This seems quite simple, give a single example of where plasma cosmology can explain an observation and contradict existing mainstream theory.
And I did exactly that by demonstrating that a
highly charged anode can produce the exact characteristsics observed on the sun in many shapes and forms. The sun is viewed as overall
completely neutral by mainstream opinion, and the experiments I linked to indicate that this is not the case, as none of these effects could be achieved by Birkeland without a substantial charge on the Terrella.
If Sol had actually replied to the material in my post and say why this comparison between the two can not be drawn, that would have been a valid position to take, but he ignored it in its entirity, and did not even address one thing, despite the huge amount of material I presented. If he had been more patient, maybe he could have commented on the plasma scaling formula I wrote just after, that seems to be the sort of mathematical material he was looking for.
Not only did I show Birkeland experiments, but I also showed another one from Winston Bostik as an example of plasma scaling, and I even gave a brief overview of Peratts model of this. If sol could not find any concrete claim in that post, then i'm not sure what he was seeing.
But you didn't demonstrate how anything you showed would explain an observation that isn't already fully explained. For example, can your plasma cosmology explain the orbital mechanics of a planet any better than can the accepted theories of gravity?
What are you talking about here? Do you see any plasma cosmologist trying to refute gravity? No. They are stating that various forces in plasma have a far bigger effect than traditionally accepted by science, and these effects can be stronger than gravity in certain situations. They would not need to explain the orbittal mechanics of a planets, they are already explained reasonably well with gravity.
Can you point out the post in this thread where Sol Invictus agreed to this subject, I must have missed it. The only post I can see is where he quite rightly dismissed this as too vague and asked for a concrete example.
Showing that there is some visible similarity between two things does not constitute a theory.
post #369
"That might be OK. I want you to name a single specific effect or observation in astrophysics or cosmology which PC claims to explain in a way different from the mainstream."
The effect was plasma scalability, and I used Birkelands Terrella experiments to demonstrate this, along with a couple of other examples. The difference in explaining the effect between the two cosmologies was that plasma cosmologists think this experiment can be applied to the sun, whereas mainstream science says they were a co-incidence. I provided the relevant scaling laws, and showed his work.
He asked, forlornly, for something concrete.
I showed him concrete evidence that a charged up Terrella emanating a strong electric field can simulate nearly exactly many completely separate features of the sun. He could not refute Birkelands work, so he tried to change the topic.
How much more concrete can you get?
I would be asonished if Sol Invictus was unaware of yours and others claims. It's part and parcel of being a research scientist, in any field, to examine other claims. When the numbers don't add up, the claim is discarded.
What numbers dont add up? Or have you just presumed that? From what i've seen most plasma astrophysicists that write material relevant to plasma cosmology seem highly mathematically competent. I suggest you read some, and come back when you have found the fatal error that has alluded every single other person on this forum.
This site would make a good start, click on the 'publications' link to see some of the peer reviewed papers. There has not been one single refutation of plasma cosmology material put forward so far, peoples opinions, yes, but the plasma cosmology material has been left largely untouched.
Do you know any cosmic electrodynamics? have you read any PC material? have you studied plasma instabilities? plasma scaleability? plasma fusion? double layers? diocotron instabilities? Motion Induced Εlectric Fields? Faraday Disk Dynamo's? Biot-Savart force? Unipolar inductors? Birkeland currents? Magnetic Mirrors? Magnetohydrodynamics? Debye spheres? Critical ionization velocity (CIV)? Current sheets? Debye length? the Wolf effect?
Because i'm pretty sure that plasma cosmologists have, and i'm also pretty sure that they would be the best educated to inform us of their role in space.
Maybe i should have chosen one of them as the subject, but I personally find the work of Birkeland the most interesting, its just as shame the Sol seemed incapable of commenting on what caused the phenomenon observed on his Terrella, or their striking similartities to the sun.
These forces were not even known when current models were formulated, and it is astronomically improbable that these plasma effects would not greatly alter our understanding of how the universe functions. After all, we know now that >99% of the visible universe is matter in the plasma state (
refs here), so mainstream science is going to have to get used to plasma-astrophysicists applying these effects to the cosmos.
It is interesting that you use the phrase 'curse of knowledge'. It's most recent definition from business management means that highly knowledgeable people do not communicate their ideas efficiently. How does this apply to anything in this thread?
That is not what the curse of knowledge is, but it is a principle that business is using ever more nowadays, so i can see why you thought that.
The curse of knowledge is basically that the more knowledgeable you become about a specific subject, the harder it becomes for you to doubt what you have learned, and the harder it becomes to understand how people can not know this subject.
Its easy to demonstrate: Just pick a friend and try to explain the theory to them from scratch. You'll notice that the more technical knowledge the person has, the harder it will be to convince them of anything that is paradigm changing. This is called to curse of knowledge, or sometimes refferred to as a "hardening of the categories"
Charles Eisenstein eloquently explores this problem in a paper entitled “A State of Belief is a State of Being”. I’ll quote the abstract in full:
When students in a university classroom are invited to share anomalous stories, the “skeptical” tactics used to debunk them seem reasonable at first, but eventually reveal a worldview that is cynical, arrogant, dogmatic, and unfalsifiable. Because any new evidence can, with sufficient effort, be made to fit a preexisting paradigm, belief is seen to come down to choice. Moreover, like most belief systems, the worldview of the Skeptic has an emotional component, long ago identified by Bertrand Russell and others as a meaninglessness or despair inherent in classical science. The choice of belief therefore extends beyond a mere intellectual decision, to encompass one’s identity and relationship to the world. This approach conflicts with traditional scientific objectivity, which enjoins that belief be detached from such considerations. The relationship between observation and belief is more subtle than the traditional scientific view that the latter must follow dispassionately from the former. Indeed, the “experimenter effect” in psychology, as well as mounting problems with objectivity in mainstream science, suggest a need to reconceive science and the Scientific Method in light of the crumbling of the assumption of objectivity upon which it is based.
