Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

with so much stupidity, one can only be speechless

However, what exactly are those images supposed to show?
NOT the vertical bar that DeiRenDopa is talking about
NOT that the rings of Saturn are made of plasma
NOT that the rings of Saturn are self illuminating
NOT that Sol88 has any notion about planetary physics

Solly, if you really want to show that the rings of Saturn are plasma then you need to show that the doppler shift caused by the rotation of the rings is consistent with the rotational velocity of Saturn instead of the Keplerian velocity (and yes there is a significant difference). However, because Birkeland did not do that, you are probably clueless as how to do that.

Food for thought

Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies Thwart Newtonian Gravity?

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,” said Pavel Kroupa, an astronomer at Bonn University. “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”

You thunk!

A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: “First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution,” Kroupa said, “the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found.” More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way – the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies – lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way, like the planets revolve around the Sun.

And as Tusenfem said the Saturn system is very much like our solar system!

This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. “The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter.”

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton’s classical theory of gravitation,” adds Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe.

I guess one of the fundamental assumptions is indeed wrong!

Wonderful how the Universe organizes itself!
 
Food for thought

Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies Thwart Newtonian Gravity?


You thunk!

And as Tusenfem said the Saturn system is very much like our solar system!

I guess one of the fundamental assumptions is indeed wrong!

Wonderful how the Universe organizes itself!
Wonderful how the Universe organizes itself using gravity!

If you had bothered to read the news article carefully you will see that is is about how the dwarf galaxies near the Milky Way formed. The current explanation is that they formed just like all other galaxies . The authors have an alternative - they formed through young galaxies colliding. That would explain that the distribution of these galaxies is roughly a plane rather then uniformly spread around the Milky Way.

The authors point out a consequence of their alternative explanation. This is that their theoretical calculations show that the collisions would have stripped the galaxies of any dark matter. However the rotation of the galaxies is such that there is either dark matter (evidence against their explanation) or that Newtonian gravity is not being obeyed.

In either case nothing to do with plasma cosmology.

I do enjoy your random snippets of astronomy but when are you actually going to get back to plasma cosmology?

It is almost as if you have given up on plasma cosmology. In that case did you give up because it is non-science or because it is obviously wrong?
 
RC, if dwarfs were part of the collision of young galaxies that would strip them of dark matter? Because of the dark matter halo around the larger galaxy (ours in this case)?
 
lol.

Nope, still nothing. :D

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672826&postcount=2603

And its not about what I post, its about what I reference and link to. If I posted the papers I link to in their entirety they would be instantly removed due to the rules. On the previous page where I actually went to the bother capturing a print screen picture of one of the papers I linked to (because no-one had obviously read it), pasting it, cropping it, uploading it here, and posting it, no-one said a thing about it! Must be one of those dark posts that you cant see or detect I guess :rolleyes:

Where? HERE

No-one came up with any direct quote from any of the papers I linked to and said why any of it was remotely wrong. People simply ignored it and the links I supplied.
 
RC, if dwarfs were part of the collision of young galaxies that would strip them of dark matter? Because of the dark matter halo around the larger galaxy (ours in this case)?
Hi DD. I am not sure why there is no dark matter in the dwarf galaxies. The authors state that theoretical calculations show this. Maybe the dwarf galaxies are formed from just normal matter during the collisions and then the colliding galaxies move away along with their dark matter.
 
Ha! :) Back and forth, back and forth. This could get tiring very quickly.

Is this what its come to?

Whats your comment on the material in the papers then, RealityCheck?

Lets start with your comments on Lerners IEEE transactions on plasma science publication, "Two worlds revisted: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang", that I linked to previously.

GO.
 
Here's the abstract, in full:
Lerner said:
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.
Some one-liner comments:

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. Despite Lerner's persistent misrepresentations, the Big Bang framework for cosmology continues to go from strength to strength wrt its consistency with observation.

The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. As neat a summary of Lerner's non-scientific approach to cosmology would be hard to find ... though perhaps not as gross as his outright rejection of General Relativity, by fiat.

The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. It will be quite interesting to see how he arrives at these conclusions; I do hope the details are in the paper proper, and that they are on a sounder footing than most of his other stuff on cosmology.

I'll skip the next few parts.

In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This kind of bold claim seems rather common among PC proponents such as Lerner; IIRC, you put forward some stuff by Lerner (or was it by Peratt?) earlier in this thread Z, on this, and then ran away when I and others commented on it. I do hope you behave differently this time.

This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology. If one is to abandon it as the primary model, then what, pray tell, does Lerner suggest should take its place (as said primary model)? Let me guess ...

(to be continued)
 
I'm still waiting for Zeuzzz to respond about the distance dependence of force laws.
 
Ha! :) Back and forth, back and forth. This could get tiring very quickly.

Is this what its come to?

Whats your comment on the material in the papers then, RealityCheck?

Lets start with your comments on Lerners IEEE transactions on plasma science publication, "Two worlds revisted: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang", that I linked to previously.

GO.
Can I take it that the plasma cosmology refereed to in Eric J. Lerner's paper is the one and only definite, complete and official definition of plasma cosmology? That is any theory not mentioned in his paper is not part of pc.


It is an incomplete comparison since it mentions only three experimental results (nucleosynthesis, large scale structure and voids, and the CMBR). A more complete comparison would include at least
  • Olbers' paradox.
  • Hubble's law.
  • CMBR temperature.
  • CMBR black body thermal spectrum.
  • CMBR power spectrum.
  • Nucleosynthesis.
  • Large scale structure.
  • Lyman-alpha forest.
Olbers' paradox
Resolved by BBT.
Lerner ignores this so maybe PC has no plausible resolution.

Hubble's law
Explained by BBT. PC?

CMBR temperature
Explained by BBT.
I do knot know which of the PC theories is the official explanation of the CMBR but I expect that it will be easy to match the temperature.

CMBR black body thermal spectrum
Explained by BBT. Not explained by PC.

CMBR power spectrum
Explained by BBT. Not explained by PC.

Nucleosynthesis
Almost explained by BBT - a factor of 2 out in the Li7 prediction but that depends on our current understanding of the production of Li7 in stellar processes.

Lerner's (PCs?) explanation was called an error by Ned Wright. Lerner's reply on this point is not convincing (IMHO). His model's explanation relies on "early galaxies were dominated by intermediate mass stars too small to create supernovae". I am not aware that there is any evidence that the frequency of supernovae is less in younger galaxies. In fact I think that the masses of stars in early galaxies are bigger (more supernovae).

Large scale structure
Matched by the Lambda-CDM model. Lerner's paper is dated 2003 and he did not know about this.

PC has predictions about the large scale structure but I have not heard of any PC computer models actually matching the observed large scale structure.
Lerner mentions a "fractal distribution of matter". From memory he gave a dimension for this and that was not supported by observation. But you may know better.

Lyman-alpha forest
Explained by BBT. PC?
 
Last edited:
Lets start with your comments on Lerners IEEE transactions on plasma science publication, "Two worlds revisted: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang", that I linked to previously.

Let's note: in a great many posts, we have asked Zeuzzz to defend the research produced by "plasma cosmology": the simulations, the calculations, the theory-model comparisons. He thinks he is jumping back into the fray by presenting a review article. Crankery 101: sweeping broad-swathe claims are always treated as more interesting than details and analysis, however crucial.

Zeuzzz, review articles are where you sum up other people's research. If the other people's research is wrong---and yes, this means looking at gory details---then the review article is wrong too. Do you want my criticism of Lerner's article? Well, take each paragraph of Lerner's article. See which PC paper it's reporting the claims of. My criticism of that paragraph, then, is actually my criticism of the cited paper.

Skip the review and get to the meat, will you?
 
LOL

Nope, still do not know what you are talking about. :D

I guess Zeuzzz wants to have some comments on the piece of paper he scanned in, from the Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Now I have veeeeery bad experiences with papers published in Chinese journals (basically, the referees let everything go through and don't check even the tiniest assertion by the authors. I once refereed a paper, and totally had to reject it because of MAJOR issues with the data handling, statistics and interpretation, only to see that exactly the same paper got published in a Chinese journal, with all the mistakes still in there).

Terms like "exploding discharged of electric double layers", what is that supposed to mean?
Indeed Raadu (1989) talks about solar flares and the loops with self inductance etc. However, he does not say anything about GRBs, as the authors claim (I have the pdf of the Raadu monograph, for those interested).

Then they just throw in some numbers, without ANY justification, and suddenly 1056 photons need to be "scattered" (why scattering, should they not be generated or someting???, ah looking at the paper they want to have some compton scattering, but with a relativistic double layer you can easily generate gammas through linear acceleration emission.). Just the typical (sorry to be so denigrating) chinese way of writing papers, at least what was copied by Zeuzzz, maybe in total the paper has some merit points, but I have no time now to read it.
 
Ha! :) Back and forth, back and forth. This could get tiring very quickly.

Is this what its come to?

Whats your comment on the material in the papers then, RealityCheck?

Lets start with your comments on Lerners IEEE transactions on plasma science publication, "Two worlds revisted: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang", that I linked to previously.

GO.
STOP.

Z, we've been over all the material in this review paper before; in fact, quite a few of the questions you said you'd get back to addressing are on material either in this review or referenced in it.

So, thanks but no thanks; it is very tiring, and has been for some time ...

However, let's break the circle, shall we?

Let's hear from you on this point:
Lerner said:
Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.
Please provide an outline of an astronomical observational research program that you think would pursue key, as yet untested, aspects of Plasma Cosmology (of the E. Lerner kind).

GO

PS RC has already noted that Lerner is somewhat selective (shall we say) wrt what he chooses to discuss concerning the framework; specifically, he omits any mention of the Hubble relationship (no prize for guessing why Lerner is silent on this; as we have seen, many times in the life of this thread, PC has no explanation for this at all, and Lerner's means of addressing it is to declare it out of bounds, by fiat!)
 
Sorry Zeuzzz,

I am disturbed by the fact that you often reference the same material that you have referenced in prior threads, you show us the same papers you have shown at other times. When rebuttals do occur then ignore them and then you trumpet about how no one responds to you.

