Quantized Redshifts

[Tensor]

They argued that plasma cosmology can also account for observations but do not require anything beyond verified phenomona to do so. They may be talking crap, but I have spent a long time looking for proof that this is so, and the best I can find is the opposition saying 'our theories (which require 75% of the universe to be unknown matter/energy) are mathematically elegant'.

There is a lot more to it than that. "Our Theories" also make a lot of specific predictions and those predictions happen to match a lot of observations. Do they explain everything, no. But, "our" different theories also happen to match each other, when their domains of applicability overlap. And, dispite the claims of many of the different plasma groups, current astrophysics does take into account plasma physics.

The plasma cosmology people do a lot of comparisons of large scale effects with smaller scale effects and like to claim that the effects are the same, without providing much more proof than "it looks the same". There is a dearth of specific, testable quantifiable, predictions by the plasma groups.

That is not sufficient for me. Sorry.

Nor, should it be sufficient. The theories should stand or fall based on how well their predictions match observations. There have been several discussion on plasma cosmology here on the board. Do a search and you will find several. Also, compare the different quantified specific predictions of the current mainstreams astrophysics compared to those quantified specific predictions of the plasma astrophysics and see which one match observations the best. The problem, as you will find, will be finding quantified specific predictions for a lot of the plasma astrophysics.

[iantresman]

The plasma cosmology people do a lot of comparisons of large scale effects with smaller scale effects and like to claim that the effects are the same, without providing much more proof than "it looks the same". There is a dearth of specific, testable quantifiable, predictions by the plasma groups.

Rubbish. See also "Alfven's programme in solar system physics" (1992) by Stephen G. Brush.

Abstract. The research of Hannes Alfven and his colleagues on solar system physics is examined in order to determine whether scientists actually follow the policy of judging a theory by its ability to make successful predictions. Tests of seven predictions are considered: magnetic braking, MHD waves, field-aligned ('Birkeland') currents, critical ionization velocity and the rings of Uranus, jet streams, electrostatic double layers, and partial corotation ('2/3 effect'). The success or failure of these predictions was found to have essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfven's theories. It is inferred that the role of prediction as a means of evaluating scientific theories has been exaggerated.

Just looking at one of Peratt's papers, he writes: "These early simulations showed ordered magnetic field and neutral hydrogen distributions that had no observational support at the time. It is interesting to compare their predictions against current observations of spiral galaxies."[Ref], hardly just a visual comparison.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Extropia DaSilva]

I certainly cannot argue with the extraordinary precision with which general relativity has been found to match observations. Monitoring the orbits of one double neutron star system has confirmed Einstein's predicted gravitational waves (through a shortening of the stars' orbital period) to an astonishing 14 decimal places. GR's status as a theory worthy of the highest recognition was built on success like that.

Nevertheless plasma cosmology does sometimes appear to my naive eyes to come up with more plausible explanations. I would imagine that if plasma cosmologists posited the existence of an object that either violated the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, this would be held as definitive proof that the theory was catastrophically wrong. But it is actually their oponents who believe certain observations reveal 'black holes' and it is they who come up with theories concerning a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem.

Meanwhile, plasma cosmology simply notes that the supposed evidence matches the plasma focus but who cares what their practical observations say when we have such beautiful mathematics to play with?

Another thing that is very curious to me, is the way that plasma cosmology never gets so much as a mention in pop-science cosmology publications. They mention Big Bang and the Steady State Theory, sure, and explain why the latter ultimately failed. But plasma cosmology sites speak of 'tired light' theories that PREDICTED a CMB of 2.8 to 3.2 degrees K. On the other hand, before its true value was measured by Penzias and Wilson, the Big Bang theory predicted a value of 5K to 50K

If this site is historically accurate, it is plain to see that plasma cosmologists actually PREDICTED the temperature of the CMB to a greater accuracy than Big Bang cosmology. Of course, AFTER the CMB was measured, Big Bang theorists could tweak its many parameters to make it fit. Shouldn't this little detail get a mention?

Here is another example.

New Scientist ran an article about magnetic fields in space and commented 'there are tantalising hints that they run in plasma filaments across...vast tracts of space'. I would have thought that this would have been the perfect opportunity to at least mention Kristian Birkland and the currents named after him, that feature so heavily in plasma cosmology but.....No. NO mention of any plasma cosmology at all!

There really does seem to be some conserted effort to keep PC out of the picture. It cannot be because it is 'unscientific'. ID always gets a chapter devoted to it in 'evolution' books, and would you believe that a Horizon programme on the status of pluto as a planet (or not) gave the last word to an astrologer?

But when that same flagship science program ran a feature on dark matter, they explained that there were TWO possible answers. It does exist, or it does not and we need to modify Newtonian gravity. But there are NOT two, there are THREE! Why not mention the theory that says galaxies are plasma and subject to Maxwell's laws? Why not mention that plasma physicists can account for the rotation curves of galaxies without recourse to dark matter and physics-defying objects like black holes?

General Relativity is truly a triumph, but I understand it deals with gravity only. Is it any wonder that we require such exotic hypotheses as dark matter and dark energy in order to make theory fit observations of a universe that is 99% plasma and (so I understand) therefore shaped by electricity?

[Nereid]

I certainly cannot argue with the extraordinary precision with which general relativity has been found to match observations. Monitoring the orbits of one double neutron star system has confirmed Einstein's predicted gravitational waves (through a shortening of the stars' orbital period) to an astonishing 14 decimal places. GR's status as a theory worthy of the highest recognition was built on success like that.

Nevertheless plasma cosmology does sometimes appear to my naive eyes to come up with more plausible explanations. I would imagine that if plasma cosmologists posited the existence of an object that either violated the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, this would be held as definitive proof that the theory was catastrophically wrong.

Well, except for those 'plasma cosmologists' who add 'new physics', this kind of inconsistency cannot last for long ... we can take it for granted that any serious 'plasma cosmology' is consistent with both GR and QM.

But it is actually their oponents who believe certain observations reveal 'black holes' and it is they who come up with theories concerning a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem.

I have no idea what you are talking about here - could you clarify please?

Specifically, which of the many different (kinds of) observations that point to 'black holes' as the best explanation do you feel are too weak to support the conclusion ("here be black holes")?

And what "theories" concern "a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem"?

Meanwhile, plasma cosmology simply notes that the supposed evidence matches the plasma focus

Let's not skip over this quite so fast, shall we?

Perhaps the most serious criticism of 'plasma cosmology' is just what you have (apparently) lightly passed over here - the ability of any such 'cosmology' to match the relevant good observational results ... quantitatively.

Since you seem to have made this a claim, under the ATM rules, I am going to ask you, specifically and explicitly, to provide support for this claim.

but who cares what their practical observations say when we have such beautiful mathematics to play with?

Another thing that is very curious to me, is the way that plasma cosmology never gets so much as a mention in pop-science cosmology publications. They mention Big Bang and the Steady State Theory, sure, and explain why the latter ultimately failed.

Perhaps that's because this particular kind of cosmology, as a science, never even got to first base?

In any case, the 'sins' of "pop-science cosmology publications" are many indeed - starting with why the mainstream concordance cosmology is referred to as "Big Bang" (when of course it's nothing of the sort - it's a perjorative term used by Hoyle (a father of the Steady State theory)!

But plasma cosmology sites speak of 'tired light' theories that PREDICTED a CMB of 2.8 to 3.2 degrees K.

Now that's a first (for me)!

Can you provide a reference? A reference that is a paper in a peer-reviewed journal (whose scope includes cosmology)?

On the other hand, before its true value was measured by Penzias and Wilson, the Big Bang theory predicted a value of 5K to 50K

If this site is historically accurate, it is plain to see that plasma cosmologists actually PREDICTED the temperature of the CMB to a greater accuracy than Big Bang cosmology.

Which of course begs the question of what, in modern astronomy and cosmology, are the best tests of the strength (or otherwise) of a theory?

For example, I could get together with a dozen or so of my friends and make some 'predictions' of some as yet unobserved phenomenon. We could, with the right analysis, come up with a range of predictions that almost certainly includes what - in future - will be observed. And, since each of the dozen of us published 'independently', at least one of us will look, in hindsight, to have been uncannily prescient.

But is that science?

Of course, AFTER the CMB was measured, Big Bang theorists could tweak its many parameters to make it fit. Shouldn't this little detail get a mention?

Here is another example.

New Scientist ran an article about magnetic fields in space and commented 'there are tantalising hints that they run in plasma filaments across...vast tracts of space'. I would have thought that this would have been the perfect opportunity to at least mention Kristian Birkland and the currents named after him, that feature so heavily in plasma cosmology but.....No. NO mention of any plasma cosmology at all!

So your beef is with the way mass circulation publications write their stories?

Or is it with your claim that there is some connection between Birkland (sic) current and what the New Scientist article was about?

If the latter, then perhaps you could show the connection - in terms of theory - between Birkeland currents and the reported observations?

There really does seem to be some conserted effort to keep PC out of the picture. It cannot be because it is 'unscientific'. ID always gets a chapter devoted to it in 'evolution' books, and would you believe that a Horizon programme on the status of pluto as a planet (or not) gave the last word to an astrologer?

So this really is more about the 'air-time' PC gets, not about how well it can account for the relevant astronomical observations!

But when that same flagship science program ran a feature on dark matter, they explained that there were TWO possible answers. It does exist, or it does not and we need to modify Newtonian gravity. But there are NOT two, there are THREE! Why not mention the theory that says galaxies are plasma and subject to Maxwell's laws? Why not mention that plasma physicists can account for the rotation curves of galaxies without recourse to dark matter and physics-defying objects like black holes?

Perhaps because this plasma physicist's account is seriously deficient in a great many other respects? For example, IIRC, this so-called account has the spiral galaxies bereft of central bulges and nuclei - despite the fact that they are among the most prominent features of spirals!

(you can find discussion of this very case, in the >2000 post-long EU thread, right here in the ATM section of BAUT).

General Relativity is truly a triumph, but I understand it deals with gravity only. Is it any wonder that we require such exotic hypotheses as dark matter and dark energy in order to make theory fit observations of a universe that is 99% plasma and (so I understand) therefore shaped by electricity?

Indeed.

And if you would like to present a 'plasma cosmology' account (quantitative, of course) of any one of the following, then other BAUT members may judge for themselves just how well this idea actually fits the solid observational data:

* Olbers' paradox
* large-scale structure of the universe
* abundance of light nuclides (¹H, ²H, ³He, ⁴He, ...)
* the CMB - near-perfect BB spectrum, dipole (including magnitude), angular power spectrum, polarisation, ...

[Extropia DaSilva]

Hey thanks for your reply. I have to admit, it was pretty much what I feared I would encounter on this forum: Requests for information that requires a greater understanding of this particular field of science than I possess.

So I am afraid I won't be able to answer all of your questions, and those I do will probably not be answered satisfactorily.

"But it is actually their oponents who believe certain observations reveal 'black holes' and it is they who come up with theories concerning a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem".

