I’m writing this mainly in the hope that Mr Lerner (or anyone else well versed with PC or alternative cosmologies) will leave some comments.

I am a massive fan of plasma cosmology, and I think that it is predicated on far better starting assumptions and scientific values than BBT. I am also aware however that much of what was originally proposed in plasma cosmology material is now quite dated, and some no doubt disproved. Having read Lerners compelling case put forward in 2003 in the publication “Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang” http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1265349 I can see how much more sucessful plasma cosmology predictions have been than the original Big Bang predictions. A universe infinte in time and space and electrically dynamic makes so much more sense than a magical event of creation.

I have discussed at length nearly all aspects of plasma cosmology at JREF forum with many people (under this same username, zeuzz) and still think that it holds merit. Lerners wikipedia article gives a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88918621 (now censored, due to the controversial and suppressive actions of wikipedia ‘admin’ ScienceAppologist, who I personally hate)

The main reason for me posting here is that I’ve recently been offered a ‘challenge’ by one of the JREF members to come up with one prediction that plamsa cosmology makes and how this differs from the Big Bang. I have quite a few to choose from (Element Abundances, CMB anisotropy, Voids, Galaxy Shape, Large scale structure, etc) but am cautious to choose one that has the best evidence to back it up and works as the best refutation of the Big Bang. Any thoughts on which prediction would be best to discuss and with the most evidence for would be great.

So which aspects of plasma cosmology still hold the most merit? Which have been largely disproved? Are there any recent alternative cosmological models (from the CCC1-2) that can be added to plasma cosmology?

Any feedback appreciated, Many thanks,

Zeuz

I can’t pick my favorite contradiction between plasma cosmology and BB, but I will give you my favorite two.

On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Second—and equal—BBN with inflation clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian. Plasma cosmology predicts that anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. This is clearly not Gaussian. Observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian. There are too many papers to cite on this. You can find plenty on arXiv.
Have fun with your debate.
Eric

I have always liked to rock the boat and make waves against established dogma when thinking outside the usual paradign of scientific thought. I have oftentimes been ridiculed as being some kind of ignorant and naive crackpot for it. Although I never recieve recognition for anything, I’m occasionally correct about these so - salled ” crackpot ” notions.

  And I can think of no better example than my own questioning of the big bang. It never did ever sit well with me. It’s almost like getting roasted at the stake by mainstream science’s 14 th century witchcraft inquisitors for having the courage to   question such a darling sacred cosmological cow.

  One of the phony arguements for the longest running   time has been the CBR (cosmic background radiation) that was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, using their sensitive microwave horn antenna. I have always believed that a more plausible explanation is simply all the general background static from the entire universe…... light from stars, galaxies, planets, and etc.  ...... all being red - shifted down to the radio portion of the spectrum by some particular means.

  I have always been a big fan of the never ending, ever - lasting, steady - state universe myself. Although many in mainstream science today consider this to be an outmoded, quaint theory that’s lost it’s sexiness appeal.

Speaking on the subject of natural background static in many natural (and sometimes manmade) systems :

  In many electronic circuits you have a static background hiss that sometimes prevents even the most well desgined audio equipment from being immune to the problem. This is caused by turbulence and eddy currents in the flow of electrons through various electronic components.

  Could this rationalize the preposterous idea that a solid - state electronic stereo amplifier blew - up and exploded itself into existence ?

I always thought explosions were somewhat more destructive than constructive…...LOL ! ! !

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

This link may help you a bit.

Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm

E Lerner hit the nail on the head.

The BBT reminds me of the “King does not wear invisible robes”.

Thanks for the replies. Will prove helpful in my relentless ongoing debate at JREF with people who seem to have a sort of religous conviction in their Big Bang cosmological perspectives. The many publications of MJ Disney do well to illustrate the errors in their attitude, for example The Case Against Cosmology and here

I’m not going to be able to argue my part there for a while (have finals to sit soon), but if anyone wants to contribute at Jref, the thread in question would be here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661&page=72

Dont expect a warm reception! I’ve learnt to ignore the Ad Hominem attacks, and just stick to the science. The trouble is that there are many pepople that post at jref that are not well versed in basic science, and are arguing for plasma cosmology but without an in depth understanding what they are arguing for, and so this has lead most people there to think that PC is nonsense.  And then theres the whole “electric universe” theory people at thunderbolts, that seem to be a more about sci-pop articles and vague models, rather than defintiive published science. Though saying that, its not all wrong, some things from Thornhill and Scott et al could very well turn out to be true, they have certainly proposed some ingteresting models in recent IEEE publications.

If eric or anyone else has the time to add a couple of posts at Jref to argue some of the points of plasma cosmology that would be great. The threads already at post number 2840 and no consensuss has been reached! Much of the material in the thread is not relevant to real plasma cosmology, just what the thunderbolts/‘electric universe’ crowd think are relevant. Some of which very well may hold merit, but most of it is not cosmologically significant. And thus the contents of the thread can get very confusing with so many people bundling in and arguing from so many different perspectives.

G’day from the land of ozzzzz

The last link that I posted will cover most objections to the BBT.

If you wish to go in depth, to understand cosmology than the journey will be a lonely one, but most rewarding.

So far you are on track, stick by the science and not by emotions.

I will post more information if you wish.

G’day from the land of ozzzzz

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

 Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/08/colossal-void-may-spell-trouble-for.html

 Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 3 Jul 2007)

Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

I’m a relative newbie here, but have been studying plasma cosmology and the EU forum for the last year or so.  I agree with many of you that their ideas will need to be polished up a bit in the math department in order to look the least bit appealing to the orthodocs, because they themselves have thrown almost everything over to the math department and forgotten the value of observations first, then theory, then models and predictions for more and better evidence, or lack thereof.  It’s hard to fight against “math proves physics theories” without just saying, “theories are never ‘proven’ - they last only until a better paradigm comes along”.

That said, Dr. Anthony Peratt’s Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer Verlag, 1992, has been an inspiration to me, and is based on hard science and unique observations, followed by elegant Particle-In-Cell simulations that bear out much of their findings.  They want math? Here it is in abundance.  Why these equations? Hannes Alfvén pointed out in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that his work in MHD was not applicable to plasma, a different state of matter from the other 3 condensed states to which it does apply, and well.  Peratt studied under Alfvén, and carried the ball with his research at Los Alamos National Laboratory with DOE.  He is not exactly what the establishment would call a raving idiot pursuing crackpot physics magic, so they simply shun and ignore him.

It is a sign of the times that increasingly the strong thinkers are choosing to publish elsewhere (viXra, arXiv, self-publish, web publish, etc) rather than face the opinionated and uneven-handed reviewers and editors.  Halton Arp, an excellent physicist and observational astronomer who worked with Hubble has effectively been banished by our establishment, to work in Germany instead.  It is not surprising that much of the current paradigm shift is coming from the engineering side of things - applied science, where things actually have to work.  IEEE members have a plasma cosmology working group, and publish their stuff freely in peer reviewed publication.  Of course, that’s not real physics...In the world of tokomaks and the theory (it is still just an idea with no observations having been really made deep inside the sun) that solar style fusion is doable here on Earth, we have yet to see a single success.  Billions of research and construction dollars have been thrown at this goal over decades of time, and yet not a single watt of excess, fusion-produced power has ever been introduced into our electric grid by those theorists and mathematicians. Plasma is complex, chaotic and messy, and its simulation is not a trite exercise.  That should be a challenge that scientists would be glad to meet, but challengers are held in low esteem by those who get the gold.

That said, my observation is not that PC/EU advocates are trying to overthrow all of (cosmological/astronomical) physics. They are trying to get the gravity-only, BB interpretations to be modified by considering the other forces which are certainly at work in the universe.  I am retired so I don’t have my job or reputation at stake, here.  I just really want to know how things actually work, with less doubt than the conventional physics establishment has provided me, through the Big Bang, string theory and beyond, quantum gravity, expanding universe, etc.  Read Miles Mathis and Crothers if you are interested in seeing some parts of conventional math examined critically.  We do not live in a theoretical universe; we live in a real, fairly electro-gravitic-mechanical one.  Contrary to dogmatic pronouncements from Those On High, we do not know how old it is, nor how far it extends, nor what powers it.  We don’t know much of the basics, actually, such as what mass, gravity, time, and energy are, nor what gives rise to them.  We’re not as knowledgeable as scientists with power would like us to believe.  That is what makes the search for new evidence and ideas so interesting.

G’day JJ

You are on the right track

As for the BBT, what can I say?

A theory built on weak ad hoc foundations.

Modern science papers are written in a way to distance themselves, although many are written under control and direction of projects funded for the BBT.

I read somewhere that GR should not be applicable to the large-scale structure of the universe because Omega Lambda without the ad hoc hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy is too small. If direct measurement of Omega Lambda is small, which it is, this implies GR should have no effect in the universe at large using only matter that can reasonably be known to exist. So the situation is a circular one for the BB theory. To the BB advocate, GR must work on the large scale. The price to be paid for this is additional energy. The additional energy though can only be modeled using GR.

If however one just starts off with known matter (plasma) obeying known laws (plasma physics) then one gets Plasma Cosmology. Seems like a much simpler solution to me. I would love it if someone here could shed more light on this topic however.