An example of the failure of Plasma Cosmology

[sjastro]

The video makes a couple of references to the Hubble-ALMA image.

Out of the Hubble ultra deep field image containing thousands of galaxies, ALMA detected an extra 39 galaxies.

Abstract
Our current knowledge of cosmic star-formation history during the first two billion years (corresponding to redshift z > 3) is mainly based on galaxies identified in rest-frame ultraviolet light1. However, this population of galaxies is known to under-represent the most massive galaxies, which have rich dust content and/or old stellar populations. This raises the questions of the true abundance of massive galaxies and the star-formation-rate density in the early Universe. Although several massive galaxies that are invisible in the ultraviolet have recently been confirmed at early epochs2,3,4, most of them are extreme starburst galaxies with star-formation rates exceeding 1,000 solar masses per year, suggesting that they are unlikely to represent the bulk population of massive galaxies. Here we report submillimetre (wavelength 870 micrometres) detections of 39 massive star-forming galaxies at z > 3, which are unseen in the spectral region from the deepest ultraviolet to the near-infrared. With a space density of about 2 × 10−5 per cubic megaparsec (two orders of magnitude higher than extreme starbursts5) and star-formation rates of 200 solar masses per year, these galaxies represent the bulk population of massive galaxies that has been missed from previous surveys. They contribute a total star-formation-rate density ten times larger than that of equivalently massive ultraviolet-bright galaxies at z > 3. Residing in the most massive dark matter haloes at their redshifts, they are probably the progenitors of the largest present-day galaxies in massive groups and clusters. Such a high abundance of massive and dusty galaxies in the early Universe challenges our understanding of massive-galaxy formation.

So much for the hyperbole of so much missing mass out there waiting to be discovered.
This brings up another issue which contradicts Plasma Cosmology; Olbers' paradox.
Here we have the modern version of the paradox where galaxies replace the stars in the paradox.
Since plasma cosmology postulates an infinitely large and old static Universe where there is no particle horizon deep sky images would be washed out by the integrated brightness of distant galaxies in the different shells as described in the paradox.

 

[sjastro]

I did track back the YT to the channel and I think I found the "movie" in question. I don't think we can take anything seriously that clips 5 minutes of P-M. Robataille (sp) rambling on about how black bodies aren't real and therefore the CMB isn't actually detected.

Robitaille's "theory" the CMB is nothing more than microwave radiation reflected off the surface of the Earth's oceans is refuted by the humble microwave oven or rather how microwaves cook food.
Furthermore water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere makes it opaque to most of the microwave spectrum which is why satellites or high altitude observatories are used.

Robitaille also thinks Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is wrong.

Robitaille's video "disproving" Kirchhoff's law has a glaring flaw in it.

The use of an iron heating rod which is a localized heat source results in the graphite blackbody no longer being in thermal equilibrium with the metal blocks.
When Robitaille allowed the blocks to heat soak at room temperature he did in fact demonstrate the validity of Kirchhoff's law!!

 

[sjastro]

In the distant region of the local group of which our Milky way galaxy is a part of, galaxies exhibit a peculiar velocity due to gravitational effects.

Due to the high density of the Shapley Supercluster and low density of the dipole repeller region, galaxies have a tendency to flow away from the repeller region towards the Shapley Supercluster.

This has been seized upon by the Plasma Cosmology media where the flow is actually gigantic Birkeland currents the direction of which is determined by the polarity as explained in this video.

It is nothing more than an extreme example of confirmation bias which not only fails to explain the nature or origin of the currents, but ignores the observation of the 21 cm hydrogen line in the filaments which contradicts their existence as described in previous posts.

The mainstream view does give a detailed explanation as the galaxies flow from regions of low gravitational potential to high gravitational potential as determined by the density.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A. Peratt (1986), IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 14, 639 "Evolution of the Plasma Universe:I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets"
A. Peratt (1986), IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 14, 763 "Evolution of the Plasma Universe:II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies"

There is a more fundamental issue with these papers. The computer simulations produce 'spiral galaxies' that have no plasma between their arms. There are not spiral galaxies which have plasma and stars between their arms! The numbers I have seen is that the mass density between arms is ~80% of the arms. Peratt compares his plasma distribution maps to optical images of spiral galaxies which is obviously wrong. The main reason that spiral galaxies look like spirals is that the arms are bright due to greater star formation.

sjastro has gone through why Peratt's model fails for double-lobed radio galaxies. They are not galaxies that have evolved into a double lobed shape and become active in radio wavelengths. They are almost universally elliptical galaxies with active supermassive black holes. This was probably not known in 1986.

 

[sjastro]

---SE---

Davidson's argument gigantic Birkeland currents are hidden by dust at cosmological scales is so ridiculously wrong is refuted by simple observation.
Here is an image I took of the galaxy NGC 4945.

Note the colour of the galaxy is caused by interstellar reddening due to the scattering of blue light by dust in our Milky Way.

If this dust extended out to cosmological scales in order to hide Birkeland currents as Davidson claims most galaxies would appear red.

Yet the Hubble ultra deep field shows a very different picture.

It's no coincidence astronomers selected this region of the sky for imaging well away from the interstellar reddening effects from our galaxy.

 

[sjastro]

Another failure of the Plasma Cosmology model is to explain the Lyman-alpha forest absorption lines found in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars.
These absorption lines are due to electron transitions between energy levels in hydrogen gas located between the object and observer.

With increasing redshift z (=distance) the absorption lines become more prominent.

This can only be explained by Big Bang Cosmology where the percentage of neutral hydrogen gas in the early universe was much higher and has been decreasing since the reionization era due to ionization from stars formed during this period.

In the Plasma Cosmology model there is no explanation for the Lyman-alpha forest let alone neutral hydrogen or why it existed in larger percentages in the early universe.
Furthermore the Lyman-alpha forest provides extra support along with the 21 cm hydrogen line the filaments are not Birkeland currents.

 

[sjastro]

In Plasma Cosmology galaxies should be observed as far as the limitations of telescopes allow.

In this scenario galaxies redshifted into the microwave region should be observable given the CMB is detectable and the most distant object observed, despite the interpretation of the CMB being a local effect, whether it be Robitaille’s or Eddington’s versions which have been shown to be grossly incorrect.

Telescope arrays such as ALMA should be able to detect galaxies redshifted into the microwave region.
The non observation of these galaxies supports the Big Bang Model as explained in this illustration.

The most distant galaxies are redshifted into the infrared region as galaxies were not formed in an earlier period.

 

[sjastro]

While individuals like Alfven and Peratt have emphasised the electromagnetic force being the dominant force in the Universe, this view is contradicted by laboratory experiments for both plasma and electrolytic solutions.

In the case of electrolytic solutions anions (- charge) and cations (+ charge) are not randomly distributed in solutions but each cation and anion is individually shielded by opposite charges as illustrated.

Within the radius (blue shading for the cation and red shading of the anion) electrostatic forces between the cations and anions are non zero.
The radius is the Debye length.
If the blue and red shaded areas do not overlap and are separated by several Debye lengths the electrostatic force between the anion and cation drops to zero due to the shielding.

The same principles apply to plasma where the constituents are positive ions and electrons.
For scales greater than the Debye length the plasma is quasi-neutral and electrostatic forces between ions and electrons are zero.

Consider a galaxy cluster with an intracluster medium of hot plasma typically at temperatures of 10⁶K and a number density of around one particle per cubic metre.
If the galaxies in the cluster are held together by electromagnetic forces then nₑ ≈ 1 m⁻³ and T = 10⁶K = 86eV, the Debye length λd = 10⁵ m.
The Debye length is so ridiculously small that even if electromagnetic forces existed, the distance between galaxies in clusters is of the order of hundreds of thousand of light years and the electromagnetic force would drop to zero.

 

[sjastro]

My last post showed electromagnetic forces play no role in Plasma Cosmology due to the Debye length.
This leaves gravity as the sole force and leads to considerable difficulties when applied to static universe models such as Plasma Cosmology.

Einstein was initially in favour of a static universe and modelled the static universe as a “toy model” composed of dust of a uniform density ρ and exerting a constant pressure P.
When the BB model was first proposed in the early 1920s, Einstein’s field equations;
Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ =8ΠGTₐₑ/c⁴ for an expanding universe reduce to Friedmann’s equations.

(1) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = 8ΠGρ/3
(2) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = -8ΠGP/c²

a is the scale factor, k is the curvature which could be -1, 0, 1, ρ and P are the density and pressure respectively.

Einstein couldn’t believe these equations but thought he could work around them to produce a flat static universe.
In a static universe the scale factor a=1, hence da/dt =0 and d²a/dt² = 0.
Equations (1) and (2) reduce to.

kc² = 8ΠGρ/3 = -8ΠGP/c²

In order for density ρ to be positive k=1.
However k=1 results in the pressure P being negative which would cause a static universe to collapse onto itself.

To get around this Einstein added a cosmological constant Λgₐₑ to the field equations resulting in the equations;

(a) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - Λ/3 = 8ΠGρ/3
(b) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - Λ = -8ΠGP/c²

Note when Λ = 0 (a) and (b) reduce to Friedmann’s equations.

In the static universe the pressure P is very small and can be approximated as
P ≈ 0.
Combining (a) and (b) gives;

d²a/dt² = (a/3)(Λ - 4ΠGρ)

It was Eddington in 1930 who noticed a flaw in this equation soon after Hubble’s discovery in 1929.
d²a/dt² is an acceleration of the scale factor a, and d²a/dt² = 0 is a condition for a static universe if Λ = 4ΠGρ.
The smallest imbalance between Λ and ρ would make d²a/dt² ≠ 0 causing the static universe to accelerate on expansion or decelerate on contraction.

Einstein realised his mistake and declared this to be “the greatest blunder of my lifetime” and went on to accept the idea of an expanding universe.

The irony is to get a Plasma Cosmology model “to work”, dark energy in the form of the cosmological constant Λ is required.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My last post showed electromagnetic forces play no role in Plasma Cosmology due to the Debye length.
This leaves gravity as the sole force and leads to considerable difficulties when applied to static universe models such as Plasma Cosmology.

Einstein was initially in favour of a static universe and modelled the static universe as a “toy model” composed of dust of a uniform density ρ and exerting a constant pressure P.
When the BB model was first proposed in the early 1920s, Einstein’s field equations;
Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ =8ΠGTₐₑ/c⁴ for an expanding universe reduce to Friedmann’s equations.

(1) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = 8ΠGρ/3
(2) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = -8ΠGP/c²

a is the scale factor, k is the curvature which could be -1, 0, 1, ρ and P are the density and pressure respectively.

Einstein couldn’t believe these equations but thought he could work around them to produce a flat static universe.
In a static universe the scale factor a=1, hence da/dt =0 and d²a/dt² = 0.
Equations (1) and (2) reduce to.

kc² = 8ΠGρ/3 = -8ΠGP/c²

In order for density ρ to be positive k=1.
However k=1 results in the pressure P being negative which would cause a static universe to collapse onto itself.

To get around this Einstein added a cosmological constant Λgₐₑ to the field equations resulting in the equations;

(a) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - Λ/3 = 8ΠGρ/3
(b) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - Λ = -8ΠGP/c²

Note when Λ = 0 (a) and (b) reduce to Friedmann’s equations.

In the static universe the pressure P is very small and can be approximated as
P ≈ 0.
Combining (a) and (b) gives;

d²a/dt² = (a/3)(Λ - 4ΠGρ)

It was Eddington in 1930 who noticed a flaw in this equation soon after Hubble’s discovery in 1929.
d²a/dt² is an acceleration of the scale factor a, and d²a/dt² = 0 is a condition for a static universe if Λ = 4ΠGρ.
The smallest imbalance between Λ and ρ would make d²a/dt² ≠ 0 causing the static universe to accelerate on expansion or decelerate on contraction.

Einstein realised his mistake and declared this to be “the greatest blunder of my lifetime” and went on to accept the idea of an expanding universe.

The irony is to get a Plasma Cosmology model “to work”, dark energy in the form of the cosmological constant Λ is required.

In other words, a static universe is sensitively metastable

 

[sjastro]

In other words, a static universe is sensitively metastable

Or statically unstable...........

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Or statically unstable...........

Same difference

 

[Hans Blaster]

Or statically unstable...........

I don't know why, but I keep forgetting that the plasma cosmology is for a static universe, and as you pointed out, that just doesn't work.

Is the "standard" plasma cosmology the Alvfen-Klein cosmology with the big patches of matter and antimatter?

This series has been fantastic. Thanks for presenting the details. I have no patience for the lousy support for typesetting equations in this forum software. (If we just posted in LaTeX, I'd be OK with that!)

 

[sjastro]

I don't know why, but I keep forgetting that the plasma cosmology is for a static universe, and as you pointed out, that just doesn't work.

Is the "standard" plasma cosmology the Alvfen-Klein cosmology with the big patches of matter and antimatter?

This series has been fantastic. Thanks for presenting the details. I have no patience for the lousy support for typesetting equations in this forum software. (If we just posted in LaTeX, I'd be OK with that!)

You are correct about the Alfven-Klein model, the problems of which were described in this post.
The trouble in debunking Plasma Cosmology is that there are quite a few variants.
The Alfven-Klein model attempted to describe redshift in terms of Doppler shift, unlike tired light used in other models.

 

[sjastro]

One of the more ridiculous arguments used to favour Plasma Cosmology over BB cosmology involves the conservation of energy.
Energy is not conserved either in expanding space-time as Noether’s theorem illustrates or if globally curved as shown in this post.
This was known by 1915 nearly a decade before BB cosmology was first proposed.

Ironically the conservation of energy is yet another reason (see post #10) why tired light or the inelastic scattering of photons is contradicted by observation.
The velocities of ions and electrons of low density plasma at cosmological scales follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution where the root mean square velocity √v² is defined by the equation;

√v² = √ (3kT/m) where k is Boltzmann’s constant, T the temperature and m the mass of the electron or ion.

The inelastic scattering of photons by electrons in plasma increases the electron temperature since electron velocity increases due to kinetic energy transferred to electrons.
The increase in ion temperature is not as great due the higher mass.

While photons do not have a “temperature”, photon temperature is defined in terms of blackbody radiation; photons at a particular frequency are radiated depending on blackbody temperature.
A photon gas is an ensemble of photons having characteristics similar to a gas such as pressure, temperature and entropy.
The photon gas and electrons reaching thermal equilibrium defines the temperature of space.
This would make the Universe considerably warmer than the 2.725K of deep outer space.

In cosmological redshift due to metric expansion no such warming occurs as photon energy loss is not transferred to the electrons as kinetic energy since energy is not conserved.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The hate aspect of EU is in its portrayal of mainstream scientists as dishonest and unprincipled while individuals who point out the flaws in EU are conveniently labelled "EU/PC" haters.

I prefer "scoffer". They are so very funny, so long as no one believes their utter nonsense.

Part of the problem here is that the EU and PC people are utterly dependent on each other.

The EU crowd, which is much more prominent on general internet sites especially in comment form, needs the PC people and especially their more mainstream (or mainstream looking) footprint. The EU people are *always* referring to PC associated scientists like Alvfen and Perrat (or if you must, Lerner). But the central PC people try to distance themselves from the EU.

The PC crowd seems to be much smaller and though they publicly disavow the EU and its Velikovskyian nonsense, but they rely on the relative popularity of the EU and it's internet evangelists to push their more "respectable" version of the outsider "science".

Part of this is that Wal Thornhill and his merry band of tricksters have been fairy successful in accumulating a group of not-quite-compatible pseudoscience peddlers. These include the loopy Robatialle and his "ideas" about radiation (discussed above); Stephen Crothers, a failed physics graduate student, who "disproves" black holes and other things by using bad GR; and Don Scott, a retired electrical engineering professor who offers up electric current versions of various space phenomena. All three of these have presented at the EU conference and published related materials in "Progress in Physics" -- a Journal with very lax editorial standards.

The heart of this comes from the origins of the EU. A couple dedicated Velikovskians (including Thornhill) learned about PC and some old, unrelated "electric sun" models and mashed them together to make the EU.

For relevance here, the battle between EU and PC factions resembles that between the ID and creation movements. ID would like to pretend that they are scientific (and sometimes not even religiously based), but they (DI) need the popularity of the creationists (like CSM and AiG) for support and the creationists use the 'scientific credibility' of the ID people to make them seem evidenced.

[Though at least groups like CSM and AiG readily admit that they are ministries, whereas the Discovery Institute pretends that they are not while impersonating a research institute. Unfortunately, both EU and PC are pseudoscience and pretend not to be.]

 

[sjastro]

I prefer "scoffer". They are so very funny, so long as no one believes their utter nonsense.

Part of the problem here is that the EU and PC people are utterly dependent on each other.

The EU crowd, which is much more prominent on general internet sites especially in comment form, needs the PC people and especially their more mainstream (or mainstream looking) footprint. The EU people are *always* referring to PC associated scientists like Alvfen and Perrat (or if you must, Lerner). But the central PC people try to distance themselves from the EU.

The PC crowd seems to be much smaller and though they publicly disavow the EU and its Velikovskyian nonsense, but they rely on the relative popularity of the EU and it's internet evangelists to push their more "respectable" version of the outsider "science".

Part of this is that Wal Thornhill and his merry band of tricksters have been fairy successful in accumulating a group of not-quite-compatible pseudoscience peddlers. These include the loopy Robatialle and his "ideas" about radiation (discussed above); Stephen Crothers, a failed physics graduate student, who "disproves" black holes and other things by using bad GR; and Don Scott, a retired electrical engineering professor who offers up electric current versions of various space phenomena. All three of these have presented at the EU conference and published related materials in "Progress in Physics" -- a Journal with very lax editorial standards.

The heart of this comes from the origins of the EU. A couple dedicated Velikovskians (including Thornhill) learned about PC and some old, unrelated "electric sun" models and mashed them together to make the EU.

For relevance here, the battle between EU and PC factions resembles that between the ID and creation movements. ID would like to pretend that they are scientific (and sometimes not even religiously based), but they (DI) need the popularity of the creationists (like CSM and AiG) for support and the creationists use the 'scientific credibility' of the ID people to make them seem evidenced.

[Though at least groups like CSM and AiG readily admit that they are ministries, whereas the Discovery Institute pretends that they are not while impersonating a research institute. Unfortunately, both EU and PC are pseudoscience and pretend not to be.]

Your post raises the interesting issue where is the dividing line between pseudoscience and a bad scientific theory.
Clearly Plasma Cosmology in all its variants is a bad theory contradicted by observation; whether it is pseudoscience is a debatable point.

Meanwhile over at EU Central this thread has been closely monitored and my post on the Debye length limiting the range of the electromagnetic force has led to a "debunking thread" using information such as the discovery of an electric current extending hundreds of thousands light years across a galaxy which contradicts my post.
Evidently the posters don't know the difference between an electric current and electromagnetic force which is an example of pseudoscience in its full glory.

 

[sjastro]

I notice how over at EU central they have decided to rewrite the laws of physics by claiming the electromagnetic force is generated by electric currents in order to get around the Debye length limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force.
Their argument being since electrical currents travel further than the Debye length there is no limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force!!!
The armchair experts at EU central don’t seem to understand it is the electromotive force that drives a current.
If an electric current generates an electromagnetic force then conversely no current means there is no electromagnetic force.
This violates the conservation of charge as electrostatic forces still exist without a current; it is the ludicrous outcome that ions and electrons have no charges when there is no current!!
Here is the maths.
When a current composed of particles with charge q passes through an electric and magnetic field E and B respectively, the electromagnetic force F expressed as a Lorentz force is defined by the equation;

F = qE + qv X B

For a zero current v=0 the term qv X B = 0 and the equation reduces to F = qE which is not zero.

This strays into the territory of EU nonsense which is not Plasma Cosmology.

I can appreciate Anthony Peratt’s comments in labelling EU as anti-science if their comments are taken seriously as being representative of Plasma Cosmology as it does irreparable damage to the reputation of individuals such as Peratt.
Plasma Cosmology has enough problems with being contradicted by observation let alone being hijacked by the EU.

I have not found a reason why Plasma Cosmology ignores the Debye length so let’s assume it plays no role.
Since the gravitational force is 10ˉ³⁹ times smaller than the electromagnetic force.

Fgrav./Felect. = 10ˉ³⁹ ≈ 0 → Fgrav. = 0.

In other words the gravitational force is negligible and can be ignored.

For a two body system such as a binary star system this might be promising as both gravitational and electromagnetic forces follow the inverse square law but there is a serious problem.
Not only must each star have opposite charges to be an attractive force but the charge of each star is orbiting within the magnetic field of the other star.
This leads to synchrotron radiation which is a loss in orbital energy which is the sum of the potential and kinetic energies.
This results in the stars spiralling into each other.
Adding a third star adds to the complications because it will have the same charge as one of the other stars leading to a repulsive force.

In a nutshell electromagnetic forces cannot form bound structures at large scales such as solar systems, binary stars, star clusters, galaxies or galaxy clusters.

 

[sjastro]

My last post has struck a raw nerve at EU central and things have become decidedly nasty.
Along with being labelled an “EU/PC hater" I am “incompetent”, “ethically challenged”, "uneducated" and a “liar”.
In between the insults is a doubling down on the assertion electromagnetic forces can form stable orbits despite losing orbital energy through synchrotron radiation with a couple of stunning revelations, the electromagnetic force can also be repulsive and gravity has the ability of playing “a lesser role in some instance and a greater role in others”.
Evidently you can mix and match gravity with the electromagnetic force to get the correct recipe to meet all requirements!!!
There are no coherent reasons given or any mathematics to back up these statements which puts it straight into the category of mindless word salad.
Despite this it is still an instructive exercise to refute through observation and experiment which shows gravity is the dominant force at large scales, while the electromagnetic force or the electromagnetic force + gravity recipe nonsense is not.

The best way of showing this is the Keplerian orbit of a two body system.
Where Newtonian gravity is a stunning performer and superior to General Relativity is in describing the orbit of an object around a central body where there is no perturbation from other objects.
Our solar system does not provide a good example as two most massive objects, the Sun and Jupiter is not an effective two body system as Jupiter deviates from a Keplerian orbit due to the gravitational influence from other planets.

The best examples come from binary stars.
Astronomers have been photographing/imaging binary stars since the mid 19th century.
Where the binary stars are resolvable into components, astronomers take images over the years to plot the orbit of the secondary star around the primary such as the binary star Kruger 60 which shows images spanning a quarter of the orbit.

In the case of the binary 70 Ophuichi, astronomers have practically plotted the entire orbit of the secondary star to accurately measure the period or time to complete an orbit of 87.7 years.

​

The plot shows the orbital plane is inclined to the observer and the primary star is offset from one of the foci of the ellipse since both stars are orbiting around a centre of gravity.
The plot is a classic Keplerian orbit for an ellipse which is a conic section solution to the differential equation describing orbits using Newtonian gravity.

Apart from the orbital period (T) astronomers know the distance of 70 Ophuichi from which the length of the semi major axis (a) of the elliptical orbit can be determined.
Using Kepler’s third law;
T²/a³ = 4π²/[G(M+m)] = constant, where M+m is the combined mass of the primary and secondary stars.
By measuring the luminosity of the primary and secondary stars, the individual masses can be determined.

In the third law the gravitational constant G turns up as being part of a proportionality constant.
Its value is determined experimentally with instruments such as torsion balances.
The weights are free of charge otherwise the experiment becomes a test for Coulomb’s law for the electrostatic force.
In others words G is purely a gravitational constant.

If G had any other value such as fine structure constant for electromagnetism, the third law would predict the stellar masses to have ridiculously small values approaching zero, while the nonsensical gravity+electromagnetic recipe fails since the electromagnetic force is 10³⁹ times stronger and so even a “small” contribution from the electromagnetic force would inflate the value of G and produce unrealistic star masses that would not match observation.

It confirms yet again the pseudoscience nature of EU or EU/PC or whatever it wants to call itself.
In fact further discussion of EU is giving oxygen to a subject that is on par with other topics such as the flat Earth and belongs in the other forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your post raises the interesting issue where is the dividing line between pseudoscience and a bad scientific theory.
Clearly Plasma Cosmology in all its variants is a bad theory contradicted by observation; whether it is pseudoscience is a debatable point.

Meanwhile over at EU Central this thread has been closely monitored and my post on the Debye length limiting the range of the electromagnetic force has led to a "debunking thread" using information such as the discovery of an electric current extending hundreds of thousands light years across a galaxy which contradicts my post.
Evidently the posters don't know the difference between an electric current and electromagnetic force which is an example of pseudoscience in its full glory.

If I recall, the classical definitions of pseudoscience is that it gives the impression of being science without actually that being the case. Pseudoscience is practiced either by fools or deceivers. The main EU people seem to fall somewhere on the deception-delusion axis, where as the the main PC people (the scientists, not the YT hype-men) are more in the senile-delusion axis.

The PC stuff was poor science several decades ago, and it only gets worse. There are points to challenging parts of the mainstream cosmology and physics behind it (as they often do at EU central) like expansion redshift, but none of their alternatives (scatterings, intrinsic redshift) work out. Putting the whole thing together into a "coherent" framework doesn't really work anymore, so a unified PC ventures ever closer to pseudoscience.

[It was a cross-link between EU central and CF that brought me here about 5 years ago and only after a period of browsing did come up with a cleaver moniker. (Paulos is already using the avatar that would work for me.) I would never consider registering at EU central as I don't trust them to not falsify my content through editing.]