Cosmologists Search for Gravity Waves to Prove Inflation Theory

Article written: 16 Feb , 2009
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

[/caption]

During the next decade, cosmologists will attempt to observe the first moments of the Universe, hoping to prove a popular theory. They’ll be searching for extremely weak gravity waves to measure primordial light, looking for convincing evidence for the Cosmic Inflation Theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in the fabric of space and time gave birth to the Universe in a hot big bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. A new instrument called a polarimeter is being attached to the South Pole Telescope (SPT), which operates at submillimeter wavelengths, between microwaves and the infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that Cosmic Inflation should produce the weak gravity waves.

Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid and exponential expansion of the Universe during its first few moments prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the Universe today.

In 1979, physicist Alan Guth proposed the Cosmic Inflation Theory, which also predicts the existence of an infinite number of universes. Unfortunately, cosmologists have no way of testing that particular prediction.

The South Pole Telescope takes advantage of the clear, dry skies at the National  Science Foundation’s South Pole Station to study the cosmic background  radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. The SPT measures eight meters (26.4  feet) in diameter.  Photo by Jeff McMahon

The South Pole Telescope takes advantage of the clear, dry skies at the National Science Foundation’s South Pole Station to study the cosmic background radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. The SPT measures eight meters (26.4 feet) in diameter. Photo by Jeff McMahon


“Since these are separate universes, by definition that means we can never have any contact with them. Nothing that happens there has any impact on us,” said Scott Dodelson, a scientist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and a Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.

But there is a way to probe the validity of cosmic inflation. The phenomenon would have produced two classes of perturbations. The first, fluctuations in the density of subatomic particles happen continuously throughout the universe, and scientists have already observed them.

“Usually they’re just taking place on the atomic scale. We never even notice them,” Dodelson said. But inflation would instantaneously stretch these perturbations into cosmic proportions. “That picture actually works. We can calculate what those perturbations should look like, and it turns out they are exactly right to produce the galaxies we see in the universe.”

The second class of perturbations would be gravity waves—Einsteinian distortions in space and time. Gravity waves also would get promoted to cosmic proportions, perhaps even strong enough for cosmologists to detect them with sensitive telescopes tuned to the proper frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

If the new polarimeter is sensitive enough, scientists should be able to detect the waves.

“If you detect gravity waves, it tells you a whole lot about inflation for our universe,” said John Carlstrom from the University of Chicago, who developed the new instrument. Carlstrom said detecting the waves would rule out various competing ideas for the origin of the universe. “There are fewer than there used to be, but they don’t predict that you have such an extreme, hot big bang, this quantum fluctuation, to start with,” he said. Nor would they produce gravity waves at detectable levels.

A simulation at this link portrays the distortions in space and time at the subatomic scale, the result of quantum fluctuations occurring continuously throughout the universe. Near the end of the simulation, cosmic inflation begins to stretch space-time to the cosmic proportions of the universe.

Cosmologists also use the SPT in their quest to solve the mystery of dark energy. A repulsive force, dark energy pushes the universe apart and overwhelms gravity, the attractive force exerted by all matter.
Dark energy is invisible, but astronomers are able to see its influence on clusters of galaxies that formed within the last few billion years.

NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe collected data that produced this  chart of sound waves from the universe. Called a power spectrum, the chart  plots the cosmic microwave background radiation as ripples of different sizes  across the sky. The data are consistent with predictions of cosmic inflation  theory.  Courtesy of the WMAP Science Team

NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe collected data that produced this chart of sound waves from the universe. Called a power spectrum, the chart plots the cosmic microwave background radiation as ripples of different sizes across the sky. The data are consistent with predictions of cosmic inflation theory. Courtesy of the WMAP Science Team


The SPT detects the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. Cosmologists have mined a fortune of data from the CMB, which represent the forceful drums and horns of the cosmic symphony. But now the scientific community has its ears cocked for the tones of a subtler instrument—gravitational waves—that underlay the CMB.

“We have these key components to our picture of the universe, but we really don’t know what physics produces any of them,” said Dodelson of inflation, dark energy and the equally mysterious dark matter. “The goal of the next decade is to identify the physics.”

Source: University of Chicago


88 Responses

  1. Anaconda says

    This article is instructive and illustrative of the current crisis in cosmology.

    “Gravitational waves” are predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, yet despite numerous efforts (LIGO) none have ever been detected. Far from considering the possibility that the failure to detect “gravitational waves” falsifies the theory, more efforts are made to find them.

    Also, Halton Arp’s work on quasars and galazxes and that observed & measured plasma connections or bridges exist between galaxies and quasars of different ‘redshifts’ contradicts the consensus that ‘redshift’ equals speed, age and distance. This seems to also contradict the inflationary theory of the so-called early Universe shortly after the supposed “big bang”

    Again, “dark” energy has never been detected, and the fact that the scientist who proposed the “inflation” hypothesis, and that’s what it is, a hypothesis, rather than a theory, which requires “dark” energy, also proposed multiple Universes, should present a red flag to “modern” astronomers.

    The fact that it doesn’t should leave any causal observer shaking their head and asking hard questions.

    “Dark” energy was hypothesized because the “inflation” theory needed some kind of repulsive force to explain the widely dispersed Universe.

    But science doesn’t need to hypothesize unobserved repulsive forces, when a known and recognized ‘Fundamental Force’, electromagnetism has a repulsive force which is well understood from work in plasma physics laboratories.

    The Universe is over 99% plasma. Electromagnetism is intertwined with the dynamics of plasma. And one of electromagnetism known properties is repulsion along with attraction.

    Consider the closing paragraph of this post:

    “We have these key components to our picture of the universe, but we really don’t know what physics produces any of them,” said Dodelson of inflation, dark energy and the equally mysterious dark matter. “The goal of the next decade is to identify the physics.”

    Neither “dark’ matter or “dark’ energy has been detected despite vast expenditures and efforts to detect them in the last 20 to 30 years.

    Yet, “gravity only model” valdity hangs on in the balance. Let’s be frank: The “gravity only model” is falsified without them. Apparently, as is “inflation” theory.

    Of course, there is an alternative theory Plasma Cosmology that rests on the dynamic ‘Fundamental Force’ of electromagnetism, and doesn’t reqire unobserved “dark” matter or energy.

    “The goal of the next decade is to identify the physics.”

    Yes, but the identified and observed physics will be electromagnetism and “modern” astronomy will be required to back away from this infatuation with invented imaginary “forces” and concentrate on known, observed, and measured physical forces.

    The crisis is simple: Will “modern” astronomy be able to admit these “dead ends” and move to a more productive avenue for explaining the Universe?

    At this point, it is still an open question.

  2. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    Your response demonstrates the crisis perfectly. Your responses are mostly ridicule and abuse. Apparently, there is too much to ignore, which is the first stage of a failed status quo’s response to a challenge to its world view. Then the next stage is ridicule and abuse (that’s where you are), then the next stage is an attempted detailed refutation. Finally, there is acceptance and an insistence that the new ideas were inherent in the old status quo all along.

    You emotional responses only reveal the weakness of your position.

    Oh, by the way, are you okay with the “inflation” theory being proposed by somebody that at the same time proposed multiple Universes? Or was that parallel Universes or both?

    @ ND, sure, more detailed investigation is fine and to the extent this post speaks to that solution to the problem of unobserved “gravitational waves” the post is fine. Perhaps, the new instrumentation will find something.

    But ignoring the probems with the “gravity only model” will not make it any easier should no “gravitational waves” ever be found even with more sensitive equipment looking at a smaller spectrum of space phenomenon.

    The concern with confirmational bias should also be stated. Because what is observed does not always demonstrate the hypothesis in question.

    The implications of the failure to find “gravitational waves”, and so far that is the case, should be confronted, not ignored.

    Observation & measurement is the best course for science.

    Ridicule and abuse for somebody simply pointing out such stark failures as “dark” matter and “dark” energy is ample demonstration of the crisis of Cosmology.

  3. Anaconda says

    @ Olaf:

    You ask: “what is plasma accoring to you? And how can palsma stay plasma in the very cold 2.7K? What mechanism makes it stay plasma?”

    plasma is defined as ionized elements where electrons and positive ions are seperate. You are referring to the average temperaure of space. Even “modern” astronomy suggests ionized clouds, jets, and other plasma phenomenon don’t exist at the average temperature of space.

    “Modern” astronomy rests many of its conclusions upon thermal expansion, obviously, it’s adherents don’t suggest all space exists at 2.7 K.

    @ Astrofiend:

    You state: “Of course they [‘gravitational waves] haven’t been detected Anaconda – the experiments simply haven’t gained the required sensitivity yet.”

    That’s the assumption, anyway, but obviously enough, scientists thought they could be detected with previous instruments, or else scientists wouldn’t have spent all that time, money, and effort with the earlier projects.

    And how long will you be humming that toon if scientists still continue to fail to detect “gravitational waves”? How many failures to it take to admit there is a problem with the theory? As long as it takes?

    That wears out after a while.

    Astrofiend, your revisionist history doesn’t explain the fact that near-space exploration has largely verified that plasma and electromagnetic phenomenon have been deteted and verified by NASA.

    For roughly 70 years “modern” astronomy denied the electrical nature of Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth. NASA has confirmed the electrical nature of ‘magnetic flux ropes’ [Birkeland currents] and the debate is over.

    “Modern” astronomy was wrong.

    Is it reasonable to suggest that the observations & measurements of near-space should be considered when extrapolating to deep space?

    Also, Los Alomos Laboratory is conducting research on Plasma Cosmology in conjunction with high energy plasma research and this website recently posted a scientific simulation in a plasma physics laboratory that replicated the jets observed in deep space originally published in Astrophysical Review Letters.

    Your statements are false in regard to current discoveries and research. And your comment while less abusive than Salacious B. Crumb still evinces a person that is threatened and attempting to ridicule a challenge into silence, rather than respond on the merits.

    I’m left scatching my head why so many, although, certainly not all, “gravity only model” proponents seem to take it personally when somebody suggests an alternative explanation which has a substantial body of scientfic work supporting it?

    Somehow, are we to accept that a ‘Fundamental Force’, electromagnetism, doesn’t play a substantial role in the dynamics of large scale structures in the Universe?

    At this point, the question isn’t whether electromagnetism plays a role or not, but rather, what are the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity in the Universe.

    That is the more fruitful and responsible approach to resolving these scientific questions.

  4. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    Number one rule when you find yourself digging a hole? Stop digging.

    You don’t have an appreciation for how you come off sounding and looking to others.

    You carry on, when the issues are beyond the point where ridicule will silence the objections to the “gravity only model” and the evidence is present that supports the Plasma Cosmology view that electromagnetism plays a vital role in, not just near-space, but also deep space, too.

    Side-by-side comparison of the two theories based on observation & measurement and analysis is the most fruitful approach.

    This would seem to be in the spirit of open scientific inquiry.

    Is that a threat to your world view?

    It shouldn’t.

  5. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Good luck!
    I am admittedly looking forward to the discovery on gravity waves in the near future. The ‘gravity race’ is on to be the first, using many direct and indirect techniques. Shows the absolute ingenuity of science.
    If found, I also wonder is there will be any direct application?

  6. Jon Hanford says

    It’s interesting to contrast and compare this GW experiment with the better known LIGO (and its’ upgrades) and in the future LISA. This experiment sure looks cheaper to implement than the two I mentioned. Gravity wave astronomy sure has come a long way since the 1960’s. Thanks for the update, Nancy.

  7. Zibit says

    I like observation over theory’s. Put more Satellites in orbit and let the data speak for itself.

  8. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda
    Mate, what a lot of codswallop. It looks like random words that a monkey might use.
    Actually the only true thing of any sense you have said was; “”Gravitational waves” are predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, yet despite numerous efforts (LIGO) none have ever been detected”
    I wonder why? Is it perhaps because it hasn’t been discovered, yet?
    The other fallacy is that all experimentation has to prove a result.
    If you had any inkling of science, if gravity waves weren’t found,
    say more about our theories need correction – all part of the bricks that make the pyramid of knowledge.
    Were we to believe this twaddle, we would have never discovered the strong and weak nuclear forces, which were predicted before they were actually discovered. Our knowledge of these forces have aid science from computer technology to the prediction of QED (Quantum electrodynamics)
    As for gravity, it already exists. You should also heed it’s advice, as it least it keeps your feet planted on the ground.
    If “dead ends” worry you so much, it is clear you have no understanding of how science works. You win some, you lose some, but if you do nothing you learn nothing. Perhaps we need aliens, God, portents from the future, made up stories, lies deceit, etc. Pure diatribe.

    Here, even the possibility mental illness and paranoia, at this point, is still an open question.

    (God I beginning to hate people who think they understand the universe better than everyone else!)

  9. ND says

    Hi Anaconda,

    Long time no talk.

    You’re ignoring the difficulty of directly detecting gravitational waves. The GW researchers so far are not satisfied that GW do not exist. More efforts *need* to be made to satisfactorily determine if GWs exist or not.

    Indirect evidence such as the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar point in the direction of GWs.

    I though we went over this at Bad Astronomy.

  10. ND says

    Zibit,

    “I like observation over theory’s. Put more Satellites in orbit and let the data speak for itself.”

    I think scientists would love to have more satellites and probes then there are now. 🙂 Who wouldn’t?

    I’m sure even theoretical physicists hunger over observational data too.

  11. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda said;
    “The fact that it doesn’t should leave any causal observer shaking their head and asking hard questions.”

    Clearly just because YOU don’t understand things doesn’t necessarily mean everything under the sun is wrong. Then it follows in your mind, that everything else is some conspiracy theory, and it then becomes your DUTY to coerce everyone else to think like wise – a hero in his own delusion. (Methinks, someone has been watching “Heroes” on TV too much)

    If you must know, jScience actually speaks in the word of mathematics. Most casual observers are unable to decode it meaning let alone read it.
    Unless you can produce some important mathematical proof, that can be verified by peer review, your words become merely meaningless dribble
    Perhaps only then can bring something to the table to show your better understanding the universe. In the meantime, I do suggest you keep your lips tightly close instead of continuously putting your foot in it..
    Note: “www delete” is not a valid website, which I presume you hide behind to make you look as if you know what you are taking about. Good trick (and you have done it before). So what are you really hiding from? Eh?

  12. Olaf says

    Anaconda, seems to believe in the theory that an electron orbits a atom nucleus like a nano-solar system. LOL

  13. Olaf says

    Anaconda, a question to you, what is plasma accoring to you? And how can palsma stay plasma in the very cold 2.7K? What mechanism makes it stay plasma?

  14. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    “Modern” astronomy has been ruled by the “gravity only model” for most of the 20th century so it’s no surprise that most conventional astronomers follow its conventions.

    But it is indisputable that “modern” astronomy was wrong about Birkeland currents being an electrical phenomenon between the Sun and the Earth.

    Actually, Hannes Alfven predicted synchrotron radiation would be found in space — Alfven was vindicated as synchrotron radiation was detected in space.

    No, not all his predictions have been confirmed, but that’s true for most cosmologists.

    How many times do we have to read astrophysicists were “surprised”?

    Again, Plasma Cosmology offers a better hypothesis than the “gravity only model” on star formation. Gravitational collapse has been found to have several problems in terms of star formation, whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.

    I think it’s safe to say that Wikipedia is no friend of Plasma Cosmology.

    Why do I think it has that view? Because folks like you want it that way.

    The difference is that electromagnetism has evidence that supports it. A flat Earth does not, and neither does “dark” matter, “dark” energy, or “gravitational waves”.

    But or “black holes”, or “neutron” stars.

    There is no such thing as neutronium.

    Salacious B. Crumb: “Actually, Los Alomos IS NOT doing research on Plasma Cosmology at all, it is doing research on plasma physics.”

    Wrong, Dr. Anthony Peratt conducts both plasma physics research and Plasma Cosmology research at Los Alomos National Laboratory, check out his website at
    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

    Salacious B. Crumb: “To suggest otherwise is a clear example of using deceptive tactics to validate an incorrect view.”

    Gee guy, who is the one attempting to be deceptive. Guess who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

  15. pantzov says

    the main point of anaconda’s post was that it is wrong to make assumptions based on unproven theories and then to build new theories on top of those that are previously unproven.

    whether or not someone agrees with his alternative explanation is a matter for debate. i’m surprised at how spitefully he was attacked for what he wrote.

  16. Astrofiend says

    Of course they haven’t been detected Anaconda – the experiments simply haven’t gained the required sensitivity yet. Scientists don’t expect that they could detect any but the most energetic gravitational waves with current tech. It’s like trying to find gamma ray burst afterglows with the naked eye – occasionally one reaches naked eye visibility, but 99.99% of the action is simply too dim for the instrumentation at hand. It is the same deal here.

    Of course, there is the indirect measurements of the orbital period decay in pulsars, decaying at precisely the rate predicted by general relativity if gravitational waves were carrying the energy away from the system, but hey – who needs evidence for the current paradigm when it’s obvious that electromagnetism is the answer to everything? Hell, get Oillsmastery in here and he’ll spin off a few quotes from Tutankhamun or someone that’ll prove your points once and for all.

    General Rel has been verified time and time again. By and large, our current view of cosmology is rather self-consistent. Remarkably so, considering the youthfulness of the field and the severe limitations placed upon it by technological constraints. Face it – plasma cosmology doesn’t not work because there is nobody researching it – there is nobody researching plasma cosmology because it doesn’t explain the universe that we observe. It was a theory proposed at the very beginning of the science of cosmology that was quickly found to be lacking in explanatory power, and especially lacking that little detail of any sort of agreement with empirical data.

    It’s in a deep coma. It’s brain-dead, with no chance of waking up. Just let it die with dignity.

  17. Excalibur says

    @Anaconda: Your statement about 99% of the universe being plasma is a gross overestimate, please check your numbers more carefully!

    And this signifies the real crisis – wildly stated exaggerations and misunderstandings made in general and public forums, because the statements themselves are not considered credible enough to debate in the proper places.

    I dont know if gravity waves exists or not, they are implied, they are predicted by a theory that in many cases are extremely well tested, but this part is not tested yet. If gravity waves are not found, then atleast we learn that this part of existing theories are incorrect.

    I do however know that pet-theories that doesnt survive even simple tests are very common in public forums, and so far the Electric Universe falls into that category. Perhaps someone have a more comprehensive explanation, but that someone is still to be found.

  18. ND says

    Anaconda: “The implications of the failure to find “gravitational waves”, and so far that is the case, should be confronted, not ignored.”

    Experiments such as LIGO and others are the best way to confront any theoretical prediction such as GW. Scientists are confronting GW.

    You need to understand the nature of GWs according to GR and how the GW experiments are being conducted to be able to say whether it’s a failure or not. You’re writing it off way too fast.

    Anaconda: “Observation & measurement is the best course for science.”

    And this isn’t happening?

  19. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda said;
    “Apparently, there is too much to ignore, which is the first stage of a failed status quo’s response to a challenge to its world view.”

    OK, accord to whom? It looks like you just plug or paraphrase whatever that matches you own view. What about the majority of others who actually don’t concur? Ignore them, perhaps?
    Also by using closed loop arguments also exposes your quite ridiculous and unsubstantiated point of view. It hides the basic tenet that you are talking plain bunkum without understanding or comprehension. Actually, there IS no bias here.
    As to my answer, well it was YOU who made these silly comments in the original post, not me. I have nothing to defend by common sense, and frankly you do not make much sense at all.
    Now, let’s see, let’s take an example of your failures in your arguments.
    You actually state “The concern with confirmational bias…”. Isn’t this a psychological term used in the cognitive sciences? You then go on to say; “Because what is observed does not always demonstrate the hypothesis in question.” Wow.
    Does not “Conformational bias” mainly applies to confirm preconceptions by avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. So logically here, in your argument of prior beliefs have more validity than hypothesis.
    So what you are ACTUALLY accusing is that cosmologists are ignoring prior hypothesis and experimental knowledge. OK.
    What specific hypothesis are wrong, and where are YOUR general proofs that they are wrong. (Don’t tell me, you don’t actually know! I’ll just quote others. Right.)
    Show me the literature that shows these hypothesis are wrong? (You can’t)
    Now logically, you then want us all to believe ; “Because what is observed does not always demonstrate the hypothesis in question.” However, have you ever considered that in the vast majority of what physics and science already mostly demonstrated through many layers of previous hypotheses. I.e. Gravity, quantum mechanics, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. etc. Furthermore don’t these principles have practical application – that is why it is sometimes called applied science? (Let’s discard them because Anaconda just doesn’t believe in them. Burn all the text books and get new version to match the views of the new prophet of the sciences.)

    Oh, of forgot. You somehow just know better than everyone else. (Don’t tell me. Does someone talk to you in a vision or two, or is it pure intellect here over us stupid peasants of science who need you illuminating commentary ?)

    The bottom line is you really simple don’t know at all. You neither having the mathematical or cosmological background to support what your radical views, It just says through your words you know even less.

    Sorry, you appear to know absolutely nothing, and clearly, you’ll win no victories here. Very sadly, the only valid option left seems that public ridicule is the only why to stop the nonsense of individuals like you. (or is that hypothesis untrue as well?)

    IMO, the only thing is crises here is not cosmology, but your own wrong illusions of science, the world and universe.

    (It is like the greatest put down in the world.
    “Yes, I was being sarcastic. Or am I being sarcastic now?”
    (Just a theory, I suppose.)

  20. Manu says

    Two problems in this article (and comments).

    1-: Inflation theory has NOTHING to do with multiple, parallel or whatever universes;
    2-: Gravity waves have NOTHING to do with gravitational waves.

    Gravity waves are mechanical, propagating vibrations (waves) generated in any material medium when the recall force is classical gravity.
    Ripples on water, waves in the sea, are gravity waves: particles of the medium (water) are moving in response to their neighbor’s movements, and their own weight (gravity).

    Gravitational waves by contrast, are vibrations of space itself (space-time actually), not affecting (much) whatever matter this space may hold. They are a prediction of General Relativity, that has yet to be confirmed despite some very promising, but indirect possible detections.

    Finally, the SPT is not going to detect gravity waves themselves (as here and now), but their effects on the CMB (very long ago and far away).
    So any comparison with LIGO / VIRGO is irrelevant.

    There were indeed Universe-scale gravity waves, and sound waves too (sound waves are pressure waves, not gravity waves) around the time the CMB was emitted, because the young Universe was then ‘filled’ by more or less homogeneous matter (gas) through which mechanical vibrations could propagate.

    Studying these vibrations is another tool to better understand the young Universe, just like seismology is a good tool to study planets or stars.

  21. Salacious B. Crumb says

    OK. let’s play in your ball part, eh.

    Plasma Cosmology has been rejected by the vast majority of cosmologist and astrophysicists.

    For example, many of Alfvén Hannes have been shown as speculative nature. Mostly, it is rejected as his Birkeland currents
    offer impossibly explanations for star formation.

    Here is an interesting quote from wiki, which also has been placed completely in the literature. “Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.”

    Why is that view do you think? Eh?

    This is clearly not as you say “Side-by-side comparison of the two theories based on observation & measurement and analysis is the most fruitful approach. This would seem to be in the spirit of open scientific inquiry.”

    This validates my conclusion that; “IMO, the only thing is crises here is not cosmology, but your own wrong illusions of science, the world and universe”

    You said; “Number one rule when you find yourself digging a hole? Stop digging.”

    Ah, trying to put me of the scent eh?

    Wanna keep digging?

  22. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Acandonda. You said: either astrophysics or cosmology shows; “concern with confirmational bias” Do you have any direct evidence of this bias? Is this merely speculative to make readers here be suckered into your false premise that “cosmology is in crises”?

    Common sense methinks, tell us this is highly improbable, and if even if true, difficult to prove.

    As for “This would seem to be in the spirit of open scientific inquiry.” Sure, propose that the cosmology Earth is flat. Is that open for scientific enquiry, eh? (99.9999% would lock you away as an absolute nutter!)

    As to asking; “Is that a threat to your world view?”

    No not really. My world view is based on the evidence in front of me and the observations of the world. Facts and observation are certainly preferable to speculation and delusion. I.e. Is it a world of reality or conjured-up by magic.

    (Alfvén’s Father would say your just being a naughty little boy!)

  23. Salacious B. Crumb says

    … and Anaconda goes silent.

  24. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda wrote;
    “Also, Los Alomos Laboratory is conducting research on Plasma Cosmology in conjunction with high energy plasma research and this website recently posted a scientific simulation in a plasma physics laboratory that replicated the jets observed in deep space originally published in Astrophysical Review Letters.”

    Actually, Los Alomos IS NOT doing research on Plasma Cosmology at all, it is doing research on plasma physics.
    To suggest otherwise is a clear example of using deceptive tactics to validate an incorrect view – something you accuse the cosmologists of doing through ” confirmational bias…”
    Yet you want us to take you seriously! Really.

  25. Astrofiend says

    “That’s the assumption, anyway, but obviously enough, scientists thought they could be detected with previous instruments, or else scientists wouldn’t have spent all that time, money, and effort with the earlier projects.”

    >>No, it’s not the assumption – it’s the calculation. And yes, almost all gravitational wave observatories built to this point have essentially been ‘pathfinder’ experiments and technology demonstrators.

    “And how long will you be humming that toon if scientists still continue to fail to detect “gravitational waves”? How many failures to it take to admit there is a problem with the theory? As long as it takes?”

    >> As General Relativity has been verified by so many experiments so precisely, as the theory perfectly predicts the behaviour of objects in gravitational fields (such as GPS satellites, and a multitude of astronomical objects), as periapsis precession has been observed and precisely predicted by GR in Hulse-Taylor pulsars, as the gravitational waves have all but been observed anyway by the orbital decay of binary pulsar orbits by the precise amount (0.05%) predicted by GR (Kramer, M. et al. (2006). “Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar”. Science 314: 97–102), and for a multitude of other reasons, I think we can give the theory a little credit and delve down to where the calculated strength of gravitational waves lie. Or we could call it off at the point just before we’re getting to the technological sophistication necessary to actually detect them like you suggest. Either way I guess.

    “Astrofiend, your revisionist history doesn’t explain the fact that near-space exploration has largely verified that plasma and electromagnetic phenomenon have been deteted and verified by NASA.

    For roughly 70 years “modern” astronomy denied the electrical nature of Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth. NASA has confirmed the electrical nature of ‘magnetic flux ropes’ [Birkeland currents] and the debate is over.

    “Modern” astronomy was wrong.”

    >>I’m not saying what you term ‘modern astronomy’ is always right – if it was then we’d have a complete picture of the universe already. But a) ‘astronomers never denied the existence of plasma and electromagnetic phenomena – detecting it was no surprise (who’s revisionist now?), and b) verifying that electromagnetic phenomena exist in the universe on such a small scale does nothing to suggest that it is a cosmologically important effect. If you feel that it is, learn some maths and go and rub out some calculations to give your theory some credibility. What does your theory predict? Lets compare it to measurement. Even at the most basic level – merely suggesting that electromagnetic phenomena may be responsible for aspects of the structure of the large scale universe – could be nutted out and compared to empirical data. Hell – forget the maths – even suggesting a viable mechanism for this large scale influence that is actually possible would be a start.

    “Is it reasonable to suggest that the observations & measurements of near-space should be considered when extrapolating to deep space?”

    >> Considered, extrapolated, didn’t match up with observation, rejected.

    “Also, Los Alomos Laboratory is conducting research on Plasma Cosmology in conjunction with high energy plasma research and this website recently posted a scientific simulation in a plasma physics laboratory that replicated the jets observed in deep space originally published in Astrophysical Review Letters.”

    >>You simply don’t get it do you? Plasma astrophysics is a mainstream topic in physics. Hell – I studied it at uni. I’m not saying that plasma doesn’t exist, or that electromagnetism isn’t a fundamental force in the universe, or that a great deal of phenomena in the universe isn’t described by the Maxwell-Heaviside equations. I’m simply saying there is no evidence for your main contention – that electromagnetism plays a significant role in shaping the large scale structure of the universe.

    “I’m left scatching my head why so many, although, certainly not all, “gravity only model” proponents seem to take it personally when somebody suggests an alternative explanation which has a substantial body of scientfic work supporting it?”

    >>I don’t take it personally – I just love arguing the point as all good scientists do. Mainstream science disregards plasma cosmology these days for good reason. There isn’t a substantial body of work supporting it as you deceptively claim. Don’t you think that if dark energy or dark matter could be resolved by simply saying ‘oh, the EM force may do the trick’ that this would have been figured out years ago? It simply doesn’t work. Maybe in the future, new observations may show how EM could be worked into a theory that actually does describe what we see. Happy days if that happens. Science is about reconciling theory with observation after all. But as it stands the EM force just simply does not have the properties that explain what we see.

    Anyway, I’m headed home. It’s been fun, but I simply cannot be bothered typing anymore.

  26. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Now you are really kidding aren’t you…Fake sites, mystery claimants, fudged results, new made-up branches of science.. Oh dear… Gobbled-gook for gobbley-gooks!
    This alleged site you have linked has absolutely nothing to do with the Los Alamos Laboratory.
    Let’s see. Go to http://library.lanl.gov/infores/physics.htm
    (Library of Los Alamos National Laboratory) Type;
    “plasma cosmology” with the parenthesises what do you get…
    Zippity do da!!

    Also good to see you read up to date publications. Nothing exists. since about 2003. Nothing exists. Why is that you think?

    Hands in imaginary cookie jars. Read any chicken entrails today… ?

    Absolutely LMAO

    “Who’s more foolish. The fool or the fool that follows him” Obi-Wan Konbi

  27. Salacious B. Crumb says

    In Anaconda (and likely Pavel Smutny*)

    Sure Dr. Peratt wrote on “Physics of the Plasma Universe’ (1995) in “Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology’ (1995), but he has never speculated like you do on presumed “plasma cosmology.”
    I also love your bogus reference above to ; “whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.” Isn’t the connection to Dr. Anthony Peratt, who discovered such an affect in aurorae? It is supposed to be a means of confining plasma field using electrical current to compress the plasma, If I recall, the this is done by a quartz tube.
    However, I believe he never made no connection between plasma physics in the Earth environment and the astrophysical connection – as you do here. Was not this work based on plasma physics and not on the non-existent and mythical “plasma cosmology”
    Also, I found an extra-ordinary similar article on the 2012 Doomsday and plasma. Here I just came upon a page that shows how dangerous the 2012 doom-sayers are. I.e. See “Part 2 – The Previous Doomsday of 12,950 BC: what was it like?” at; http://www.viewzone.com/endtime2x.html (Part 1 is even more astounding!)
    Amazingly, I found one of the most bizarre connection with the later article by “Cosmologists Search for Gravity Waves to Prove Inflation Theory”, “Anaconda” who is prattling on about a non-existent “plasma cosmology.”
    The connection is surely not unrelated, now is it?

    Wanna dig even deeper? Go on…

    Note : Just to highlight my point in my previous post;
    I just to a search in the “Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics ” (2002) Typed “plasma cosmology” Zip. Why is that?

    * Pavel Smutny appears in 2012 article (February 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am); who states “…please explain exactly with scientific proofs what are those hot spots detected by Los Alamos Milagro cosmic rays detectors/telescope?” This just can’t be coincidence?

  28. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda said; “I think it’s safe to say that Wikipedia is no friend of Plasma Cosmology”
    Good point, but why would anyone be against it? (You don’t happen to say anything else.)
    Also let’s do a Google search on plasma cosmology. What is the first page I find; http://www.plasmacosmology.net/ (Your page perhaps – the missing “www.delete” in the linked website “Anaconda”
    In this it is said; “Scientific theories, by definition, are vulnerable to being falsified. Science moves on.”
    It says, as a conclusion; “Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. … Plasma cosmology does NOT rely on abstract mathematical modelling or an increasing array of exotic hypotheticals like Dark Matter and Dark Energy!”
    Well let’s talk about you little hero; Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) said; “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
    “Imaginary conjecture”, I wonder whose been saying that. Ummm, Remind you of anyone? Eh?
    Are you starting to feel a little naked and exposed…

  29. Anaconda says

    General words of comment:

    It is not my intent to re-argue the entire extent of Plasma Cosmology on each post. Rather, to focus on the issues raised by the post, itself.

    That seems fair and reasonable.

    But some of my interlocutors seem content to attempt to smother my specific comments to the post, by arguing the length and breadth of cosmology — a galactic battle, if you will.

    That’s not fair to the post or readers who want to stay focussed on the topic at hand.

    To that end, I won’t answer every jot and tittle of their arguments.

    Readers have to ask themselves — am I willing to have some comments be the extent of my knowledge or do I take the time and make the effort and actively investigate for myself?

    It seems the tasks of my interlocutors and myself are diametrically opposed: My comments hopefully encourage readers to ask questions and investigate — I’ll let the “chips fall where they may;” my interlocutors comments are designed to discourage questions, independent investigation, and be satified with their comments.

    Which approach is more consistent with the spirit of free scientific inquiry: Investigate and make your own decisions, or “pay no attention to what that babbler be about to say?”

    Now, I will respond to a few comments as briefly as possible.

    Astrofiend: “And yes, almost all gravitational wave observatories built to this point have essentially been ‘pathfinder’ experiments and technology demonstrators. ”

    Sure, they are “pathfinders” and “demonstrators”, but failing to detect the theorized phenomenon is significant and shouldn’t be swept under the rug, Failing to detect predicted phenomenon has been all too common in “modern” astronomy, being “surprised” has not. Actually, that’s why the number of predictions have lessened because too many have come out wrong.

    On the other hand, Plasma Cosmology has a good track record of predictions.

    Astrofiend states: ” ‘astronomers never denied the existence of plasma and electromagnetic phenomena – detecting it was no surprise (who’s revisionist now?)”

    Good. Folks like Salacious B. Crumb will be surprised to know that.

    Funny, Astrofiend, you admit “modern” astronomy was wrong about Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth, and then claim there was “no surprise.”

    Which is it?

    I’m not going to do a ‘blow by blow’, I’ll just leave it to say the above encapsulates a good portion of astrofiends comment — contradictory and self-serving, wanting to have it both ways.

    Astrofiend presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: “Is it reasonable to suggest that the observations & measurements of near-space should be considered when extrapolating to deep space?”

    Then atrofiend responds: “>> Considered, extrapolated, didn’t match up with observation, rejected.”

    Astrofiend is being completely disingenuous.

    And he knows it, too.

    Astrofiend tells readers (paraphrase): “Just ignore the part in the scientific method where you take the known (near-space, plasma filled environoment) and extrapolate from the known to the unknown (deep space, large structures).

    See, this is the crisis in cosmology, today, don’t follow basic precepts of the scientific method. Instead, doggedly hang on to objects and energies (“dark”) that have never been detected and pretend nothing is wrong.

    It’s actually the opposite, Plasma Cosmology matches up so well that “gravity only model” proponents don’t want to do “side-by-side comparison” with Plasma Cosmology because observations & measurements are more consistent with Plasma Cosmology theories of large scale structures (star and galaxy formation, and individual phenomenon like jets and double radio lobes of galaxies) than the “gravity only model.”

    Astrofiend states: “Don’t you think that if dark energy or dark matter could be resolved by simply saying ‘oh, the EM force may do the trick’ that this would have been figured out years ago?”

    Astrofiend ignores the tone of his own comments and human nature in his quest to sideline Plasma Cosmology.

    Yes, as is apparent judging by responses to my comments, there are “gravity only model” proponents, that will take any tact to avoid having the “gravity only model” successfully challenged.

    As for Salacious B Crumb’s other comments, his attitude and the methods he is willing to employ are so on display that a fair reading shows what he is: A crank.

    No need to respond to a crank.

    Investigate for yourself — that’s what makes science fun and stimulating.

  30. Anaconda says

    Excalibur attempted to challenge the idea that space is above 99% plasma. This is such a widely recognized figure, I was surprised he would even go there.

    And Excalibur offers no authority for his challenge, just a naked assertion.

    On the other hand, I will offer authority:
    http://www.plasmas.org/rot-plasmas.htm
    “Plasma is by far the most common form of matter. Plasma in the stars and in the tenuous space between them makes up over 99% of the visible universe and perhaps most of that which is not visible.”

    Excalibur, if you challenge the above statement — show your authority. That’s basic scientific method.

    If youcan’t, it’s clear you were talking through your hat and attempting to mislead.

    In Excalibur’s last comment, he states my comments shouldn’t be considered because I have been wrong — I’m not sure what items he is pointing to. But certainly, I am not the be all and end all of Plasma Cosmology, so if I’ve made a mistake, my apologies.

    But Excalibur comes in here making comments as if they should be taken as if from on high.

    But if he was wrong about plasma being ubiquitous, over 99% of observed matter in the Universe, do we hold Excalibur to his own standards?

    What other of Excalibur’s comments are misleading in an attempt to get readers to dismiss Plasma Cosmology out of hand without any independent investigation?

    Excalibur was wrong so his comments shouldn’t be considered ? (No, I wouldn’t be so black and white, just remember his motivation and his willingness to mislead.)

    Particularly since he holds himself out as knowledgable. Everybody knows plasma is over 99% of the visable Universe — so is Excalibur uninformed and ignorant? Or was he intentionally attempting to mislead readers of his comments?

    Again, it goes to the motivation behind the comments.

    Excalibur clearly doesn’t want Plasma Cosmology considered and possibly is willing to mislead to achieve his ends.

    I [Anaconda] want people to investigate on their own and make their own decisions.

    If I make mistakes or even if I attempt to deceive (I’m not, but for the sake of argument), people independently investigating will find out. Whereas, Excalibur’s clear intent is that readers should take his word and not investigate at all.

    Who’s mistakes or deception under those circumstances has more of an impact?

    The answer is clear, the person who wants you to take their word for it and do nothing more.

    Excalibur, you have been exposed.

    Pay no attention to the silly sword in the rock!

  31. Anaconda says

    @ Olaf:

    You are to be commended for doing your own research — that’s all I ask.

    Olaf goes on to say: “For example between Earth the Sun there could be indeed a current and plasma flowing [THERE IS]. But that current is very small compared with the energy needed to have gravity explained.

    It is all about scale, close scale like laboratoirs and inside gas planets and atmosphere the EU could work, but not between the stars and not between the galaxies.”

    Electromagnetic force is known to be scalable up to 14 orders of magnitude, so far there is no known limit to electromagnetism’s scalability.

    The electromagnetic force that has a ubiquitous presence in the interplanetary medium of our solar systm is not insubstantial scientific evidence .

    Ah…two steps forward…one step back…such is often the course of scientific progress…

    Olaf states: “Some small parts of the EU theory actually could make sense, but the 99% other stuff of the EU is pure BS.”

    Gee, I guess interplanetary medium identified and explained is “99% pure BS,” or is that the 1% that makes sense…?

    Anyway, good for you, Olaf, that you are looking into Plasma Cosmology on your own.

    @ ND:

    ND presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: ” “my interlocutors comments are designed to discourage questions, independent investigation, and be satified with their comments.”

    And then responds: “On the contrary.”

    ND, you are oblivious to the tone, attitude, and tactics employed over at Bad Astronomy.
    No surprise, since you were one of the worst offenders.

    ND states: “you, asked questions, [and we answered and] evaluated your assertions.”

    The first comment thread, you guys spent 3/4 of it in denial that electric currents existed at all. One commenter even accused NASA of lying about electric currrents in space.

    And you let that simpleton bather on about NASA lying about there being electric currents in near-space between the Sun and Earth.

    You guys were in flatout denial.

    Please ND, don’t try and rewrite history, your crew at Bad Astronomy were full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

    And I give direct links:

    Here is the first discussion.

    Here is the second discussion.

    Their “shut my eyes to the evidence” attitude was there for all to see, like laundry hanging out on a clothes line.

    Yes, I spent a lot of time responding — I don’t think anybody can say I ran away from the discussion at Bad Astronomy, but everybody has their limits, especially when it’s clear all the other side wants to do is smother your comments.

    The comment threads, here, have been at a high level compared to the crew at Bad Astronomy.

    ND states: “there really isn’t much else to say about it.” Which in some ways is true about the whole ball of wax: “dark’ matter and energy, “black holes”, “neutron” stars and all the rest of the menagerie of unobserved phenomenon that “just have to be there” or else the “gravity only model” is falsified — but we can’t have that, can we?

    So “modern” astronomy keeps pretending the emperor has his clothes on, when in fact the emperor is buck naked.

  32. ND says

    Anaconda,

    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

    appears to be for personal web pages of those working at the labs. I’m not sure it counts as endorsement of PC by lanl.

    Also there used to be more material there and now there’s just a link to another PC site.

  33. Aodhhan says

    Anaconda and Astrofiend.

    Good debate. I enjoyed reading it all. Shows the perfect debate going on right now. Minus the point where science is wrong in the past, so it must be wrong now argument. Assumptions are made no matter which model or theory you use to support an argument.
    I tend to lean towards Anaconda’s views myself. In that I just cannot buy the dark energy concept. Not until we get a much better grip on what exactly gravity is, and whether or not it is constant. The expansive properties of gravitational waves propigating throughout the universe, versus gravity fields, versus direct attraction, perhaps even repulsion with anti-gravity.
    This doesn’t mean dark energy doesn’t exist. I just think there are too many unknowns yet to give this power to one item in order to maintain harmony witht he cosmological model.
    I’ll leave you with this thought…
    If dark matter is a form of anti-gravity, driving everything apart; and we know strong gravity fields bend light and magnify. Then if dark energy is spread throughout the universe, in a manner where all objects which are not gravitationally bound move apart from one another, then would objects in the rear view mirror be closer than they appear (so to speak), or at least have an affect on the doppler shift?

    Astronomers go home everyday, more ignorant than when they arrived at work. Not many professions can say that!

    Solacious B; Astronomy (and science in general) has no room for common sense. If it did, we would be stuck with only one assumption for everything. That one assumption being only what we know to be true. Which itself, may actually not be true througout the universe. We have no idea how ignorant we are in this universe.

    900 years ago, common sense would be knowing all things in the universe fall down. Because it is all they knew.

    Instead of ridiculing someone for what they don’t know (in your eyes), try opening up your mind to what they are saying. At least in this column, it seems you are the one who is pulling things from sources to hide your lack of knowledge for the subject, for the odd reason of making someone look foolish. You definitely won’t have my ear in the future.

  34. Excalibur says

    Aodhhan: If something is shown to be not true, then the source is not credible – Anaconda have been shown to be wrong on numerous accounts, doesnt supporting an incredible source make you look rather foolish ?

    It is quite clear that Anaconda demands an exactness of established science that he is not willing to deliver himself, and spend most his posts trying to defamine science as a whole, making him look like a whiner. He is arguing for sake of arguments, not in order to find out any truths.

    I dont think this forum is the place to hold any serious debate about matters though, simply because the credibility of people showing here is not certified, nor are statements made required to be supported by facts. This is an amateur forum afterall, and i think it should remain as that.

  35. Anaconda says

    @ salacious B. Crumb:

    Your approach is transparent — perhaps, somebody should take you aside and explain how you come across to others.

    Anyway.

    Salacious B Crumb states: “I only need one example to show how stupid you are . You said;
    “whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.”
    This is simple wrong and is a deliberate falsehood. You know it is wrong, I know it is wrong.
    Any peer review containing such rubbish, would immediately throw it in the bin.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

    Read it and weep. Salacious, you are a crank.

    Read that Wikipedia entry closely.

    And others I’d suggest you read it, too.

    Then weigh how much Crumb’s statements are worth.

  36. Olaf says

    Ok it seems that Anaconda has a clue what plasma is. Basically it is just atoms where the electrons have been shaken loos by some energy source. It could be heat, it could be bombardments with UV, X-rays who knows what else.

    The thing is that if the source stops, and the electrons happens to be around the plasma becomes normal matter again. And this is happening in interstellar space where you find 980 H2 normal atoms (nulceus + corresponding electrons) per cubic meter.

    This is what I call Vacuum and not plasma.

    The bigges chance of finding plasma is near an energy source, that could be a black hole a star. For example between Earth the Sun there could be indeed a current and plasma flowing. But that current is very small compared with the energy needed to have gravity explained.

    It is all about scale, close scale like laboratoirs and inside gas planets and atmosphere the EU could work, but not between the stars and not between the galaxies.

    You know 100 years ago, this EU could have been a very good model and explanation about our universe but so many different experiments show you that this EU is just not working on universal scale. Some small parts of the EU theory actually could make sense, but the 99% other stuff of the EU is pure BS.

    The EU gravity model is pure based on a model of the atom that is simply not true! But back in those days they did not know a lot enough about the atoms like they do now.

