• 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

'But in the BB hypothesis, which assumes the CBR originated BEHIND all clusters of galaxies and other very dense concentrations of matter, interactions with electrons will decrease the CBR luminosity. So there should be an anti-correlation of galaxies and CBR on small angular scales. Just the opposite is observed[Scranton et al, arXiv:astrop-ph/0307335]'

... snip ...

It's just not a convincing rebuttal in the slightest.

How about this?

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. ... snip ... Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu."

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html "The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800 "Where Have All the Shadows Gone?"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_mystery_monday.html "A study of nearby galaxy clusters has failed to detect distortions in the ancient microwave radiation many scientists have linked to the creation of our universe."

http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/the_cosmic_microwave_background__proof_of_the_big_bang "the energy now being received from the CMB must have traveled across the whole of the cosmos to reach this location at this time. Because of this, there should be evidence imprinted on the CMB showing a sort of record of its travels. Studies conducted by Prof. Richard Lieu at the University of Alabama used NASA's own Wilkonson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to look for evidence of this passage. The First study, as recounted by Space Daily in 2005, looked for evidence of gravitational lensing in the CMB. Gravitational lensing is an effect of the gravitational attraction of massive clusters of galaxies. When radiation passes through such a powerful field, it is magnified, like being seen through a lens. This would leave a clear image on the CMB in the areas that have been so magnified. No evidence of the effect was found, so the CMB could not have originated from beyond the galaxy clusters; compliance with the requirements of the physical laws is not optional. Another study by Prof. Lieu's team, published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006, looked for evidence of a shadow' effect, called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, in the CMB. This is another requirement needed to prove that the CMB came from beyond nearby galaxy clusters. The effect manifests in a fashion similar to a silhouette. If a light source is behind an object, relative to an observer, then that object should cast a shadow forward onto the observer. This effect was not found in the CMB either."

:D
 
Again, I suggest rotation curves.

Speaking of rotation curves ...

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13280-galaxy-without-dark-matter-puzzles-astronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising.""

:D
 
Speaking of rotation curves ...

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13280-galaxy-without-dark-matter-puzzles-astronomers.html "Galaxy without dark matter puzzles astronomers, February 2008 ... snip ... In the spiral galaxy NGC 4736, however, the rotation slows down as you move farther out from the crowded inner reaches of the galaxy. At first glance, that declining rotation curve is just what you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter, and no modification to gravity. ... snip ... According to their combined mathematical model, ordinary luminous stars and gas can indeed account for all the mass in NGC 4736. ... snip ... "If this paper is correct, then this galaxy contains very little or no dark matter," says astrophysicist Jürg Diemand of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team. "That is surprising.""

:D
Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe!
 
Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it.

Then it is curious why so many of them use the word gas when talking about plasma. It is curious why so many ignore the various electromagetic related phenomena that have been mentioned with regards to plasmas when looking for explanations of phenomena. Why are terms like "plasma filaments", "Birkeland current", "double layer", "exploding double layer", and "z-pinch" so rarely seen in articles and papers written by mainstream astrophysicists and physicists ... especially when the astronomical objects being described sound just like manifestations of those phenomena? :D
 
1. The electrostatic repulsion of particles, even if they were all the same charge in the plasmoid ... snip ... is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity.

Gee David, seems to me I've been told recently that even a miniscule amount of particles, if they were all the same charge, would blow the sun up. :)

2. The magnetic repusion fo the particles even if they were all magnetic monopoles is not going to be enough to overcome the force of gravity. (I could be wrong here since I know the monopoles is a boogie).

Is it? Afterall, mainstream astrophysicists are talking all the time about open field lines. So there must be monopoles all over the universe. :)

3. if there is a mechanism that is going to keep the plasmoid in an expanded state, it is up to the people who say that it could be expanded to provide that mechanism.

Gee David, I thought you'd figure out that the particles in the plasmoid are really hot and moving very fast. :)
 
Wow! This article not only disproves Big Bang cosmology it also disproves plasma cosmology and the electric universe!

Actually, we already know a mechanism by which dark matter can be stripped away from most of the luminous matter. When two galaxies or clusters collide with sufficient velocity, the dark matter and stars pass through each other, leaving behind most of the gas (and therefore most of the visible matter). That's what's we're seeing happen with the bullet cluster right now. If that remaining gas is star forming, the resulting galaxy will be without DM.

Given that we've seen one collision taking place "now", there are almost certainly several remnants of those collisions around from past collisions. This may well be one such, and (while it's interesting and noteworthy) I don't find it at all surprising.

And the observation of such a galaxy is yet another nail in the coffin of alternative gravity theories like MOND, which cannot possibly account for such a thing.
 
Last edited:
So, you haven't come up with that prediction or test for PC that Sol (and others) have demanded yet, eh?


I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.
 
At that point both of the plasma cosmology advocates here will have admitted that they can't produce even one single prediction of their "theory"

I KNOW I've pointed this one out before ... but you just ignored it.

Plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe.

Big Bang cosmologists did not. In fact, they were surprised by it. :)
 
I'm pressed for time, but I will provide some evidence over the next couple of days for EM plasma scaling and some of the various experiments that have been conducted. I'll also post some of the sucessful predictions plasma cosmology proponents have made.

So it sounds like you're not going to answer the question?

me said:
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?
 
Last edited:
They were even more "surprised" when computer models using Big Bang cosmology produced filaments.

I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating).

The results match observations quite well.
 
I don't know what people thought in the past before these were possible, but I've seen many simulations of structure formation by gravitational collapse, and they all form long thread-like structures. Note that dark matter is absolutely essential in those simulations (in fact that's really what they are simulating).

The results match observations quite well.
I agree. Maybe BeAChooser is using the English "surprised" as in "this is an interesting thing that just happened - I am surprised" rather than the scientific "surprised", e.g. "we predict not-X and were surprised to find X". This does show BAC's lack of knowledge of the current cosmology work.
 
By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

You know of any reason why they couldn't scale to larger systems? By the way: this ties into Zeuzzz's discussion of scalability. :D
 
By the way: All the descriptions that I have seen have plasmoids as small, low mass phenomenon in stellar systems.

By the way:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]"
 
By the way:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation "Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]"
You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale.
 
You really should read the papaers. They are about using laboratory sized plasmiods to simulate galaxies. This has nothing to do with galaxy-sized plasmoids or the effects of plasmoids on a galactic scale.


Plasma scaling

Plasmas can create very similar structers, from microscopic to galactic size, many plasma experiments have mimiced the shape structure and form of galaxies using the EM forces the plasma contains.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom