A plasma universe vs Big Bang theory.

[arcticsun]

This video discusses many of the problems related to the Big Bang theory, it should give fuel for thought to those out there who thinks the physics of our reality is fully understood and agreed upon by the authorities on the subject in 2010.



Universe-The Cosmology Quest, Part 1 of 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1966820922322808100#


Universe-The Cosmology Quest, Part 2 of 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1966820922322808100#docid=-2827896363014586265



Enjoy

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't think I've seen anything posted by anyone who thinks that the physics of our reality are fully understood... I don't think that I've ever even seen anyone claim that there was a consensus cosmological model. I do enjoy watching such fringe science videos once in a while, though.

 

[arcticsun]

Then i hope you enjoy it

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

already seen it.
Ignores quite a large body of information, it does.

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Quote:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media (including youtube).

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Are we allowed to interject other alternative models?
M-theory, for example, where 'the big bang' is just one of many 'little bangs' caused by p-brane collisions?

When I was about ten years old, I used to think that the fact that some galaxies were getting closer together was evidence against the expanding universe and against the big bang... But, just like the people producing the video, there were many factors at play which I failed to factor in.

 

[Honkytonk]

Dude, stop confusing me with science.
It's turtles! Turtles all the way down.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

OK... this is in response to Mezz from another thread:

I think the statements by scientists in the video substantiate it well. I would like to see you debate any one of them.

Assuming he meant any one of the assertions supporting plasma cosmology, and not for me to expose my identity in public debate with one of those scientists, since the second is highly unlikely but the first is easily done.

If I should have picked different 'facts of plasma cosmology' please present the specific points you'd like to see me debate.

Anyway...
not being one to trust in youtubes presentation of a thing, I'll be digging deeper into the major tennents of the cosmology presented, and what evidence it rests upon.


Some initial thoughts that pop to mind after smoking up with the videos and beginnings of research fresh in my memory.

Around the time Lerner was write 'The Big Bang Never Happened' there were early reports by Toshio Matsumoto, Andrew Lange and Paul Richards concerning a series of measurements taken by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, which appeared anomalous. These measurements seemingly indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a black body spectrum. A later released report on the completed analysis of the data, showed however, that the cosmic microwave background radiation was a near-perfect black-body spectrum and that it had very faint anisotropies, exactly as predicted by big bang models and in contradiction to plasma cosmology. There seems to be no way that the plasma model can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds.



Anisotropy (/ˌænaɪˈsɒtrəpi/) is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which implies identical properties in all directions.

 

[bucks8n]

the other criterion

the other criterion

already seen it.
Ignores quite a large body of information, it does.

Your interesting response and comments above (nice post ) about things to look out for in spotting bogus pseudo-science seems to ignore one KEY criterion though: refutability.

If it's not refutable it's NOT science, it's religion!

Which is a key point most religious critics of evolution as a 'theory' seem to ignore!

 

[sac beh]

it should give fuel for thought to those out there who thinks the physics of our reality is fully understood and agreed upon by the authorities on the subject in 2010.

I don't think I've seen anything posted by anyone who thinks that the physics of our reality are fully understood... I don't think that I've ever even seen anyone claim that there was a consensus cosmological model.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Threads discussing science always have this problem: people come along thinking they've refuted science's claim to complete knowledge when science has in fact not claimed completeness. It claims rigor, reasonableness, provability and consensus.

So anyone wanting to refute science with the criticism that it doesn't know everything about everything might as well be hunting ghosts with ekg meters and proton packs.

Having said that, I'll try to watch the videos since I've never seen them.

 

[sac beh]

I found the second video to a bit more interesting than the first. The first part spent too much time complaining about academic repression and people having their telescope time taken away, very boring. Part 2 pointed out some actual weaknesses in the big bang model, in my view.

In fact, I think Arp said in the first video something along the lines of: what's important isn't the evidence for his theory, because if its true it will be shown with time and evidence, but what's important is how they took away his telescope time and he wanted to make a point of it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I found the second video to a bit more interesting than the first. The first part spent too much time complaining about academic repression and people having their telescope time taken away, very boring. Part 2 pointed out some actual weaknesses in the big bang model, in my view.

In fact, I think Arp said in the first video something along the lines of: what's important isn't the evidence for his theory, because if its true it will be shown with time and evidence, but what's important is how they took away his telescope time and he wanted to make a point of it.

there are some weaknesses in the standard model, no doubt.

there are some weaknesses in plasma cosmology which are more glaring.

m-theory still seems to me to have the best shot at explaining all the whys.

 

[sac beh]

I'm not saying that the answer to this question necessarily leads to the correct cosmological model, but its a thought I raised while watching.

What sounds more incredible, that a whole universe of things came into existence out of nothing or that a universe is eternal?

 

[BrainSellz]

I

What sounds more incredible, that a whole universe of things came into existence out of nothing or that a universe is eternal?

Or is the universe and everything in it just a big thought?
Both, i allways thought it was wierd that nothing exists without being thought of first exept for things of nature, atleast i think.
excuse me if off topic

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'm not saying that the answer to this question necessarily leads to the correct cosmological model, but its a thought I raised while watching.

What sounds more incredible, that a whole universe of things came into existence out of nothing or that a universe is eternal?

That both cases are true is the option that fits in the best with what we know. Our universe came into existence out of a nothing which is only nothing relevant to our perception, and exist outside of the time which we perceive.

but I am basing the level of credibility based on my understanding of things I have studied.

to others the credibility will be determined by their own experience and study.

fortunately, what is is independent of our perception of its credibility.

 

[sac beh]

That both cases are true is the option that fits in the best with what we know. Our universe came into existence out of a nothing which is only nothing relevant to our perception, and exist outside of the time which we perceive.

So it didn't come from nothing, but from something outside of the first 4 dimensions?

 

[Weird]

I'm not saying that the answer to this question necessarily leads to the correct cosmological model, but its a thought I raised while watching.

What sounds more incredible, that a whole universe of things came into existence out of nothing or that a universe is eternal?

I see it as the quintessential quandary of evolving man

our minds are programmed for relative comprehension yet are capable of pushing beyond, capable of conceptualizing what lies beyond our current relative understanding or our current perceived paradigm of reality

what is the benefit of thinking outside the box?

i would be willing to bet its relative to the cost of living outside it coupled with the true (vs. perceived) value of what one thinks they might find

sounds more incredible that we would be able to be so finite in being yet so infinite in our understanding

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

So it didn't come from nothing, but from something outside of the first 4 dimensions?

probably

 

[igrowone]

i can't get myself up for videos, so went looking for a quicker summary
the wiki on the plasma universe is pretty good, quick read
the thrust of the argument was equal amounts of matter/antimatter are present in the universe(which has always existed by the theory)
there are pockets of matter and of anti matter, so if you traveled far enough you'd eventually run into a antimatter pocket
this was the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

 

[sac beh]

I found this video very helpful as an introduction to these concepts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzhO7JiJl48&NR=1

Much more straightforward. I think we need an m-theory thread... fascinating

 

[whadeezlrg]

big bang theory for sure, Penny is HOT!