• 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.

Another Problem With Big Bang?

BAC, Ihave found many web sites that talk about Birkeland currents, however the evidence that thay present for thier existance in inter and intra galactic space usually seems to involve the term "extrapolation from ionosphere/magnetospere". This is then just speculative projection of earth based events onto the desired object. I am having a hard time finding papares that discuss the evidence for these inter and intra galactic Birkeland currents.

So far this falls into the same catagory that you are dismissive of in dark matter and dark energy.

They are interesting models to say the least (especialy the ones that offer an alternative for the cosmic background radiation) yet when I read that the sun is powered by Birkeland currents and then I am not really finding evidence for these currents in the spaces required I begin to wonder.

So far it seems as speculative as dark matter.
 
It would also appear that the red shift of absorption spectra is smaller than the red shift for emission spectra for many of the Arp objects. So some believe that the higher redshift would indicate the emission lines are from an object with greater distance and therefore recession than the interveneing material which creates the absorbtion spectra.

Is there an explanation for this?
 
Possible explanation for ring and beads for supernova 1987A

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/sn87a/

Discussion of missing neutron star 1987A

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050606_missing_core.html

BAC it would also appear that SN1987A produced some neutrinos that were detected on earth, any ideas from plasma cosmology on that?

This article discusses earth based studies that might indicate strange matter:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/443

X-ray data that might indicate strong gravitational field?
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2002/02-146.html

SirusB also appears to have a small redshift which has been considered proof of general relativity.

This article also discuss data that may indicate stars form through gravitational collapse: although i suppose the z-pinch might produce the same effect

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990imeg.conf..309O

This article discusses distribution of stars and gravitational collapse

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v25n4/aas183/abs/S6605.html
 
Last edited:
i have been reading on the ejected quaser theory and it is interesting in scope and ideas, especialy the evolution of the quaser as time passes.

Question: Why are there only redshifts and not blue shifts if it is an ejection phenomena.

I also have to say that so far I haven't seen a good control sample for the statistical models Arp has used. I would think that sampling of random spots in the sky, random galaxies would be needed as a control group and reference. then if the data shows a higher than average distribution of quasers and tidaly ruptured galaxies it would be a better data sample.

Here is an article that states it has found good corelation bewteen redshift velocity and luminosity.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..760A
 
Last edited:
It's like a creationist got interested in the solar system.

Is BAC a creationist? It would explain much.
 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4w5l7l06280863r/

this is the Peratt reference from the original thread. It was printed in 1995.

A similar reference from 1990
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6904506

And here is the paper from 1990, I guess.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PerattEvidenceCosmic.pdf

But here is the issue BAC, the paper suggests that such currents do exist but it set parameters for where, when and how often

So what is the big deal, this does not support the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis. It says that there may be Birkeland currents that exist on a galactic scale, it does not say that they dominate the universe.

certainly they may have had a role in the formation of galactic structures.

What would be the big deal there.

It has nothing to do with "dark matter', so could you point out where this paper or others show that the speed of stars around the galaxies is effected.
It isn't in this paper.
 
TV's Frank said:
I'm glad we agree! Now please provide the 4 basic preditions of plasma cosmology, so that we may compare this theory to observations.

Cheers,
Tv's Frank
Click to expand...

I want to compliment TVF on his wonderful explanations and patience with a difficult audience of one. Oh yes, I would also really like to see the

4 numbers!
 
Olowkow said:
I want to compliment TVF on his wonderful explanations and patience with a difficult audience of one. Oh yes, I would also really like to see the

4 numbers!
Click to expand...
.
Me too.

What can we (tentatively) conclude from the fact that not one such number has been forthcoming, after these several months?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Originally Posted by Olowkow
I want to compliment TVF on his wonderful explanations and patience with a difficult audience of one. Oh yes, I would also really like to see the

4 numbers!
.
Me too.

What can we (tentatively) conclude from the fact that not one such number has been forthcoming, after these several months?
Click to expand...

You mean these 4 numbers?

If I were to go out and measure the spatial curvature of the universe, what does plasma cosmology predict to be the answer?

