An example of the failure of Plasma Cosmology

[sjastro]

Philosophy of science:

The ideas of Popper and Kuhn are quite popular with the pseudoscience crowd, it helps them think their just "out of the mainstream" and "challenging the dogma". Paradigm replacement and falsifiability seem like good concepts, but they are not the end-all, be-all of real operational science. I (and other have said this before) think that Popper and Kuhn who worked in the mid-20th century and were overly influenced by the paradigm replacing nature of 20th century physics. New physics repeatedly ripped up old ideas and replaced them. Some old models were completely wiped out (like pre-Bohr models of the atom, then Bohr's model itself) others reduced previous ideas to mere approximations (relativity reduced Newtonian motion and gravity to limiting cases, useful, but not fundamental).

The falsifiability issue is particularly vulnerable to miscomprehension by the those challenging professional science. To my perception, this is often caused by a failure to understand the scope of various theories and what it is sensitive to. A good example might be in biological evolution: One component of (bio) evolution theory is "common decent", the idea the all life on earth (or at least al eukaryotic life) shares a common ancestor. Falsifying common decent would certainly be very damaging to (bio) evolutionary theory, yet genetics have only strengthened the common descent concept. Other, smaller ideas, such as the relationships between species or groups of species or when certain groups emerge (like when were the first mammals, or flowering plants) have been overturned by new data, and thus falsified. (Many of these may not rise to "theory" but they are scientific ideas and claims that are falsified and replaced.)

Stellar evolution:

Is one of those complex theories (or theoretical frameworks if you prefer). The foundational physics behind it are very solid: hydrostatic equilibrium, radiative diffusion, and nuclear fusion, but they are dependent on measurements of nuclear reactions and the opacity of these gasses at stellar conditions. Two other aspects of stellar evolution modeling are necessarily simplified versions of very complex physics: convection and mass loss. These have been calibrated for lower mass stars through globular clusters. Globular clusters are very old (many billions of years) and consist of stars with the same age. Because of their age, globulars don't have any stars left in them that are massive enough to be Cepheids (and some no stars more massive than the Sun). These stars have very little mass loss before the red giant phase. (Cepheids come after non-negligible mass loss has occurred.)

Convection in the Sun occurs in the outer regions where there is no nuclear burning taking place. As such, convection only transports energy where the material is too opaque for radiative diffusion to carry the flux of the stellar core. In some other phases (like the post-main sequence hydrogen shell burning) and the cores of more massive stars, convection occurs in places where burning is active and their are gradients in the composition. Convection in these conditions also alters the composition gradient and can transport the inputs and outputs of the nuclear burning through the region. This makes it more important to understand the details of convection and the sensitivity of stellar evolution to it.

Far from falsifying stellar evolution theory, the confirmation of pulsational mass measurements (at least for Cepheids) provides a new means (or did 10 years ago) to calibrate the parameters of stellar evolution models through the Cepheid stage.

Why this doesn't help the EU cause:

The EU crowd desperately wants the "mainstream" theory of stars to be destroyed and their "gotcha" glee in the TPOD article. They have some sort of alternative to stellar evolution in their view. From the outside it's not clear what that is. They have some sort of model of the Sun involving currents (actually there are several that they promote and their minions discuss. It is unclear which one is favored by the Masters of the EU) and presumably this applies to distant stars as well. There is a notion they (and their followers) use of a pinch in a current creating emission of many a point source (stars, pulsars, supernovae). These ideas are frankly not that well articulated, and are completely lacking in quantification. Like many a proponent of pseudoscience, they act as if knocking down the current paradigm will cause whatever nonsense they promote to float to the top and replace it.

The triumph of pulsation theory, by itself, works against the EU proposals. By confirming the pulsational masses, the measurements of this star show that the opacity valve mechanism is functional in Cepheids. Because it depends on flux of the star's full luminosity through the outer envelope and the associated changes in opacity, radius, and temperature of that region it means that any viable EU stellar model *must* deposit its energy well below the visible layers; that the stellar core is massive and compact; and that the general understanding of the stellar envelope and atmosphere are appropriate. The changing luminosities of Cepheids are therefore *not* any sort of fluctuation in the current passing through the star or some sort of RC electrical oscillator. Cepheids pulsate for exactly the reasons mainstream astrophysics have proposed for decades.

Most informative posts.
There is one very important Cepheid RS Puppis where its distance can be very accurately determined due to the existence of a light echo caused by light being reflected off the dust in the surrounding nebula.

Astronomers have found ionized matter can also cause light echos such as found in the Crab nebula.

The idiotic EU idea that stars can be cathodes or anodes depending on who you talk to does in fact make a prediction which can be checked by observation.
Depending on whether the star is a cathode or anode and using the EU mantra the Universe is 99%+ plasma will result in Debye shielding of the stars by either ions or electrons from the surrounding plasma.
In the case of these electrode Cepheid variables stars with the RC oscillator mechanism, most if not all should theoretically exhibit light echos due to Debye shielding.
While the light echos would be beyond the resolution limits of any current telescope the light curves of the Cepheid variables would be affected by the amount of shielding material.

 

[Hans Blaster]

An extension to RealityCheck's comments about the EU.

This guy pulls no punches.

I'm watching it now, but I had to pause with this line from "Professor Dave" about the Gaia site where some of the EU videos can be seen:

"all sorts of frivolous nonsense all exclusively for suggestible simpletons to watch while high"

Dave is right, it (TB.info) is a "transparent cash grab."

 

[sjastro]

I'm watching it now, but I had to pause with this line from "Professor Dave" about the Gaia site where some of the EU videos can be seen:

"all sorts of frivolous nonsense all exclusively for suggestible simpletons to watch while high"

Dave is right, it (TB.info) is a "transparent cash grab."

The past and present involvement of electrical engineers in the EU might give credibility to the Salem Hypothesis after all.

One of the con jobs perpetrated by the EU is the attempt to gain legitimacy by suggesting it is an extension of plasma physics, yet as revealed in the video the only scientist who worked briefly in the SAFIRE project, the plasma physicist Lowell Morgan came to the conclusion "the EU concept is fundamentalist b*lls**t....."
I doubt EU supporters can even name a single plasma physicist who supports the EU concept let alone work on it.
Peratt is frequently mentioned but has dismissed EU as anti-science.
Alfven must be turning over in his grave being associated with the EU.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Alfven must be turning over in his grave being associated with the EU.

If you can attach windings to Alfven we could generate some power.

He created some of this problem himself. Clinging (as often happens) to ideas that should have been discarded like his cosmology which didn't really fit the data in his final years.

He also made a fuss about magnetic reconnection being impossible. It clearly happens. (And the anti-reconnection mantra is well repeated in EU land as holy writ.)

His "circuit model" for solar features (and the whole sun??) may have been useful for quantifying certain solar features, but is gives the untrained the impression that currents are the *only* thing. [I don't recall what about the solar environment he was applying current models to. Today is not a deep internet search day.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

The past and present involvement of electrical engineers in the EU might give credibility to the Salem Hypothesis after all.

It has a name. I did not know that. (I had noticed it.) Engineers also appear disproportionately among climate deniers (and it seems suicide bombers).

To our shame, among PhDs operating outside their lanes, physicists occur frequently among the climate deniers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To our shame, among PhDs operating outside their lanes, physicists occur frequently among the climate deniers.

And geologists. At least ten years ago. I think that the number of both physicists and geologists that deny AGW has gone down over the years.

 

[sjastro]

If you can attach windings to Alfven we could generate some power.

He created some of this problem himself. Clinging (as often happens) to ideas that should have been discarded like his cosmology which didn't really fit the data in his final years.

He also made a fuss about magnetic reconnection being impossible. It clearly happens. (And the anti-reconnection mantra is well repeated in EU land as holy writ.)

His "circuit model" for solar features (and the whole sun??) may have been useful for quantifying certain solar features, but is gives the untrained the impression that currents are the *only* thing. [I don't recall what about the solar environment he was applying current models to. Today is not a deep internet search day.]

With respect to magnetic reconnection, EU central have an irrefutable argument; it's wrong because Alfven said so.
The supporters of a multiverse in this forum must be excited as what goes on at EU central is strong evidence of a parallel universe where plasma physicists are complete imbeciles for failing to understand magnetic reconnection in the laboratory is nothing more than electromagnetic induction.
Furthermore a current is the result of electromagnetic induction whereas the current in magnetic reconnection in the form of a current sheet must already exist for reconnection to occur across this boundary.
From this we can establish the primary difference between our universe and the one over at EU central is the effect precedes the cause at EU central.
This in turn must be particularly pleasing to the faster than light supporters in this forum as causality in our universe is a stumbling block for superluminal motion.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a summary of the problems of various Plasma Cosmology models from a theoretical and observational aspect as described in this thread.
The list is by no means exhaustive and contributions are welcome which will be added to the list.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is a summary of the problems of various Plasma Cosmology models from a theoretical and observational aspect as described in this thread.
The list is by no means exhaustive and contributions are welcome which will be added to the list.

This is a great chart!

Does the whole of the EU/PC world suffer from the static universe problem and lack a good work around for Olber's paradox, or is that just some of its adherents? I thought about dropping in a simple mathematical demonstration for that one the last time that topic was hot here.

Another one I'm thinking of is spectral lines and redshifts. Taking a look at "scattering" alternatives and why they can't work.

Anyway, given the level of turtle spam on this board right now, I'd like to at least keep up a low level continuation of this thread to keep it on the first page.

Cheers!

 

[sjastro]

This is a great chart!

Does the whole of the EU/PC world suffer from the static universe problem and lack a good work around for Olber's paradox, or is that just some of its adherents? I thought about dropping in a simple mathematical demonstration for that one the last time that topic was hot here.

Olbers' paradox was discussed in dispatches but it does deserve a full treatment.
Peratt's comment probably represents the general PC position on the subject which is basically a cop out.

https://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf

Another one I'm thinking of is spectral lines and redshifts. Taking a look at "scattering" alternatives and why they can't work.

There are plenty of alternatives for discussion here given there is no specific tired light theory in PC.

Anyway, given the level of turtle spam on this board right now, I'd like to at least keep up a low level continuation of this thread to keep it on the first page.

Cheers!

There could be a subtle cosmological connection here with the moral of the story don't underestimate little old ladies.

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Olbers' paradox was discussed in dispatches but it does deserve a full treatment.
Peratt's comment probably represents the general PC position on the subject which is basically a cop out.

OK, it's a bit a cop out, but I'm not too bothered by it. The main way out of Olber's paradox is to avoid an infinitely large cosmic horizon, either by having a finite age or dimension. Time, of course, works best and is why standard cosmology does not have this problem. If the universe is infinitely old, but finite in size, then it comes down to how the "edge" of the universe interacts with light.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how a finite extend for our Universe would work. I don't recall ever discussing it. The observable universe shows no evidence of a boundary, so treating it as infinite beyond the horizon is perfectly reasonable when deriving observable properties.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Olbers' paradox was discussed in dispatches but it does deserve a full treatment.
Peratt's comment probably represents the general PC position on the subject which is basically a cop out.

"No Paradox in the Plasma Universe" is wrong.
We were not limited to his "only if we are limited observing the universe in visible light" in February 1992. The Hubble Space Telescope observing in UV, visible and IR was launched in 1990. We had space telescopes looking outside of the visible spectrum since the late 1960's.
Olbers' paradox was expressed as visible light because that was what people could see when it was written, but it applies to any radiation from stars. If we had gamma ray detecting eyes, every line of sight in an eternal and infinite static universe would end in a star and the night sky should be bright in gamma rays. Ditto for UV and IR. There would be a neutrino version of Olbers' paradox.
The radiation from plasma not in stars is irrelevant to the paradox.
The finite lifetime or evolution of stars is included in the paradox. A star is born and a line of sight ends at it. A star blows up and that line of sight goes onward to a star behind it.

I would guess that the PC solution would be the "regions of matter and antimatter" on the cosmology. We are in a finite region of matter and for some reason we cannot see out of it or there are no stars in other regions. Olbers' paradox is solved by the finite number of stars letting some lines of sight through. This is hinted at by "evolving stars are not assumed to occupy all of space" in the article.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"No Paradox in the Plasma Universe" is wrong.
We were not limited to his "only if we are limited observing the universe in visible light" in February 1992. The Hubble Space Telescope observing in UV, visible and IR was launched in 1990. We had space telescopes looking outside of the visible spectrum since the late 1960's.
Olbers' paradox was expressed as visible light because that was what people could see when it was written, but it applies to any radiation from stars. If we had gamma ray detecting eyes, every line of sight in an eternal and infinite static universe would end in a star and the night sky should be bright in gamma rays. Ditto for UV and IR. There would be a neutrino version of Olbers' paradox.
The radiation from plasma not in stars is irrelevant to the paradox.

Yes, that didn't make sense to me either; I assumed he was expressing himself poorly (as below*), but I couldn't work out what he might have meant...

* "evolving stars are not assumed to occupy all of space" - taken literally, the assumption would be absurd - presumably he means they're not uniformly distributed?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, that didn't make sense to me either; I assumed he was expressing himself poorly (as below*), but I couldn't work out what he might have meant...

* "evolving stars are not assumed to occupy all of space" - taken literally, the assumption would be absurd - presumably he means they're not uniformly distributed?

Silly me, taking the cosmological principle as a given! It hadn't occurred to me that the universe could be a cloud of stars and galaxies ~10,000 Mpc in radius (or what ever is needed to be compatible with the scattering redshift de jour). That of course wouldn't have the same problem with Olber's paradox. One problem solved, 37 to go!

 

[sjastro]

Olbers’ paradox was based on astronomy of the early 19th century and didn’t take into account stars having a finite age and the Milky Way was not the universe.
Ironically the infinite age of a static universe takes care of Olbers’ paradox but by substituting one problem for another; instead of the sky being bright at night, the universe is in a cold dark state devoid of stars.

If PC was to explain how stars are recycled over an infinite time span despite the increase in entropy then Olbers’ paradox does becomes relevant with the night sky being bright due to the light of galaxies and not individual stars.
Peratt’s comments about the stars (=galaxies) not being uniformly distributed is contradicted by galaxy surveys which show at scales beyond 100 Mpc the universe does become homogeneous and isotropic.

In an expanding cosmology Olbers' paradox is not relevant due to an event horizon.
Galaxies on the Hubble sphere Dₕ have recessional velocities dDₕ/dt = c and any galaxy within the Hubble radius is observable.
A galaxy with a recession velocity v > c emitting photons back towards the observer, has a relative recession velocity of v – c in the observer’s frame.
(Note the SR Lorentz transformations don’t apply since v is not in the interval 0 ≤ v < c).
The surface of Dₕ becomes an event horizon with a radius where dDₕ/dt = c.
The Hubble sphere is receding (since expansion is accelerating) and photons will not reach the observer if dDₕ/dt = c < v - c, or in other words the galaxy is outside the Hubble sphere.

 

[sjastro]

What perfect timing!!!
Here is the latest galaxy and quasar survey based on Baryon Acoustic Oscillations which is the most recent "Standard Ruler" developed to determine distances.

Where are the missing galaxies and quasars in the Plasma Cosmology model which should extend well beyond eBOSS + BOSS Lyman-a survey?

Before reading the article those wanting to familiarize themselves with Baryon Acoustic Oscillations should watch this excellent video.
At the end of the video is a comical retort to the sort of nonsense that is served up to astrophysicists by self confessed polymath armchair experts as found at EU central.

The article is found here.
No need to Mind the Gap: Astrophysicists fill in 11 billion years of our universe’s expansion history | SDSS | Press Releases

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Another one I'm thinking of is spectral lines and redshifts. Taking a look at "scattering" alternatives and why they can't work.

OK, now to talk about redshifts. (I may eventually say some things about scattering as a [failed] alternative, but do not plan an extensive evaluation of all of the proposed scattering mechanisms.)

What is a redshift?

Redshift is the term astronomers give for when a photon is observed to have a lower energy or frequency (alternatively a larger, or longer, wavelength) when observed relative to when it was emitted. The term itself is hopelessly biased to an optical spectrum point of view, but it works everywhere.)

Sources of redshift:

There are three sources of redshift seen in astronomy,

• the Doppler shift of regular motion
• the cosmological expansion of space-time
• the gravitational redshift related to photons leaving a gravity well

each of these have different origins, but impact the observation of photons in the same way, by uniformly transforming the observed energy/frequency/wavelength.

Definitions:

For wavelength I'm going to use "w" (rather than the traditional lambda cause I don't want to mess with Greek letters), for frequency "f", and for the speed of light "c". Frequency and wavelength are simply related by the expression:

w*f = c

(Aside, this is true for any waves when you use the correct wavespeed instead of c, e.g. sound waves and sound speed.)

When astronomers define redshift, they define it as the change in wavelength relative to the observed wavelength divided by the wavelength and give it the symbol "z":

z = (w_obs - w_emit )/w_emit

but for our purposes it is better to use the factor "1+z" which is the ratio of observed to emitted wavelength:

1 + z = w_obs/w_emit

or

w_obs = w_emit * (1+z)

Because of the inverse relation between wavelength and frequency we can also write the observed and emitted frequencies as such:

1+z = f_emit/f_obs

or

f_obs = f_emit/(1+z).

The energy of an individual photon is related to the frequency as such:

E = h*f

where "h" is Planck's constant. We can also show the energy of the emitted and observed photons:

E_obs = E_emit/(1+z)

A simple example:

For our example, lets take an object at a (cosmological) redshift of z=1, or 1+z = 2. This makes the math simple.

w_obs = (1+z) * w_emit = 2 * w_emit
f_obs = f_emit/(1+z) = f_emit/2
E_obs = E_emit/(1+z) = E_emit/2

Our observer will measure the wavelength of the photon to be twice the original emitted wavelength and likewise the frequency and energy to be half of the emitted values.

This is true for all photons emitted by that object regardless of their original wavelength, frequency, or energy.

OK, but how do we know the redshift? That's where spectral lines come in...

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, now to talk about redshifts. (I may eventually say some things about scattering as a [failed] alternative, but do not plan an extensive evaluation of all of the proposed scattering mechanisms.)

What is a redshift?

Redshift is the term astronomers give for when a photon is observed to have a lower energy or frequency (alternatively a larger, or longer, wavelength) when observed relative to when it was emitted. The term itself is hopelessly biased to an optical spectrum point of view, but it works everywhere.)

Sources of redshift:

There are three sources of redshift seen in astronomy,

• the Doppler shift of regular motion
• the cosmological expansion of space-time
• the gravitational redshift related to photons leaving a gravity well

each of these have different origins, but impact the observation of photons in the same way, by uniformly transforming the observed energy/frequency/wavelength.

Definitions:

For wavelength I'm going to use "w" (rather than the traditional lambda cause I don't want to mess with Greek letters), for frequency "f", and for the speed of light "c". Frequency and wavelength are simply related by the expression:

w*f = c

(Aside, this is true for any waves when you use the correct wavespeed instead of c, e.g. sound waves and sound speed.)

When astronomers define redshift, they define it as the change in wavelength relative to the observed wavelength divided by the wavelength and give it the symbol "z":

z = (w_obs - w_emit )/w_emit

but for our purposes it is better to use the factor "1+z" which is the ratio of observed to emitted wavelength:

1 + z = w_obs/w_emit

or

w_obs = w_emit * (1+z)

Because of the inverse relation between wavelength and frequency we can also write the observed and emitted frequencies as such:

1+z = f_emit/f_obs

or

f_obs = f_emit/(1+z).

The energy of an individual photon is related to the frequency as such:

E = h*f

where "h" is Planck's constant. We can also show the energy of the emitted and observed photons:

E_obs = E_emit/(1+z)

A simple example:

For our example, lets take an object at a (cosmological) redshift of z=1, or 1+z = 2. This makes the math simple.

w_obs = (1+z) * w_emit = 2 * w_emit
f_obs = f_emit/(1+z) = f_emit/2
E_obs = E_emit/(1+z) = E_emit/2

Our observer will measure the wavelength of the photon to be twice the original emitted wavelength and likewise the frequency and energy to be half of the emitted values.

This is true for all photons emitted by that object regardless of their original wavelength, frequency, or energy.

OK, but how do we know the redshift? That's where spectral lines come in...

The claim of "scattering" by EU proponents is one the drives me a bit nuts. How does one scatter light from an image and have it remain a point source? That seems to be contradictory to me. Scattering by its very definition tells us that the light from distant objects would get fuzzier and fuzzier and that is not observed as far as I know.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The claim of "scattering" by EU proponents is one the drives me a bit nuts. How does one scatter light from an image and have it remain a point source? That seems to be contradictory to me. Scattering by its very definition tells us that the light from distant objects would get fuzzier and fuzzier and that is not observed as far as I know.

It doesn't, but that never stopped them before.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, but how do we know the redshift? That's where spectral lines come in...

Determining redshift:

To determine redshift, find a group of prominent lines in the object (wavelengths A,B,C,...) and try to find physically plausible matches using your knowledge of atomic physics and the prominent lines in other objects (wavelengths X,Y,Z,...). Now use the redshift formula to solve for a single redshift that works:

A = (1+z) * X
B = (1+z) * Y
C = (1+z) * Z

and solve for "z". If you've found a good set of physical matches for the observed lines then a single value of z should be found.

Redshift and the spectrum:

What does redshift do to the spectrum other than shift it to the red? Nothing! Redshift doesn't destroy photons and all photons are shfited the same. So we can always plot a redshifted spectrum to look just like the original by using a different axis.

Let's extend our z=1, 1+z=2, example from the previous post and apply it to a spectrum.

For simplicity, we'll treat the spectrum as a continuum with value "1" everywhere (i.e., we're normalizing the continuum to 1) and a single line at 6563 Å. (1 Å = 0.1 nm, the traditional unit for optical spectroscopy still used in optical astronomy. This line is the most common line of hydrogen seen in stars -- the Balmer alpha line.) For additional simplicity we'll treat the spectrum as a series of "bins" each 1 Å wide where the spectrum is constant within a bin, but different bins can have different values. Let our single line have a value of 0.1 (90% of the continuum light was absorbed by the line inside the star.) The spectrum emitted by the star looks like this:

w_emit spec(w)
...
6560 1.0
6561 1.0
6562 1.0
6563 0.1
6564 1.0
6565 1.0
6566 1.0
...

Pretty simple, right. (We're also going to define our bins such that the values I just gave are the centers, so the bin with the line in it extends from 6562.5 to 6563.5 Å. The spectrum is 0.1 within that range and 1.0 outside it.)

Now let's apply our z=1 redshift:

w_obs spec(w)
...
13120 1.0
13122 1.0
13124 1.0
13126 0.1
13128 1.0
13130 1.0
13132 1.0
...

Again, I've normalized the continuum to 1 as the number of photons collected at each wavelength will be related to the duration of the exposure, the size of the telescope, and the geometric dilution of the light. None of these affect the shape of the spectrum so we'll not worry about them.

You may think this is quite boring. And yeah, applying a redshift is pretty boring, it doesn't do anything but shift the wavelengths (or frequencies) of the spectrum by a single multiplicative factor (1+z). That's all. It's that simple -- and that's the point.

We do have to talk about the width of the line a bit. Now there was a reason I specified the line as being centered at 6563 Å with the "dip" extending from 6562.5 to 6563.5 Å for a total width of 1 Å. When we apply the redshift all of the photons at every wavelength in the range will also be shifted by a factor of two so that we can now say that the redshifted line extends from 13125 Å to 13127 Å and the line is now 2 Å wide. The line width *is* increased by the same redshift factor, but has the same relative value, or depth.

Can we "fake" redshift with scattering?