This is rather a shame and it reflects rather poorly upon you.

I agree with many here, this issue is that you have not presented a coherent set of theories that you can call 'plasma cosmology'. (In fact I recall you tried to present some really out of date material when first asked.)

I remind you that early on you made many claims in many threads, most of which you have been unable to substantiate. I for one had to ask you multiple times to provide any evidence for the 'semi rigid structure of galaxies provided by EM forces'.

I asked you multiple times to provide any rational for your statement, you ignored it and refused to answer, I continued however. Then you got very defensive and snotty to me about it when you did respond. But the outcome is this, you make a claim, you refused to substantiate it, you got arrogant and rude when asked to substantiate it, the offshoot is that you never did provide any data or mechanism to substantiate your claim. (The H-R diagram explanation you offered and ran away from is another good example, you never demonstrated the currents that would explain your theory there either.)

That is the problem Zeuzzz, you want to be taken seriously but you are just pretend, there is a long list of statements you have made that you have never substantiated.

So I agree with RC and I repeat what I asked you from the very beginning:

1. What is your theory?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. What data/observations support the theory?

I asked you this almost two years ago, and I ask you again.

I think it would help if you stopped pretending and just admitted the truth, you haven't got a theory, you have a wish. And that is fine, we all have wishes and desires. But until you present a coherent theory, the predictions it makes and the observations that match the theory, you will remain just a wishing.
 
Last edited:
Yes. We have measured the orbits (radius-vs-velocity) of the rings very precisely, and these data are a perfect match to ordinary gravitational orbits. They don't look like a plasma disk, nor a rigid solid disk, nor a cyclone, nor a bowler hat, nor a shock wave, nor any of the other disk-shaped phenomena that you might decide to post photos of. They look like ordinary gravitationally-orbiting particles, because that's what they are.

Please excuse my denseness, but why dont they(ring particles) float in a cloud as opposed to being in a disc?
I would think that unless there is some preferential gravity effect around the equator(of a sphere!) that they would be randomly distributed.

I could see however, that if there was a plasma influence(hot gas) then you would get a distribution around the equator like an accretion disc. So that would mean the rings have been here as long as Saturn...... If thats what your saying....

Brant
 
Please excuse my denseness, but why dont they(ring particles) float in a cloud as opposed to being in a disc?
I would think that unless there is some preferential gravity effect around the equator(of a sphere!) that they would be randomly distributed.

I could see however, that if there was a plasma influence(hot gas) then you would get a distribution around the equator like an accretion disc. So that would mean the rings have been here as long as Saturn...... If thats what your saying....

Brant

And if the collisions between the ring particles should retard and impart extra velocity to said particles, why don't the slower particles "fall" into Saturn's immense gravitational well, in conjunction with the other particles extra energy imparted on them thru collisions, escape Saturn's gravity well?

Would that not form a cloud around a sphere using Tim Thompsons absolutely mechanical ring phenomena?
 
Are circumstellar disks around young stars analogous to the circumstellar disk around saturn?

Circumstellar disk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A circumstellar disk is a torus or ring-shaped accumulation of matter in the state of gas, dust, planetesimals, asteroids or collision fragments in orbit around a star in different phases of its life cycle. Such a disk can manifest itself as:

* Circumprimary disk, is where a disk orbits the primary star of the multiple star system.[1]
* Circumbinary disk, is where a disk orbits both the primary and the secondary of the binary system.
* Accretion disk
* Protoplanetary disk is a rotating circumstellar disk of dense gas and dust surrounding a newly formed star.
* Debris disk consists of larger asteroids and cometary material, along with fine dust generated through collisions. Most of the original gas and small dust particles have been dispersed.[2]
* Asteroid belt
* Edgeworth-Kuiper belt
* Öpik- Oort cloud / Hills Cloud, only the inner Oort cloud is toroid-like shape. The outer Oort cloud is more spherical in shape.
* Nebular hypothesis
WP
 
Please excuse my denseness, but why dont they(ring particles) float in a cloud as opposed to being in a disc?
I would think that unless there is some preferential gravity effect around the equator(of a sphere!) that they would be randomly distributed.

I could see however, that if there was a plasma influence(hot gas) then you would get a distribution around the equator like an accretion disc. So that would mean the rings have been here as long as Saturn...... If thats what your saying....

Brant
Actually it is the other way around.
If Saturn's rings were a plasma then they would be affected by Saturn's magnetic field. The result would be a cloud not a ring.

They are in a plane for the same reason that the solar system is roughly in a plane - gravity & angular momentum.

The physical facts are that the rings are not a plasma. Their spectrum is not that of a plasma. Their spectrum is that of water ice or to be more exact:
The dense main rings extend from 7 000 km to 80 000 km above Saturn's equator, with an estimated local thickness of only 10 meters[8], and are composed of 99.9 percent pure water ice with a smattering of impurities that may include tholins or silicates.[9] The main rings are primarily composed of particles ranging in size from 1 centimeter to 10 meters.[10]
 

Back
Top Bottom