• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Something new under the sun

sol invictus said:
There have been many, many things you've said which have been thoroughly debunked. Now you seem to be claiming those weren't actually plasma cosmology.

Fine - why don't you list one single concrete claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream. Perhaps "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
Click to expand...


Deal.

I would say that plasma scaleability, and the experimental methods applicability to astronomy and cosmology would be a good starting topic.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Deal.

I would say that plasma scaleability, and the experimental methods applicability to astronomy and cosmology would be a good starting topic.
Click to expand...

Please make a single concrete claim.

Again, I suggest rotation curves.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Whats wrong with plasma scaleability and its application to the cosmos?
Click to expand...

If you will define precisely what you mean by that, it might be OK. As it is it's incredibly vague. You need to say, "such and such specific observed effect is due to such and such".

Look, just as an example - "galactic rotation curves do not follow the pattern expected from the visible mass of galaxies and the inverse square law for gravity, because there is approximately 5 times as much dark matter as visible matter distributed in a roughly spherical halo centered on the galactic disk, with such and such a density distribution. The DM particles have a mass between X and Y, a lifetime greater than Z, and an electromagnetic cross section less than W."

Please provide one concrete statement like that from PC.
 
MattusMaximus said:
iantresman said:
Calling people names is not a very strong argument. It's also offensive and disrespectful. Even my 14-year-old son has stopped using ad hominems. If you would like some help in developing this line of attack, I'm sure I could find some sources in the National Inquirer... or Mad Magazine used to have some good put-downs, with the benefit of some cartoons that some people tell me are quite droll.
Click to expand...
So you criticize ad hominems by responding with your own ad hominem. Wow... so much for your high ground, Mr. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...
.
I did no such thing. I criticisized your actions; I did not call you, nor anyone else any names.

Calling someone "Mr Hypocrite" or a "woo" is an ad hominem as it refers directly to an invivdual. Calling their argument hypocrotical is not as it does not refer directly to the invidual.

I am happy to clarify the situation, for the umpteenth time now. When I explain it to my 14-year-old son, he understood it first time.
 
MattusMaximus said:
iantresman said:
However, I would be delighted to have you adhere to the scientific method, by providing a couple of peer reviewed papers that discredit plasma cosmology/universe. It shouldn't be too difficult... there have been hundreds of papers on the subject over the years.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people (including me) have been doing just that for 8+ pages on this thread.
Click to expand...
.
If plenty have people have being doing so, it should be trivial to COPY such references from a previous post. A peer reviewed paper includes an author, a paper title, the journal name, and its volume and date (and ideally a link to an abstract).

Providing such papers will be to your credit. No papers, or more ad hominems or repeating the claims will discredit your assertion.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Besides, it isn't incumbent upon us or the mainstream scientific community to prove you wrong. It is incumbent upon yourself to prove your ideas right. And by the reaction of the folks on this thread who do know BBC, GR, and cosmology in general, you're doing a piss-poor job of that.
Click to expand...
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
 
sol invictus said:
I think even you will admit that the plasma universe is a fringe idea, rejected by the vast majority of scientists in the field. That makes it by definition a crackpot idea, and anyone that believes in it a crackpot. Let me stress that I do not regard that term as pejorative -
Click to expand...
.
Characterize the idea, not the person. Then regardless of whether someone thinks a term is pejorative or not, you will never uninitentionally insult the person.

The term "woo", for example, is generally considered to be "a derogatory and dismissive term".

I'm not aware of anyone who considers the term "Christian" to be pejorative.
 
iantresman said:
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that plasma "cosmology" has not been discredited. But this is because it is so obviously wrong that scientists do not want to waste their time addressing it. They have a lot of better things to do, e.g test the actual predictions from Big Bang Cosmology with actual observations.

Interesting experiment: Go to a abstract and citation database like Scopus and search for "plasma cosmology". I get 14 results (9 papers, a book and 2 reviews) that mention the phrase. They cover the years 1987 to 2007 (20 years!) and have a grand total of 11 citations. None of the results are published in a journal devoted to cosmology and probably were not reviewed by cosmologists.

The number of citations show that the scientific community is totally uninterested in plasma "cosmology". One wonders why:rolleyes:!

P.S. If you expand the search for the 2 words "plasma" and "cosmology" there are more results (230) but most of these are on the role of plasma in BB cosmology and even looking at quark-gluon plasmas.
 
iantresman said:
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
Click to expand...

Let me advance the same challenge to you I did to Zeuzzz:

Please give one single concrete and specific claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream view. Something like "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
 
In reply to Dancing Davids question
And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?
Click to expand...
you state
iantresman said:
.
It may depend on the density (and hence size) of such mass, and the time-scale.
Click to expand...
The size is 45 AU in radius. The timescale is the age of the galaxy.

Please supply an answer.

For everyone else's information - this is a an OT sub-thread started by the mention of matter that does not emit light, e.g. dark matter and black holes. BeAChooser then doubted their existence. When presented with observations of the massive black holes at the center of our galaxy and the M87 galaxy, he asked why they were not plasmoids (see the Wikipedia article which funnily enough does not mention anything outside of the Solar System :) ). It was pointed out that anything with a big enough mass packed into a small enough volume forms a black hole. The accepted size and volume of our black hole is 3.7 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles. One press article mentions a lower limit of 40,000 solar masses so we are content with calculations using that figure.
 
Reality Check said:
Interesting experiment: Go to a abstract and citation database like Scopus and search for "plasma cosmology". I get 14 results (9 papers, a book and 2 reviews) that mention the phrase. They cover the years 1987 to 2007 (20 years!) and have a grand total of 11 citations. None of the results are published in a journal devoted to cosmology and probably were not reviewed by cosmologists.
Click to expand...
.
Some time ago, I emailed one of Alfvén's co-authors, and asked whether it would be fair to call him a "plasma cosmologist". No he replied, I'm a plasma astrophysicist.

My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.

I don't think most scientists consider plasma cosmology to be wrong. I think most scientists haven't read papers on the subject.
 
iantresman said:
.
Some time ago, I emailed one of Alfvén's co-authors, and asked whether it would be fair to call him a "plasma cosmologist". No he replied, I'm a plasma astrophysicist.

My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.

I don't think most scientists consider plasma cosmology to be wrong. I think most scientists haven't read papers on the subject.
Click to expand...


This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
 
Reality Check said:
[..] And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?

The size is 45 AU in radius. The timescale is the age of the galaxy.
Click to expand...
.
I have no idea how such a plasmoid would behave. Perhaps you would first point me to a paper which shows that a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses of size 45 AU, would collapse.
 
Zeuzzz said:
This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
Click to expand...
.
I can find no references to Hannes Alfvén using the term "plasma cosmology". He certainly coined the term "Plasma Universe" in 1986, and mentions cosmology with respect to the Plasma Universe,[ref]. Before this time, Alfvén describes cosmology with respect to anti-matter in his discussions on Oscar Klein's theory (Klein cosmology),[Ref] later to developed as Klein-Alfvén cosmology. On the other hand, Anthony Peratt says that "'Plasma Cosmology' is the study of the plasma universe"[Ref]
 
iantresman said:
My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
Click to expand...

Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it. Which makes my challenge to you two even more relevant.

I repeat:

Please give one single concrete and specific claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream view. Something like "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom