Something new under the sun

[MattusMaximus]

Also, calling BBC a "physical theory" is rather funny,

The "physical theory" is GR, which explains the BBC you moron. Wow, your grasp of reading comprehension is just as bad as your knowledge of physics & cosmology.

 

[sol invictus]

I have a question for the cranks here.

You obviously don't understand the math (or physics) of general relativity. So you have to rely on others, who do understand (or at least say they do).

But those others disagree with each other. A tiny minority thinks black holes don't exist; all the rest think they do.

So - given that you can't understand the arguments either way - how do you decide which camp to go along with? Do you always root for the underdogs? Or pick the ones that seem closest to you politically, or in some other way? Or is it that since you can't comprehend the notion of a black hole, you believe anyone that tells you it doesn't exist?

 

[Yllanes]

I have a question for the cranks here.

You obviously don't understand the math (or physics) of general relativity. So you have to rely on others, who do understand (or at least say they do).

But those others disagree with each other. A tiny minority thinks black holes don't exist; all the rest think they do.

So - given that you can't understand the arguments either way - how do you decide which camp to go along with? Do you always root for the underdogs? Or pick the ones that seem closest to you politically, or in some other way? Or is it that since you can't comprehend the notion of a black hole, you believe anyone that tells you it doesn't exist?

I have often wondered about this. I can understand that someone with no training in physics can distrust the ideas of black holes, dark mater, etc. What I cannot understand is how people that obviously don't know anything about physics and can't understand the papers they keep linking can dedicate so much time and energy to this.

 

[Dancing David]

What makes you think the mass estimate of the M87 "black hole" is any more precise than the Milky Way's? I would hazard that it's even less precisely known given it's great distance.

And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?

No, you haven't. You haven't even engaged in the arm waving and misdirection , yet.

 

[Dancing David]

That can only be said of one specific solution to GR. There are other solutions. And let's be honest, GR as envisioned by Einstein and BB as envisioned by Friedmann did not predict inflation, dark matter, nor dark energy. Those gnomes were invented to prop up the BB cosmology. Those gnomes aren't apparently needed in cosmologies derived using the alternative solutions to GR. Also, calling BBC a "physical theory" is rather funny, when almost the entire universe under that theory now consists of ghost-like dark matter and dark energy ... that can't be directly detected and which it's proponents still can't identify even after 30 years of looking.

Except for the fact that you have your own 'gnomes' BAC and you refuse to address them:

1. The sampling error in Arp's association of QSOs and disrupted galaxies.
2. The magnetic field needed to make Perrat's model of galaxy rotation work.
3. A demonstration of how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse.
4. The electric sun and z-pinch fusion will not provide the energy of the sun, at the level it exhibits.
5. A simple answer as to wether the anamalous red shift applies to only QSOs or if there is no consmological red shift.

These are glaring issues that you have failed to address, you are avoiding them in fact. Mere arm waving will not resolve them.


So your garden is filled with gnomes, there are many more.

 

[Dancing David]

Why should we assume an error of an order of magnitude for M87, when the one for the Milky Way ... for which we have much better observations ... is larger? If you wanted to use the same degree of uncertainty in M87 as in the Milky Way (which the source I linked said has a 4 million sun mass), then you are talking about at least 2 orders of magnitude.

Funny, you still haven't addressed how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse have you?

But the reality is that the evidence suggesting a 3 billion sun black hole in M87 is a LOT more tenuous than that suggesting a large mass in the Milky Way core.

What is really tenuous is your answer to many specific question, funny that.

How does a 40,000 solar mass plamoid avoid gravitational collapse?

The latter is based on observed motions of individual stars within light years of the supposed Milky Way black hole. The former is based on Doppler measurements made on the plasma of M87 near the central region, not specific star motions. Do you know the velocity of the gases near the supposed M87 black hole?

Do you know how a 40,000 solar mass plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse?
Do you know what size a magnetic field would have to be to make for galaxy rotation in Perrat's model?

On the order of 500 kms (http://seds.org/messier/more/m087_hst.html ). Do you know the measured velocity of plasmas near the center of the Milky Way? As much as 700 kms, much faster than the stars in the area. So how can you be sure of the M87 mass estimate? And you do know, don't you, that these plasmas would be affected by any electromagnetic forces operating in the region, not just gravity? So a homopolar motor with a plasmoid near the center ...

So how does the orbit of stars around the massive object at the center of the galaxy get effected by this? Will your homopolar motor do that? No, it won't.

Does it matter?

How does a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoid gravitational collapse?

 

[Zeuzzz]

RC, here are two quotes from Zeuzzz:

1. "General relativity is a well-established and tested theory." - AND -

I would love to watch Zeuzzz squirm trying rectify these two statements, if he'd ever stand his ground and actually try doing so as opposed to weaseling away into troll land...

Well, i spent three years studying physics and relativity and I was an adament believer in relativity by the end of it. Now i'm not so sure. I always keep an open mind when dealing with relativity, as it has many people who oppose it, but so many mathematicians that love it. For example there are many experiments that seem to verify GR, which is why i used to beleive it. But it is very hard to come up with tests that will falsify it, as it is based on an ill defined unit which is used as a dimension in itself; time. If a theory is unfalsifyable, then it cant be an accurate theory. The theory of relativity is unfalsifiable because no experiment can refute it because there really is no way to test the theory in a true inertial frame since all practical experiments must be performed in non-inertial frames, as a matter of necessity.

I said i fully agree with it previously as i didn't want this thread to end up as another one arguing about the correctness of relativity, and knew the usual barrage of woo hoo comments would be aimed at me after I stated that. I dont even deny relativity, the maths obviously works very well, but I think it is often used to prove things beyond it predictive capability, especially when talking about the Big Bang, Black Holes and other questionable metaphysical areas.

There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity, and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality.

Einstein basically redefined Newtonian gravity by placing it in a metaphysical framework by combining the three measurable physical dimensions of space with a mathematical ‘dimension’ that cannot be measured with a ruler, time.

The claimed success of Einstein’s ‘thought experiments’ encouraged mathematicians to follow his lead, and they have dominated physics and cosmology ever since. It must be said that Einstein himself showed integrity by doubting his own work. But his followers have shown no such restraint. In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists have written themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn’t fit.

D. E. Pressler, “By definition, time cannot be measured in a single line so the use of the term dimension is ambiguous... any conclusions drawn from a fallacious argument is meaningless.” from a lecture at the 12th Relativity Meeting at Chicago University, 2002.

 

[Dancing David]

I think that would surprise astronomers since there are 20+ solar mass stars that have diameters less than 1 AU which are not black holes. What do you think Betelgeuse was before it ballooned into a red giant?

More arm waving!

What happens when the energy from fusion is no longer available to keep the stars mass expanded against gravity? (And please avoid using some gnome of your imagination to keep the star extended)

What will happen when there is no longer the thermal energy needed to provide the kinetic energy that maintains the atmosphere of the star in an expanded state?

Hmmm?

Simple question BAC, are you still trying to say that photons are not effected by gravity?

 

[Dancing David]

Haven't you been listening to this forum's BB's proponents? Some have been claiming that dark energy was predicted more than 30 years ago.

There is a growing list of questions you have refused to answer over the last six months.

 

[Dancing David]

You are right: It is more exact to say that any star that is more than 20 solar masses will form a black hole at the end of its life (look up the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit).
Of course a plasma that packs 20+ solar masses into a small volume like 1 AU does not have any fusion to counter gravity and will form a black hole.

And the only response you will get to a direct statement from BAC is through a dark posting and dark knowledge that does not interact with any postings on the JREF but whose existance can only be surmised from BAC's statements that they exist.

 

[sol invictus]

For example there are many experiments that seem to verify GR, which is why i used to beleive it. But it is very hard to come up with tests that will falsify it, as it is based on an ill defined unit which is used as a dimension in itself; time.

That is completely untrue. GR makes an infinite number of almost arbitrarily precise predictions about everything affected by gravity (i.e., everything). If any one of those is wrong, GR is wrong.

The only thing that makes it hard to verify is that it agrees to high accuracy with Newtonian gravity in the situations we can easily access (although today there are many independent tests which rule out Newton and agree with GR). But it's extremely easy to falsify.

If a theory is unfalsifyable, then it cant be an accurate theory. The theory of relativity is unfalsifiable because no experiment can refute it because there really is no way to test the theory in a true inertial frame since all practical experiments must be performed in non-inertial frames, as a matter of necessity.

Again, you exhibit total incomprehension of the theories you attack. Relativity makes perfect sense in non-intertial frames. In fact part of the point of general relativity was to generalize special relativity to arbitrary frames and to curved manifolds.

There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity,

Completely empty statement. According to science, there is no experiment that proves any theory.

and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality.

Umm.... try re-reading that.

It must be said that Einstein himself showed integrity by doubting his own work. But his followers have shown no such restraint. In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists have written themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn’t fit.

More nonsense. Many people work on finding alternative theories of gravity. Many people work on designing experiments to test it. Many people make observations of the sky, in part because that's another arena for testing GR. And very few people, when they look out and see black holes just as predicted by the theory, continue to deny their existence.

 

[sol invictus]

There is a growing list of questions you have refused to answer over the last six months.

Both the existence and approximate magnitude of dark energy were predicted by the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg in 1987: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v59/i22/p2607_1 .

No one believed it at the time, but it was correct.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Now Zeuzzz is attempting to rely upon bogus arguments from authority (from crackpots no less). Sad to see...

I really find it hard to take you seriously when you have stated previously that plasma cosmolgy is a pseudoscience, despite the large amount of academics in that field, and also that scientists that do not believe in the big bang are crackpots too.

Heres a brief list some of the people you think are crackpots, as they are plasma cosmologists or they dont believe in the Big Bang Theory;

* Hannes Alfven - Plasma cosmologist, Won Nobel Prize
* Lewis E. Franks - PhD, Stanford University, Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts
* Timothy E. Eastman - PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.
* Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
* Prof P. Evans - British and Commonwealth Civil List Scientist, Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee (WSAC)
* Gerrit L. Verschuur - PhD, University of Manchester.
* Jeremy Dunning-Davies - senior lecturer in physics at the University of Hull and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
* Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik
* Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
* Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
* Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries
* Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
* Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
* Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.
*Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus)
* Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
* Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
* Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
* Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
*Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
* Menas Kafatos, George Mason University
* Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Executive director of the Focus Fusion Society and president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
* Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired)
* Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di * Padova (Italy)
* Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
* Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
* Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
* Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
* Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
* R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
* Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
* Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
* Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
* David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
* Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
* Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
* Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
* Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais
* John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
* James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton


They obviously have good reasons to doubt BBT or believe in plasma cosmology, they are not doing this (as you would have us believe) solely because they are cranks. Can you accept the fact that these people have viable scientific reasons for thier opinions?

I dont like to make arguments on peoples status alone, but when you think that all these people are crackpots, I think that it is you with the problem, not them.

 

[sol invictus]

<snip>

Many of the people on that list are dead, and some are not physicists. But, just to be nice to you, let's ask how many living physicists believe in BBC and compare.

Well, the American Physical Society has 40,000 members. Perhaps a few of the people on your list are members, so we can subtract them from that figure. That leaves 40,000 . Including Europe will probably double that number. With the rest of the world, there must be more than 100,000 physicists in the world. Guess what - other than the tiny handful you've listed and a few more you didn't, they all believe in BBC. You list has well under 100, so we're talking about 99.9%.

So you've just proven that everyone on your list is a crackpot - by definition (the definition being someone that believes nearly everyone else is wrong).

 

[Zeuzzz]

Many of the people on that list are dead, and some are not physicists. But, just to be nice to you, let's ask how many living physicists believe in BBC and compare.

Many? A couple, perhaps, but many????

And since when does the fact that someone was dead discount their opinion? Maybe we should forget all about the theory of relativity because Einstein is dead?

I could have posted about 500-1000 or so more, but i figured that would be classed as spamming.

Well, the American Physical Society has 40,000 members. Perhaps a few of the people on your list are members, so we can subtract them from that figure. That leaves 40,000 .

You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.

If an expert in the physics of molecular bonding believes in the Big Bang theory this does not add any more credence to the theory, you have to look at the opinions of people in that field.

So you've just proven that everyone on your list is a crackpot - by definition (the definition being someone that believes nearly everyone else is wrong).

The thing is, you have to have a valid scientific reason to dismiss their claims, or it is you that is the crackpot. So far i have heard none.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.

 

[sol invictus]

Many? A couple, perhaps, but many????

I'm not going to waste my time checking the rest, but of the five or six I know of, two (Bondi and Alfven) are dead and the others very old.

And since when does the fact that someone was dead discount their opinion?

When new evidence has emerged since the time they were capable of learning about it.

I could have posted about 500-1000 or so more, but i figured that would be classed as spamming.

I very much doubt that.

You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.

That appears to be false. I just looked at a few of them, and they are neither astrophysicists or cosmologists.

If an expert in the physics of molecular bonding believes in the Big Bang theory this does not add any more credence to the theory, you have to look at the opinions of people in that field.

Again, many - most, for all I know - of the people on your list are not experts in the field. Here - I picked two randomly:

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)

http://www.earthtech.org/michael/bio/index.htm
http://www.earthtech.org/michael/bio/publication_list.htm

This guy got his degree in laser physics, and works on a variety of crank stuff. Some of it does have to do with cosmo, but I certainly wouldn't call him an expert on it.

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/jarboe/

This guy is a plasma physicist, working on controlled fusion. There is no mention anywhere on his website of any research in astro or cosmo (not counting propulsion systems for spacecraft, obviously).

Two strikes and you're out.

Now that we've reduced your list further, we can ask how many astrophysicists and astronomers there are in the world. Based on the relative sizes of astro versus physics departments at US university, I would conservatively estimate at least 20,000. So we're still quite comfortably at the 99.9% level.

The thing is, you have to have a valid scientific reason to dismiss their claims, or it is you that is the crackpot. So far i have heard none.

You've heard many, and ignored all of them.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.

Same thing - many have been offered, all have been ignored. The fact is there while there are plenty of websites, there aren't very many papers on that, any more than there are many scientific papers debunking creationism. It's a waste of time to write such a thing.

 

[edd]

You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.

It's a fact and a theory. See innumerable discussions with creationists for a further explanation of this.

Also, in my experience the less people know about astronomy and cosmology the more likely they are to dismiss the Big Bang, as they are more likely not to understand it or the evidence for it.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html ?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Same thing - many have been offered, all have been ignored. The fact is there while there are plenty of websites, there aren't very many papers on that, any more than there are many scientific papers debunking creationism. It's a waste of time to write such a thing.

debunking creationism? what on earth does plasma cosmology have to do with creationism? No wonder you are so unaccepting of plasma cosmology is you think it is creationism. Is it the fact that your brain cant comprehend a universe without a Big Bang mean that any alternative must be creationism? That is a luicrous position to take.

contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It's a fact and a theory. See innumerable discussions with creationists for a further explanation of this.

Also, in my experience the less people know about astronomy and cosmology the more likely they are to dismiss the Big Bang, as they are more likely not to understand it or the evidence for it.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html ?

I'm glad you metioned Ned's material, as most plasma cosmologists have addressed his points and thouroughly debunked his material. And his other points have been addressed too.

Dr. Wright is Wrong, a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

A number of people have asked me to reply to Ned Wright's critique of the BBN. Observation since the last edition of the book was published in 1992 have only served to make the arguments in it stronger and to further contradict Wright's assertions.[......]

Similar errors occur in Wright's comments on production of lithium in cosmic rays. Since this occurs when protons in cosmic rays collide with CNO atoms, naturally the abundance of lithium is relatively high in current cosmic rays, give the interstellar medium contains a few percent CNO. But in very young, formative galaxies, where only one ten-thousandth of the current levels of CNO were yet produced, Li production was reduced by a comparable amount. Indeed we find that stars with heavy element abundance 10-4 that of the sun, and a few thousand times less than the ISM, have D/Li ratios that are also a few thousand times less than the 80-to-1 ratio Wright quotes. Typically, he misquotes the ratio of D to Li observed in the oldest stars, which is about 150,000 to 1, not 6 million to 1. But to a true Big Bang believer like Dr. Wright, making an error of a factor of forty in regards to mere observations is no cause of concern. Observations, after all, do not affect faith.

 

[sol invictus]

debunking creationism? what on earth does plasma cosmology have to do with creationism?

Quite a lot.

It is rejected by the scientific mainstream, but its proponents try to make it seem as if there is no consensus by compiling lists of cranks in their camp.

It is based on faith rather than reason. In the case of plasma cosmology, that manifests itself in the lack of a mathematical, quantitative theory and the denial of all evidence.

It exists because of a tendency for humans to resist change or accept ideas their limited experience makes counterintuitive.

The proponents of both hold lots of other irrational and anti-scientific beliefs about other topics.

No wonder you are so unaccepting of plasma cosmology is you think it is creationism. Is it the fact that your brain cant comprehend a universe without a Big Bang mean that any alternative must be creationism? That is a luicrous position to take.

I can easily comprehend a universe without a big bang - in fact it's much easier to comprehend. I can also prove it's wrong in many, many ways.

contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

There is no such popular belief, and anyway it's not relevant to my opinion (which is an expert opinion, not a popular belief).

BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice.

That's almost correct, yes. So?

Does plasma cosmology explain where the universe came from?