'I have no idea what you are talking about here - could you clarify please?'

Well, as I understand it, any scenario in which information falls into a black hole never to be seen again is prohibited by quantum physics, but any scenario where information escapes from a black hole requires a violation of relativity.

The idea I referred to is the work of a physicist named Juan Maldacena. It is similar to the holographic universe theories posited by the likes of Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft. Malcadena's proposal is that a black hole (and everything else) has an alter ego existing on the boundary of the universe. Black hole evaporation corresponds to quantum particles interacting on this boundary. No information loss can occurr in a swarm of ordinary particles, and so there can be no information loss in a black hole.

'Specifically, which of the many different (kinds of) observations that point to 'black holes' as the best explanation do you feel are too weak to support the conclusion ("here be black holes")?'

Many? That is news to me. I was aware only of the outpourings of xrays from the centre of active galaxies (aka plasma focus) and stars orbiting seemingly empty patches of space (sometimes so close to the imagined black hole that they aught to have been pulled in). Perhaps you could explain what other supporting evidence there is?


'Perhaps the most serious criticism of 'plasma cosmology' is just what you have (apparently) lightly passed over here - the ability of any such 'cosmology' to match the relevant good observational results ... quantitatively.

Since you seem to have made this a claim, under the ATM rules, I am going to ask you, specifically and explicitly, to provide support for this claim'.

Here you highlight my main concern with the validity of EU (which is even more 'fringe' than PC, I understand). If I read an essay concerning some new discovery made by inflationary cosmology that is written in a language the layperson can understand, I can (should I wish) very quickly track down more technical papers that give the quantitive data required to really establish the worthiness of said discovery. But just try locating the hard data that backs up the claims made at Thunderbolts et al!

So I will play fair and suggest you all dismiss this claim as unsubstantiated. But, the thing is, every OTHER failed theory comes with an explanation as to WHY it failed which is a bit more detailed than 'not substantiated enough'. And, let's face it: Every theory was 'not substantiated enough' at some point in its life! I would be much happier with an explanation that details the catastrophic error of PC which shows it to be as much in error as geocentrism, the steady state theory, etc etc.

'So this really is more about the 'air-time' PC gets, not about how well it can account for the relevant astronomical observations!'

But why IS this hypothesis (I guess we cannot call it a theory if your 'lack of quantitive data' argument is correct) something that must NOT be mentioned even when it would seem that an article has touched upon a subject that is directly relevant. I admit I may have comitted a Thunderbolt's-style pattern-recognition trick, but surely it is not TOO silly to suppose there just might be a connection between 'plasma filaments across...vast tracts of space' and the transformation of energetic, high temperature material into current-carrying bundles that is characteristic of plasma at any scale?

'And if you would like to present a 'plasma cosmology' account (quantitative, of course) of any one of the following, then other BAUT members may judge for themselves just how well this idea actually fits the solid observational data:

* Olbers' paradox
* large-scale structure of the universe
* abundance of light nuclides (1H, 2H, 3He, 4He, ...)
* the CMB - near-perfect BB spectrum, dipole (including magnitude), angular power spectrum, polarisation, ...'

Can I PERSONALLY solve all these puzzles in accordance with plasma cosmology? No I cannot. But then, if you were to ask me to sit down and PERSONALLY arrive at a theory that provides a quantum physical description of gravity I could not do that, either. Of course, my PERSONAL lack of ability may not necessarily indicate that no such solutions exist.

[Extropia DaSilva]

Okiedokie.

So I have been searching this forum for the thread that takes all plasma cosmology/EU ideas and neatly debunks them.

So far, no luck.

I HAVE though, found lots of threads in which some hapless soul suggests it is an idea that is not entirely worthless, receives howls of laughter from the rest of the community and who finds him/herself on the receiving end of a banning from The Moderator.

Any links to this PROPPER debate? I grow tired of reading posts that avoid answering tough questions (on both sides)

[Nereid]

Okiedokie.

So I have been searching this forum for the thread that takes all plasma cosmology/EU ideas and neatly debunks them.

So far, no luck.

And you won't find any such thread

That's not the way this ATM section works.

To quote from the BAUT rules:

13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

Note the default order:
1) BAUT member presents an ATM idea
2) Other BAUT members challenge that idea, as presented (or ask questions about it)
3) The BAUT member who presented it (or any other BAUT member) defends the idea, meets the challenges, answers the questions
4) the cycle repeats.

If there is no presentation (of an ATM idea), there is no 'debunking'.

Further, 'debunking' may well consist of nothing more than a number of questions which go to the heart of the ATM idea, and which remain unanswered (this is a particularly common occurance, across all ATM ideas).

I HAVE though, found lots of threads in which some hapless soul suggests it is an idea that is not entirely worthless, receives howls of laughter from the rest of the community and who finds him/herself on the receiving end of a banning from The Moderator.

(my bold)

That's a very strong claim ... can you validate it?

Any links to this PROPPER debate? I grow tired of reading posts that avoid answering tough questions (on both sides)

And what, in your view, constitutes a "PROPPER debate"?

Let me give you three links, for your consideration:

How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories?

How good are the best alternative cosmologies, in their own terms?

How good are the best alternatives to modern astrophysics theories?

I am curious to know what you think is the reason why no BAUT member chose to present 'plasma cosmology', in any of those threads.

I am also curious to know in what way you feel the scope of each thread prevents - explicitly or implicitly - any BAUT member from presenting a strong case for 'plasma cosmology'.

[Extropia DaSilva]

Well it turns out that this is a case of look (a little harder) before you leap, because quite soon after I posted my comment I did track down a thread that offered just the sort of debate I was searching for.

But seeing as you asked what I consider to be a propper debate, I may as well tell you. For me, a PROPPER debate is when person/group A present what they take to be the facts, and then person/group B attempt to show that the facts are in error in some sense. Perchance, group A will then demonstrate that it is in fact group B who do not understand the facts and that no error exists. This in no way establishes the absolute truth of group A's theory since group B may return with a different objection that group A can either find to be in error or admit defeat.

While no real ending may be reached, an individual may reach a conclusion based on how well either group use the FACTS to defend their position. But beware confirmational bias!

What I would rather be left OUT of debates are: Questioning the authority of a person defending a theory. Demonstrate their relative ignorance by exposing flaws in their arguments, don't say 'Puh! This chap does not possess a PhD so everything he says is bunk!' (such statements conveniently ignore the amount of 'truths' held by scientists of great repute, later proven to be wrong. See: The Sun is made of iron). And I would rather the reader be left to make up their own minds as to what is good science and what is not. It is a cheap trick to label the opposition 'pseudoscientists'. Their views may well BE pseudoscientific but let a fair reading of all the FACTS be the judge. Enough of this namecalling!

The thread containing the EU/mainstream debate is a long one and I am far from through reading it. So far, though, the case FOR inflationary cosmology seems to read like this:

1: Far more well-qualified scientists accept this as our best understanding of the universe than any rival theory.

2: The opposition has not demonstrated sufficient mathematical skill to quantitively proove the worthiness of their hypothesis.

3: No electron drift has been detected by Ulyssees. This debunks ES.

All very compelling, but really all these arguments could be used by Tycho Brae to debunk MY conviction that the Earth orbits the Sun. Tycho would no doubt point out that all men of great authority hold HIS view (that it is the SUN that orbits the EARTH) to be self-evident and MINE to be heresy. He would ask me if I understood the extremely complex geometry required to chart the movement of the planets in accordance with the geocentric view (I am rather poorly educated in this branch of mathematics). He would claim the Earth cannot be in motion because no test ever conducted revealed this to be the case and would probably dismiss my insistance that Gallilean relativity predicts a state of constant motion to be equivilent to a state of rest as all too convenient.

All very compelling?

[Cougar]

Nevertheless plasma cosmology does sometimes appear to my naive eyes to come up with more plausible explanations. I would imagine that if plasma cosmologists posited the existence of an object that either violated the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, this would be held as definitive proof that the theory was catastrophically wrong. But it is actually their oponents who believe certain observations reveal 'black holes' and it is they who come up with theories concerning a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem.

It seems very misleading - I might even say propagandistic - to couple the fairly well established "black hole theory" with the much more speculative and so far strictly mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions. No scientist claims that there are not unsolved problems, but to point this out is surely no argument that provides any support for some alternative "theory." We have yet to detect any extra dimensions, but the evidence for black holes has become inescapable.

Meanwhile, plasma cosmology simply notes that the supposed evidence matches the plasma focus...

As I'm sure you know, mainstream astrophysicists are well aware that accreting matter onto the "central engine" of a quasar, for example, generates hugely powerful magnetic fields and beams that accelerate infalling gases to near the speed of light, viewed as radio lobes. Perhaps you could explain how renaming such a phenomenon and making rather vague, qualitative claims about it supports any effort to refocus all of cosmology to one man's particular bias?

[Extropia DaSilva]

'It seems very misleading - I might even say propagandistic - to couple the fairly well established "black hole theory" with the much more speculative and so far strictly mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions.

It is equally inescapable that black holes lead inexorably to either a violation of quantum physics (losing information about the quantum state of an object falling into a black hole is prohibited) OR a violation of relativity (since any scenario in which information escapes from a black hole requires faster-than-light escape velocities). This fact has lead to proponents of black hole theory to construct mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way and to then insist that this must be how the universe IS.

My point was that if PC was found to be in violation of either GR or QP this would be enough to utterly falsify it and any attempt to 'fix' the theory with precisely the sort of 'mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions' the mainstream use in these situations would be seen as the worst kind of science fraud. And yet the mainstream has gotten away with this for years!

'As I'm sure you know, mainstream astrophysicists are well aware that accreting matter onto the "central engine" of a quasar, for example, generates hugely powerful magnetic fields and beams that accelerate infalling gases to near the speed of light, viewed as radio lobes. Perhaps you could explain how renaming such a phenomenon and making rather vague, qualitative claims about it supports any effort to refocus all of cosmology to one man's particular bias?'

Ah ok I might have made a mistake here. Is this what Peratt refers to with reference to Cygnus A at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...ogyPeratt.pdf?

BTW why would it have to be ALL of cosmology that refocuses its attention? I am pretty sure that while we were searching for the planet Vulcan (required to explain why Mercury's orbit deviated from the path predicted by the highly succesful Newtonian laws of gravity) the entire establishment was NOT refocused on writing a new law of gravity.

It was one bloke in a Swiss patent office, wasn't it?

[Nereid]

Well it turns out that this is a case of look (a little harder) before you leap, because quite soon after I posted my comment I did track down a thread that offered just the sort of debate I was searching for.

But seeing as you asked what I consider to be a propper debate, I may as well tell you. For me, a PROPPER debate is when person/group A present what they take to be the facts, and then person/group B attempt to show that the facts are in error in some sense. Perchance, group A will then demonstrate that it is in fact group B who do not understand the facts and that no error exists. This in no way establishes the absolute truth of group A's theory since group B may return with a different objection that group A can either find to be in error or admit defeat.

While no real ending may be reached, an individual may reach a conclusion based on how well either group use the FACTS to defend their position. But beware confirmational bias!

And as you no doubt have already discovered, this ATM section of BAUT is not a forum for any 'proper debate' as you have defined it.

You may not have yet discovered that mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science is (generally) subject to scrutiny far, far more intense than anything you will find here in BAUT's ATM section.

Perhaps you have a Ph.D. and remember (fondly or otherwise) the rigour of the testing that your thesis was subject to?

Perhaps you have written a paper for ApJ and remember (fondly or otherwise) the (anonymous) comments of the reviewers?

If not, no matter; a fairly quick read of a random selection of papers in ApJ (or other, relevant, peer-reviewed journal in the fields within BAUT's scope) should give you an idea at least of the minimum degree to which maths, numbers, equations and stuff (i.e. quantitative analyses, presentations, etc) are required.

What I would rather be left OUT of debates are: Questioning the authority of a person defending a theory.

Agreed.

Demonstrate their relative ignorance by exposing flaws in their arguments, don't say 'Puh! This chap does not possess a PhD so everything he says is bunk!' (such statements conveniently ignore the amount of 'truths' held by scientists of great repute, later proven to be wrong. See: The Sun is made of iron).

You've lost me here - can you clarify please?

And I would rather the reader be left to make up their own minds as to what is good science and what is not. It is a cheap trick to label the opposition 'pseudoscientists'. Their views may well BE pseudoscientific but let a fair reading of all the FACTS be the judge. Enough of this namecalling!

(Qualified agreement).

If it can be convincingly demonstrated that the approach, methods, and techniques of a proponent of an ATM idea are seriously flawed, with respect to generally accepted principles of the modern sciences of astrophysics, cosmology, and space science, yet the proponent refuses to even acknowledge such flaws, then isn't it reasonable to summarise that proponent's approach as pseudoscience?

The thread containing the EU/mainstream debate is a long one and I am far from through reading it. So far, though, the case FOR inflationary cosmology seems to read like this:

1: Far more well-qualified scientists accept this as our best understanding of the universe than any rival theory.

2: The opposition has not demonstrated sufficient mathematical skill to quantitively proove the worthiness of their hypothesis.

3: No electron drift has been detected by Ulyssees. This debunks ES.

I don't know where you are up to, so I am unable to make any pertinent comments.

However, in terms of the overall thread, I think this is a seriously flawed summary.

Let's see how you revise your summary once you've read the whole thread.

All very compelling, but really all these arguments could be used by Tycho Brae to debunk MY conviction that the Earth orbits the Sun. Tycho would no doubt point out that all men of great authority hold HIS view (that it is the SUN that orbits the EARTH) to be self-evident and MINE to be heresy. He would ask me if I understood the extremely complex geometry required to chart the movement of the planets in accordance with the geocentric view (I am rather poorly educated in this branch of mathematics). He would claim the Earth cannot be in motion because no test ever conducted revealed this to be the case and would probably dismiss my insistance that Gallilean relativity predicts a state of constant motion to be equivilent to a state of rest as all too convenient.

To me, this misses the most important aspect, namely the extent to which the EU ideas can match, quantitatively, relevant, good, observational and experimental results.

While I don't fully understand the foil you have sketched, if it were indeed the case that a) the alternative was internally consistent, b) the alternative was consistent with other, well-established theories, where their domains of applicability overlap, and (above all) c) the alternative could account for, quantitatively, all relevant, good experimental and observational results (within the domain of applicability of that alternative), then surely the alternative could be said to be a pretty solid theory, couldn't it

All very compelling?

I'm mostly concerned about an implication - which I am also quick to say may be unwarranted; namely that it is not necessary for an EU proponent to defend any of their EU ideas quantitatively, either in terms of showing derivations from the core (plasma) theory, or in terms of matching good observational results.

If this non-quantitative component of any 'proper debate', in your view, is acceptable, then I'd say we have a deeper issue - what constitutes science?

[Nereid]

11,008 abstracts, from the Astronomy part of ADS (Astrophysics Data System, "a NASA-funded project which maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 5.0 million records: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and ArXiv e-prints"), published between 1990 and 2005 on MHD (the plasma theory for which Alfvén was (largely) awarded his Nobel Prize in 1970).

If plasma theory were neglected or (worse) ignored by mainstream astronomers, who wrote those >11k papers?

[Nereid]

'It seems very misleading - I might even say propagandistic - to couple the fairly well established "black hole theory" with the much more speculative and so far strictly mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions.

It is equally inescapable that black holes lead inexorably to either a violation of quantum physics (losing information about the quantum state of an object falling into a black hole is prohibited) OR a violation of relativity (since any scenario in which information escapes from a black hole requires faster-than-light escape velocities). This fact has lead to proponents of black hole theory to construct mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way and to then insist that this must be how the universe IS.

My point was that if PC was found to be in violation of either GR or QP this would be enough to utterly falsify it and any attempt to 'fix' the theory with precisely the sort of 'mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions' the mainstream use in these situations would be seen as the worst kind of science fraud. And yet the mainstream has gotten away with this for years!

Well, since no proponent of "PC" has so done, then this is a somewhat empty point, don't you think?

More generally, this comment seems to neglect a rather important aspect, of any "mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way", or "PC" - the ability to show consistency with relevant observational and experimental results.

One thing that you can say for sure about any of the "mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way" (except for those which are explicitly 'work in progress') is that they take great pains to show they are fully consistent with GR and QM in the appropriate limits. Or, if you prefer, wrt any experimental or observation done to date, these exotic creations are as consistent as GR or QM.

What seems to be missing from "PC" is a comparable match (and, if I may say so, a genuine acknowledgement by PC proponents that such a match is extremely important).

'As I'm sure you know, mainstream astrophysicists are well aware that accreting matter onto the "central engine" of a quasar, for example, generates hugely powerful magnetic fields and beams that accelerate infalling gases to near the speed of light, viewed as radio lobes. Perhaps you could explain how renaming such a phenomenon and making rather vague, qualitative claims about it supports any effort to refocus all of cosmology to one man's particular bias?'

Ah ok I might have made a mistake here. Is this what Peratt refers to with reference to Cygnus A at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...ogyPeratt.pdf?

I doubt it.

None of the things in Perratt's paper resembles a quasar, in the sense of Cougar's post - Cougar was referring to the central engine in quasars, an accertion disk surrounding a black hole, together with a pair of jets.

The "radio lobes" in this Perratt document are, pace Perratt, very poorly accounted for by his "supercomputer simulations of interactions between a pair of galaxy-size plasma filaments", if only because there is far, far more observational data than the mere "shapes" which Perratt mentions (and we will pass over his so-called 'spirals', which lack central bulges and nuclei, without further comment).

BTW why would it have to be ALL of cosmology that refocuses its attention? I am pretty sure that while we were searching for the planet Vulcan (required to explain why Mercury's orbit deviated from the path predicted by the highly succesful Newtonian laws of gravity) the entire establishment was NOT refocused on writing a new law of gravity.

It was one bloke in a Swiss patent office, wasn't it?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here - can you clarify please?

Any plasma cosmologist is free to develop the theory of plasma cosmology in any way she sees fit.

[Thanatos]

I doubt Extropia DaSilva understands the questions he/she has asked. Looks like a cut-and-paste mish mash to me.

[Extropia DaSilva]

Well, Thanatos is partially correct. I understand neither plasma cosmology nor it's more accepted alternatives to be considered a voice of authority but rest assured that I do endeavour to understand as far as I am able. Inevitably, given that my interpretations of the 'truth' is always based on imperfect knowledge of an incomplete set of facts, I may well post comments that the senior members will quickly see are flawed.

I trust they will set me straight on such matters, rather than simply tell me there is something I do not understand. I am already well aware that there is still much I am ignorant about.

'Demonstrate their relative ignorance by exposing flaws in their arguments, don't say 'Puh! This chap does not possess a PhD so everything he says is bunk!' (such statements conveniently ignore the amount of 'truths' held by scientists of great repute, later proven to be wrong. See: The Sun is made of iron).

You've lost me here - can you clarify please?'

Sure.

It seems to me that when a person seeks to debunk the opposing theories held by another person who is deemed 'not suitably qualified', the implication is that the opinion of a person who IS suitably qualified can be trusted. But if we look at examples from the past, we find situations where the most respected scientists in the relevant fields held fast to truths that are now known to be rubbish. The 'iron sun' refers to the old story of Cynthia Payne who dared to suggest the sun was 90% hydrogen at a time when the community agreed it was 66% iron. Payne's view was clearly fringe at the time and roundly dismisssed, but has since become the accepted fact for the astrophysics community.

It should be pointed out, in all fairness, that Payne's theory was eventually accepted thanks to the immense amount of quantitive analysis that she and independent teams brought to bare on the 'hydrogen' theory. I do not believe Wal Thornhill (for example) has ever provided anything close to such a compelling set of data with which to back up his hypothesis.

'If it can be convincingly demonstrated that the approach, methods, and techniques of a proponent of an ATM idea are seriously flawed, with respect to generally accepted principles of the modern sciences of astrophysics, cosmology, and space science, yet the proponent refuses to even acknowledge such flaws, then isn't it reasonable to summarise that proponent's approach as pseudoscience?'

Good point.

'11,008 abstracts, from the Astronomy part of ADS (Astrophysics Data System, "a NASA-funded project which maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 5.0 million records: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and ArXiv e-prints"), published between 1990 and 2005 on MHD (the plasma theory for which Alfvén was (largely) awarded his Nobel Prize in 1970).

If plasma theory were neglected or (worse) ignored by mainstream astronomers, who wrote those >11k papers?'

Nice This is unarguable proof that there is no such conspiracy of silence. I stand corrected.

'BTW why would it have to be ALL of cosmology that refocuses its attention? I am pretty sure that while we were searching for the planet Vulcan (required to explain why Mercury's orbit deviated from the path predicted by the highly succesful Newtonian laws of gravity) the entire establishment was NOT refocused on writing a new law of gravity.

It was one bloke in a Swiss patent office, wasn't it?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here - can you clarify please?

Any plasma cosmologist is free to develop the theory of plasma cosmology in any way she sees fit.'

This was simply written to point out that the previous poster ('Couger') was perhaps being a bit 'overkill' by claiming I advocate 'effort to refocus all of cosmology to one man's particular bias'. Of course, the main focus of attention should be centred on the community that provide the requisite work needed to really establish a scientific theory and it is extremely difficult to prove that the PC/EU community have been doing this in any real sense. Having said that, though, I reserve the right to at least glance in that direction every now and then just in case the next Einstein has risen in the EU community.

[iantresman]

11,008 abstracts, from the Astronomy part of ADS (Astrophysics Data System, "a NASA-funded project which maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 5.0 million records: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and ArXiv e-prints"), published between 1990 and 2005 on MHD (the plasma theory for which Alfvén was (largely) awarded his Nobel Prize in 1970).

If plasma theory were neglected or (worse) ignored by mainstream astronomers, who wrote those >11k papers?

Stephen G. Brush, a professor in the Department of History and the Institute for Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland, investigated the influence of Alfvén's work in a paper "Alfvén’s Programme in Solar System Physics" (1992). He noted (fair use quote):

I have noted in several instances above, even when they accept Alfvén's ideas other scientists tend to ascribe them not to Alfvén but to someone else." [..]

"According to many scientists with whom I have discussed this situation, a major reason for ignoring Alfvén or resisting his ideas is his abrasive style in dealing with other scientists; he frequently denounces those who favor other approaches or ignores their work just as his own has been ignored in the past." [..]

"I have found omissions of Alfvén citations in many papers published by those who have given him ample credit on other occasions. Possibly there is a (subconscious?) fear that by mentioning Alfvén's name one will bring upon oneself a little of the hostility that he inspires." [..]

"By Popperian criteria his theories should have acquired credit by their successful predictions, and by Lakatosian standards his programme should be considered “progressive.” Yet most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfvén credit for his achievements although many of his basic concepts are now accepted." [..]

"Nevertheless, the continuing resistance to Alfvén's work is based on a widely held opinion that his predictions are not derived from a plausible physical theory (i.e., a theory that conforms to the dominant paradigm)."

So while magnetohydrodynamics may indeed be accepted by scientists, at least one science historian feels that there appears to be resistance against some of Alfvén's work, and failure to give credit, where credit is due.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[tusenfem]

I would imagine that if plasma cosmologists posited the existence of an object that either violated the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, this would be held as definitive proof that the theory was catastrophically wrong.

Just positing the existence of an object that violates GR and QM does not do a thing. You just use an expensive word for "to propose as an explanation" or "suggest." You have to show evidence too, and up until now, no such evidence exists to my knowledge.

Well, Thanatos is partially correct. I understand neither plasma cosmology nor it's more accepted alternatives to be considered a voice of authority but rest assured that I do endeavour to understand as far as I am able. Inevitably, given that my interpretations of the 'truth' is always based on imperfect knowledge of an incomplete set of facts, I may well post comments that the senior members will quickly see are flawed.

So, you don't understand, but you feel sure that GR and QM are incorrect. I can never quite fathom these attitudes. It is like me (a man) saying that: "I have no idea about breast cancer by women, but I am sure that mammographies are useless and a waste of money"

[Extropia DaSilva]

'I don't know where you are up to, so I am unable to make any pertinent comments.

However, in terms of the overall thread, I think this is a seriously flawed summary.

Let's see how you revise your summary once you've read the whole thread.'

Oh dear, being wrong seems to be a regular ocurrance for me on this forum

Yes I have read more and yes my initial post WAS a seriously flawed summery. I still have not read the post in its entireity but I do know that I currently possess NO ES literature that would count as a suitable proof that Thompson's criticisms are in error. As I have not read all the posts I cannot be certain that no other person has brought such proof to bear on the subject, but right now I for one have no choice but to consider ES bunk.

[iantresman]

So, you don't understand, but you feel sure that GR and QM are incorrect. I can never quite fathom these attitudes. It is like me (a man) saying that: "I have no idea about breast cancer by women, but I am sure that mammographies are useless and a waste of money"

A slight digression in direct response. Is this the same as:

• An individual who says "I don't understand how homeopathy works, but I feel sure that it is correct", and, "I don't understand how gravity works, but I feel sure that it is incorrect"
  
• A scientist who says "I don't understand how homeopathy works, but I feel sure that it is incorrect", and "I don't understand how gravity works, but I feel sure that it is correct"

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Extropia DaSilva]

'So, you don't understand, but you feel sure that GR and QM are incorrect. I can never quite fathom these attitudes.'

I will sum up my position as best I can. I do not believe that ANY theory is COMPLETELY wrong or COMPLETELY right. Or, rather, MY understanding of any theory is never complete enough to hold an absolute position on its validity. If you were to say 'you have some doubt (maybe as small as the planck length) that GR and QM might be wrong in some way', that would possibly be closer to my position. Another way to express it may be to say I have no choice but to accept the MATHEMATICS of GR and QM are correct but do consider the possibility that our interpretation of these maths into visual pictures of warps and black holes and dead/alive cats may not be the best metaphore.

I tend to lean away/toward competing theories depending on what new/different interpreration to the facts I come across, rather than 'believe' in the absolute truth of one theory.

I understand that it must be frustrating when novices like myself post comments that more learned people would probably be embarassed to put their name to. Perhaps you should take the course of action of ignoring any and all posts attributed to me? No need to waste your time trying to improve MY ignorance

[Extropia DaSilva]

Having reflected on it somewhat, I now think my closing paragraph in the previous post was sarcastic and uncalled for.

Sorry, tusenfem!

[tusenfem]

I had no problem with your last paragraph, and if I can "improve your ignorance" then why not. But reading the messages in the various threads it gets rather difficult to see where you are coming from. Somehow you now seem to have rejected (part of) EU.

[Thanatos]

Having reflected on it somewhat, I now think my closing paragraph in the previous post was sarcastic and uncalled for.

Sorry, tusenfem!

I now respect your opinions and believe we can honestly discuss the issues you raise. Ignore the nonsense and examine the substance.

[Extropia DaSilva]

'reading the messages in the various threads it gets rather difficult to see where you are coming from. Somehow you now seem to have rejected (part of) EU.'

But should you believe everything you read about a subject? Maybe you accept that black holes exist but does that mean you have to accept that these allow for time travel or gateways to parallel universes or immensely powerful computers or sources of energies for type III civilizations?

And I have this principle I adhere to which is: 'what I hold to be true is based on insufficient understanding of incomplete knowledge'. There is always a chance if discovering that I have been misreading the information I have, or that a missing piece will force a rethink.

In the case of EU, having read Tim Thompson's papers debunking ES and comparing it with Thornhill's defence I feel I have no choice but to disregard it as a theory. I have sent quite a few emails to Thornhill asking if various puzzling observations of star activity are solvable under the ES model and he demonstrates that it is. Sort of. By which I mean he provides a simple explanation but if you try to go deeper and seek out the papers that explore this hypothesis with full scientific rigour...nothing.

Contrast this with Thompson's step-by-step debunking of the model, with each piece of his argument backed up with references to hard scientific data.

And yet some aspects of the model seem curiously predictive. one example is that Thornhill provided quallitative predictions of what we should expect to see from the Deep Impact mission. His predictions largely bore fruit while the conventional "dirty snowball" image of a comet was clearly wrong. How does a ball of ice as small as a comet attract enough impact bodies to scar its surface with craters? Why are these features not lost when the comet nears the sun and its surface melts? He also predicted that the impact itself would generate more energy than expected and, yes, a suprisingly large flash resulted from the impact. Other examples would be the craters of the Moon (some of which are hard to explain from the 'impact' perspective yet diagnostic of electric arc scarring) and the 'volcanoes' of Io.

Is it not possible that some aspect of the EU model is a necessary inclusion in any propper cosmological/astrophysical theory? No matter how tiny a part that may be?

[Extropia DaSilva]

'I now respect your opinions and believe we can honestly discuss the issues you raise. Ignore the nonsense and examine the substance.'

As honesty is valued I may as well come clean and explain why the ES model appealed to me. I have very little mathematical ability but have a deep fascination with science. Unfortunately you cannot perform propper science without a good grasp of mathematics and I am under no illusion that I will ever 'know' QM and GR as well as the Kakus, Whittens and Feynmans of the world.

Now what ES APPEARED to do was to return science to the principles of observations and practical experiment. Gone were the days of abstract equations revealing profound thruths about some aspect of reality (of which us lesser mortals would have to make do with analogies), to be replaced with quallitiative predictions that clearly demonstrated the link between lab experiment and observations.

My mind is not very good at mathematics but it is extremely good at pattern recognition. In this area, even our most super of supercomputers is left trailing far behind! (This is not a boast, everybody's brain far outcompetes current computers in the area of pattern recognition). So you can imagine that I found the ES method with its emphasis on qualitative predictions more appealing.

But facts are facts and QUALITATIVE predictions are NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I simply cannot argue with Thompson on this point. So I will probably never be a 'propper' physicist but I CAN adhere to scientific principles and declare my past convictions of the truth of ES to have been in error, on the basis of falsifying arguments and data.

[Nereid]

Stephen G. Brush, a professor in the Department of History and the Institute for Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland, investigated the influence of Alfvén's work in a paper "Alfvén’s Programme in Solar System Physics" (1992). He noted (fair use quote):

I have noted in several instances above, even when they accept Alfvén's ideas other scientists tend to ascribe them not to Alfvén but to someone else." [..]

"According to many scientists with whom I have discussed this situation, a major reason for ignoring Alfvén or resisting his ideas is his abrasive style in dealing with other scientists; he frequently denounces those who favor other approaches or ignores their work just as his own has been ignored in the past." [..]

"I have found omissions of Alfvén citations in many papers published by those who have given him ample credit on other occasions. Possibly there is a (subconscious?) fear that by mentioning Alfvén's name one will bring upon oneself a little of the hostility that he inspires." [..]

"By Popperian criteria his theories should have acquired credit by their successful predictions, and by Lakatosian standards his programme should be considered “progressive.” Yet most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfvén credit for his achievements although many of his basic concepts are now accepted." [..]

"Nevertheless, the continuing resistance to Alfvén's work is based on a widely held opinion that his predictions are not derived from a plausible physical theory (i.e., a theory that conforms to the dominant paradigm)."

So while magnetohydrodynamics may indeed be accepted by scientists, at least one science historian feels that there appears to be resistance against some of Alfvén's work, and failure to give credit, where credit is due.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

I'm not quite sure how this is relevant, to this thread; could you please clarify iantresman?

The father of MHD is Alfvén (to the extent that this summary can be accurate) - no contest.

MHD is a standard part of today's plasma physics, taught in a great many university courses, and one (important) aspect of modern astrophysics - no contest.

Does Alfvén (always) get (full) credit for (all) the (plasma) work he did? You have presented a case that he may not have.

No doubt this is a far from unique story, in the history of science, and no doubt there are many stories of the reverse kind (someone's name is associated with a major advance that they had but a relatively minor role in).

Is there something more you are presenting?

[iantresman]

I'm not quite sure how this is relevant, to this thread; could you please clarify iantresman?

You commented on whether ".. plasma theory were neglected or (worse) ignored", and I provided a description that suggests that "many scientists .. [were] ignoring Alfvén or resisting his ideas".

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Nereid]

You commented on whether ".. plasma theory were neglected or (worse) ignored", and I provided a description that suggests that "many scientists .. [were] ignoring Alfvén or resisting his ideas".

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Thanks for the clarification.

Just as long as MHD (the scientific theory) isn't being ignored (or resisted).