If I go looking for CMB anisotropies, at what multipole should I find the largest peak?

If I look for spectral index of CMB fluctuations, what does plasma cosmology say I will find?

If I go looking at the distribution of matter in the universe, what are the RMS fluctuations in 8 Mpc spheres?
Click to expand...

If you are wondering why I didn't even attempt to answer Frank, it's because of his very next statement after that demand, namely "If you can't limit your post to 4 numbers and associated discussion, then I will not read it."

He didn't want to deal with me as you have by actually addressing some of my concerns with sourced data. He just wanted to ignore all those concerns (some which you still haven't effectively addressed either but I have faith you will or at least could).

Furthermore, when he made this demand, he'd already demonstrated he wasn't even willing to read what I posted. I'd already addressed the demand (and that's the only way to characterize it) that I tell him what PC has to say about

-the age of the universe
-the abundance of light elements
-the existence of the CMB (e.g., temperature)
-the power spectrum of the CMB
-the spectral index of CMB fluctuations
-the flatness of spatial curvature
-the matter power spectrum
-the lyman-alpha forest
-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

and then he'd simply ignored everything I wrote in response. And he went on ignoring whatever I wrote. So I figured ... why bother even making a response. And when the thread devolved into adhominens regarding my intelligence, religious views and political views, I decided to put the poor thing to sleep. And now you want to wake the dead? Shame on you. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
You mean these 4 numbers?



If you are wondering why I didn't even attempt to answer Frank, it's because of his very next statement after that demand, namely "If you can't limit your post to 4 numbers and associated discussion, then I will not read it."

He didn't want to deal with me as you have by actually addressing some of my concerns with sourced data. He just wanted to ignore all those concerns (some which you still haven't effectively addressed either but I have faith you will or at least could).
Click to expand...
The irony!


I have been very polite to you quite often, to which you have often insulted me, called me stupid and made other character slurs, most of them for no reason and unprovoked.
Furthermore, when he made this demand, he'd already demonstrated he wasn't even willing to read what I posted. I'd already addressed the demand (and that's the only way to characterize it) that I tell him what PC has to say about
Click to expand...
It is kind of funny BAC, you won't read what other people write and often you refuse to answer their questions. You started name calling in my case long before I responded in kind. You still have not provided the four numbers.

So why not provide them. And please avoid the usual political slams slurs and character slurs. I can see that I maintained a level of being reasonable with you and in many threads that you have not maintained in return.
-the age of the universe
Click to expand...
What age is suggested by your theories BAC, what does it predict.
-the abundance of light elements
Click to expand...
I believe you stated that there was a mechanism where such elements could be created, however I do not recall that you proposed a model for the proportions of the elements, nor their distribution. Whatever you may have to say about it, and I have read it, the BBE model does at least provide those answers. Which I don't recall you offering. So how does the proportion of elements occur, I recall you said that galactic jets might make some and that the helium observed was at the surface of stars. care to add more?

-the existence of the CMB (e.g., temperature)
Click to expand...
I also don't recall a good explanation for this BAC. "Iron whiskers' is not an answer, as many pointed out to you they will not explain the shape of a black body spectrum that the CMB exhibits.
-the power spectrum of the CMB
-the spectral index of CMB fluctuations
-the flatness of spatial curvature
-the matter power spectrum
-the lyman-alpha forest
Click to expand...
I don't recall you responding very well to this one either. As I recall you just pointed to one or two articles that question the derivation of the alpha lyman forest. You in no way addressed it in a coherent response that provided a reason for why there might be such features between ejected QSOs which is sort of in agreement with the redshift distance of cosmological redshift.

You sort of gave a very vague response, but I don't recall you actually addressing it.
-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

and then he'd simply ignored everything I wrote in response.
Click to expand...
As you ignore and insult, oh so many
And he went on ignoring whatever I wrote.
Click to expand...
Pot:Kettle
So I figured ... why bother even making a response. And when the thread devolved into adhominens regarding my intelligence, religious views and political views, I decided to put the poor thing to sleep. And now you want to wake the dead? Shame on you. :D
Click to expand...

If i recall i was still very reasonable to you when you decided to stop answering questions.


And when you are offensive, and when you bait people, insult their intelligence, when you don't answer direct questions, and when you call people name and when you engage in all sorts of unprovoked ad homs.

I mean really BAC

there are many times I have been very reasonable with you, you have said that I have a reading comprehension problem, and not answered my questions, you have said that I have a problem understanding theories, when what is lacking is an explanation of an observational measurement that supports a model, you have engaged in many a low handed and outright foolish attack repeatedly.

So please take you little martyr show and leave it some place.

the truth is you often don't answer questions, I have a list that you may recall, and you have not answered the, you have done many things, you have been most unreasonable when you could have answered. You have even denied things you wrote and then have placed words in my mouth that I did not state.

I suggest that you save your drama king efforts for your employers and handlers and try to answer the questions.

1. Does Arp use a means of determining QSO associations that is possibly subject to a statistical sample bias?
2. What field strength would be needed for Peratt's model to explain the flat galaxy rotations curves?
3. How does a Lerner plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses in an area of a diameter of 43 AU avoid gravitational collapse?
4. Do not star clusters in the halo of galaxies show a rate of rotation that can not be accounted for by gravity minus dark matter? How does PC/PU explain them?

these are all reasonable questions.

I do not ask them because I think that Arp, Peratt or Lerner are stupid, I ask because they are relevant questions.

I ask you because if plasma cosmology wants to say
1. There is an association which suggests some QSOs have an anomalous redshift, then it is reasonable to ask about how that association is derived.
2. If some wish to say that Peratt determined a model for the movement of stars in galaxies then it is reasonable to ask what forces, what strength and what measurements of them.
3. If someone wants to say that an absolutely huge mass at the center of our galaxy is not a black hole, it is reasonable to ask, what keeps it from collapsing.
4. If someone wants to say that dark matter is a gnome and that there are other ways to explain the orbits of objects then it is reasonable to ask, what moves the star clusters faster than gravity minus dark matter.


I ask you these questions BAC because you are the one making the statements, you are the one saying that these ideas are better than standard astrophysics and cosmology. I think that plasma is cool and that it has a place in the universe, especially the early universe that is under valued.

However, why not answer the questions.

If the answer is you don't know. that is fine. Whatever.

But if you want to poke holes in standard cosmology, I think you should address the four questions that I have put to you.
 
Last edited:
Give him the four numbers, for petesake!

BeAChooser said:
You mean these 4 numbers?



If you are wondering why I didn't even attempt to answer Frank, it's because of his very next statement after that demand, namely "If you can't limit your post to 4 numbers and associated discussion, then I will not read it."

He didn't want to deal with me as you have by actually addressing some of my concerns with sourced data. He just wanted to ignore all those concerns (some which you still haven't effectively addressed either but I have faith you will or at least could).

Furthermore, when he made this demand, he'd already demonstrated he wasn't even willing to read what I posted. I'd already addressed the demand (and that's the only way to characterize it) that I tell him what PC has to say about

-the age of the universe
-the abundance of light elements
-the existence of the CMB (e.g., temperature)
-the power spectrum of the CMB
-the spectral index of CMB fluctuations
-the flatness of spatial curvature
-the matter power spectrum
-the lyman-alpha forest
-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

and then he'd simply ignored everything I wrote in response. And he went on ignoring whatever I wrote. So I figured ... why bother even making a response. And when the thread devolved into adhominens regarding my intelligence, religious views and political views, I decided to put the poor thing to sleep. And now you want to wake the dead? Shame on you. :D
Click to expand...

BAC, give in and give the four numbers.

They don't have to match with reality.

Just give the four friggin' numbers.

If they don't match with observation, just add something to your theory...........

A new particle?

A string?

A mysterious repulsive force that pervades the universe?

Perhaps build a new particle accelerator on the dark side of the moon?

It is clear that TV Frank refuses to look at anything else you write or say, because he wants answers to these problems, ones that it appears plasma cosmology has always had trouble with.

Why not ask him for 4 specific numbers that Big Bang has a problem with?

Kind of a friendly exchange of theory weaknesses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom