Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Skull
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: California

Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Unread post by Skull » Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:26 pm

Being new here this may have been done in this forum, if yes, somebody give me the link. Over at another non-scientific forum I mentioned Plasma Cosmology and this Wiki quote was given as closing the door on it. So I am hoping someone here, will refute, here at this forum, then I can post the link back over there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology wrote:
Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the major predictions and features of the current models. In mainstream cosmology, detailed simulations of the correlation function of the universe, primordial nucleosynthesis, and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, based on the principles of standard cosmology and a handful of free parameters, have been made and compared with observations, including non-trivial consistency checks. Plasma cosmology generally provides qualitative descriptions and not any systematic explanation for the standard features of mainstream cosmological theories.

For example, the standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on inferred but undetectable dark matter collecting into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. Recent simulations show agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-body cosmological simulations of the Lambda-CDM model. The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models.

Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by plasma filamentation proposals. The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, corresponds well to the mainstream picture.

Light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis (as required in plasma cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed. This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals. Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed. This could be resolved by proposing, as Alfvén did, that the bubble of matter we are in is larger than the observable universe. In order to test such a model, some signature of the ambiplasma would have to be looked for in current observations, and this requires that the model be formalized to the point where detailed quantitative predictions can be made. This has not been accomplished.

No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. Proposed explanations are relying on integrated starlight and do not provide any indication of how to explain that the observed angular anisotropies of CMB power spectrum is (so low as) one part in 105. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB was measured to be so isotropic, in line with the predictions of the big bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives. These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Unread post by Sparky » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:51 pm

Nonsense!

That's the short response.. :D
Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology-
If they mean highly speculative conclusions based on assumptions, well, yes they really do, indeed , have a lot of worthless, speculative details. Basically, they have a lot of data that is being filtered through highly biased and faulty reasoning.

Plasma cosmology is inferred from Earth based experiments that are scalable to visible universe size.
-and lacks many of the major predictions and features of the current models.
Electric Universe theory has made predictions:
Deep Impact, Comets: Stardust, The Sun, Mars, Saturn, Saturn's moons, the moon Io, Supernovae: SN1987A, and Fusion.

Standard cosmology has made NO SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS!
There are ad hoc explanations that are then claimed to have been a prediction. Every new image shows something that standard cosmologists find strange, and they rush off to dream up an explanation. They continue to be surprised and astonished with what they find!

Read through these.... ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Skull
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: California

Re: Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Unread post by Skull » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:03 pm

Many thanks Sparky :)

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Unread post by mharratsc » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:09 am

The long and short of it is that the Thought Police control the wikis (except for Ian Tresmans). Their jobs are on the line- they do NOT want a new paradigm to emerge... they will be out of their jobs. :\

You really can't expect any different, I suppose. However, there is a new generation of kids in the sciences today that are learning to use alternative channels of information delivery to bypass the sentinels of group-think. It will be these young minds that commit the old cosmological paradigm to the trash heap and pave the way for real scientific endeavor based upon solid and proven physics over theoretical rubbish.

Or such is MY opinion, at any rate! ;)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Short Refutation or Response to this Wiki quote

Unread post by jjohnson » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:34 am

See "Wikipedia deletion of information on Electric Universe" below.

Use Wikipedia with great care, and at your own risk.

Jim

rjhuntington
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 am

Debunking COBE and WMAP

Unread post by rjhuntington » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:56 am

No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced.
That statement is blatantly false. Plenty of books have fully debunked COBE and WMAP.
Here are two excellent selections:
There are plenty of other books refuting COBE and WMAP, the existence of which is conveniently overlooked by standard model adherents.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests