets of plasma emanating from a supermassive black hole at the galactic core are creating the shock wave, and the new observation, have enabled astronomers to revise dramatically their picture of how jets affect the galaxies in which they live.

New Image of Jet-Driven Galactic Shock Wave is a Shocker

A shocker ROTFLMAO!!

Ditch the SMBH and add a plasmoid, call the shock fronts a double layer and that is pure PC/EU!!!


Lets have a look at the list again shall we?

1. 99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

 

[Sol88]

Someone take these emoticons away!!! they are too much fun.

 

[Reality Check]

Could you class this as a "wind"?
New Image of Jet-Driven Galactic Shock Wave is a Shocker

A shocker ROTFLMAO!!

Ditch the SMBH and add a plasmoid, call the shock fronts a double layer and that is pure PC/EU!!!

You were talking about solar wind. So I replied about solar wind. Now we have yet another derail from you about something unrelated to plasma cosmology. Who would figure !

I have seen this nice bit of physics before. There are lots of shock waves in the universe. This is not even a really big shock wave. The shock waves in the Bullert Cluster are millions of light years across.

Now you bring up mythical "plasmoids" and give them the even more mythical ability to create jets. They do not exist in galactic centers.
SMBH do exist in galactic centers.

ETA:
You may want to learn a little about plasmoids. They need an external power source like a star, plasma and a magnetic field to form. They do not have a mass of 4.3 million solar masses in a volume with a radius less than that of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun.

 

[Dancing David]

Could you class this as a "wind"?



New Image of Jet-Driven Galactic Shock Wave is a Shocker

A shocker ROTFLMAO!!

Ditch the SMBH and add a plasmoid, call the shock fronts a double layer and that is pure PC/EU!!!

And as PC/EU what keeps the plasmoid from undergoing gravitational collapse.

The one at the center of the Milky Way (the large mass) has recently been bounded under 2AU, if it has the mass of 30= million suns then what would keep a plasmoid that size from undergoing gravitational collapse?

Or are these imaginary plasmoid.

Lets have a look at the list again shall we?

Let us try answering a direct question shall we?

 

[Sol88]

And as PC/EU what keeps the plasmoid from undergoing gravitational collapse.

The one at the center of the Milky Way (the large mass) has recently been bounded under 2AU, if it has the mass of 30= million suns then what would keep a plasmoid that size from undergoing gravitational collapse?

Or are these imaginary plasmoid.


Let us try answering a direct question shall we?

Gravitational collapse? you are joking, right?