    Yes I am trying to understand this Eu and the more I learn about it the more I discover that it is just pure BS. I hope this weekend to learn about the z-pinch, and this double layers.

    Oh yes Anaconda, why do you keep on persisting that because gravity waves are not detected yet that your EU must be right. Your EU has 100 times more defects in the theory than the standard model does, so the why is the EU right and the standard model wrong?

  37. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    Apparently, you like being embarrassed — I’m happy to oblige:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

    “They [z-pinch] have applications to particle beams[21] including particle beam weapons[22], and astrophysics[23]. ”

    23
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988LaPaB…6..471P

    Title:
    The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe

    Actually, Crumb, I’m getting kind of found of you because your comments make it so easy to make my case:

    Abstract:
    “Cosmic plasma physics and the concept of the universe is in a state of rapid revision. This change started with in situ measurements of plasmas in earth’s ionosphere, cometary atmospheres, and planetary magnetospheres; the transition of knowledge from laboratory experiments to astrophysical phenomena; discoveries of helical and filamentary plasma structures in the Galaxy and double radio sources; and the particle simulation of plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement. Because of these, Birkeland (field-aligned) currents, double layers, and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields are now known to be far more important to the evolution of space plasma, including the acceleration of charged particles to high energies, than previously thought. This paper reviews the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents and particle beams. ”

    That’s Harvard University.

    Give it a rest, Crumb, before you’re half way to China or wherever you, Aussies, dig to.

  38. ND says

    Anaconda: “my interlocutors comments are designed to discourage questions, independent investigation, and be satified with their comments.”

    On the contrary. On the Bad Astronomy site for literally a month we went back and forth with you, asked questions, evaluated your assertions. However at the end, there were open questions to you that you did not answer (and could not answer). And you missed something about what was going on there, those with knowledge in physics were craving for more specifics than your assertions or the PC websites you linked to provided. They wanted to go deeper and evaluate the assertions on their scientific merits. You did the best you could with your very limited knowledge pointing to articles and search results you did, but it came up short.

    It’s very easy to characterize your debates as a win for you and those who challenged you as closed minded when time has passed from the actual arguments. But they’re there to see on the BA blog. And it became painfully obvious that you don’t have much of a scientific understanding of the topics despite your assertions that you’ve studied them and understand them all too well.

    The responses to you did vary quite a bit from serious to childish. I myself called you a crank. Something I stand by actually.

    And there are still a list of open questions on BA that you did not answer.

    Anaconda: “My comments hopefully encourage readers to ask questions and investigate”

    Your comments *do* make people ask questions and investigate. It’s just that a lot of them don’t come around to your view after giving it a thought.

    As for the GW experiments. It’s not conclusive yet. You’re still trying to salvage a failure out of it. Until the people working on it (those who know what they’re doing) come up with a final consensus on GW (yay, nay or something else), there really isn’t much else to say about it.

  39. Aodhhan says

    Excalibur,
    I wasn’t agreeing with anyone outside the scope of this article. I skipped the extra hoo-ha outside the topic and most of personal jabbing.

    In-so-much-as your statement about being credible. Don’t make a statement about someone like you did, and not offer any support. Just saying it doesn’t mean anything; it is itself without merit or credibility. Don’t assume I will take your word for it, and not someone elses.

    Your second paragraph is poorly written and can be barely made out. Which may be part of the problem. If you cannot write well, you may have problems picking up fine details in someones writing.
    I haven’t seen any point where Anaconda has defamed science in any manner. Speaking your mind hardly defames science; even if you are wrong. Einstein has been proven wrong. Plenty of scientists have been proven wrong. Have they all defamed science?

    If you don’t think this is a forum for debate, then why are you bringing this up? You are inviting debate. I have yet to see anywhere on this site where it asks you to curb any comments on the subjects at hand. You are making another assumption. What does this say about credibility?

  40. robbi says

    Salacious B. Crumb- I find your ‘Exchange of Thuths’ with Anaconda very interesting.
    You are a Gentleman and a Scholar!!!

  41. Salacious B. Crumb says

    “As for Salacious B Crumb’s other comments, his attitude and the methods he is willing to employ are so on display that a fair reading shows what he is: A crank.
    No need to respond to a crank.”
    Sorry. Cowardice is no defence, mate.
    You say this, you say that, I don’t like what you say. Bingo. Let’s ignore it.
    Face it “plasma cosmology” as a subject is no existent, and is not a credible line of studies that cosmologist are currently doing. The ravings of those in the 1980s and 1990s has been dismissed as mostly total BS.

    As to your own credibility – well it has been shot to hell. I accuse you deceit, which you throw back at me, but yet when I show you are absolutely fraudulent is you words and actions, then like the coward you are, you try to wiggle out of it by; “No need to respond to a crank.”
    Who was the one who was the was asking me too “dig deeper.”
    Any one who relies on fake sites, mystery claimants, fudged results, and made-up branches of science that don’t even exist, needs to be exposed for the fraud that they are.
    Let’s face it my attitude or anything else about me is not problem. What is the problem is your outrageous claims blaming every on else but yourself.
    I only need one example to show how stupid you are . You said;
    “whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.”
    This is simple wrong and is a deliberate falsehood. You know it is wrong, I know it is wrong.
    Any peer review containing such rubbish, would immediately throw it in the bin.

  42. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda. You know when something really smells, especially if anyone who tell others to.. Quote: “Number one rule when you find yourself digging a hole? Stop digging.”
    The truth is you are skimming over the top of something you profess to know, but if someone looks into the details, ooops!, up goes the shutters. Blame everyone else, but the fault lies with you and your own crackpot ideas.
    In actuality, you want people to question things that have already been dismissed as highly unlikely. Science is simply not investigating your imaginary “plasma cosmology”. Fact, else we would be reading independent research. Why is that?
    Another clue, of course, was the question I posed, which you replied “I think it’s safe to say that Wikipedia is no friend of Plasma Cosmology.”, which you further answered by reinforcing “Why do I think it has that view? Because folks like you want it that way.”
    This is wrong, for the truth is that it is YOU want it that way.
    If the majority of astronomers and cosmologists reject this as highly unlikely, and clearly wrong.
    So what does this says about your position?
    You yourself cannot prove that your view is even valid let alone credible. Why should anyone else?
    So keep foolishly hang on your greatly dismissed antiquated theory by your fingernails, because sooner or later, your ideas will still fall from the cliff.

  43. ND says

    Anaconda,

    Don’t forget the third discussion at:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/21/a-black-hole-wind-is-rising/

    Chronologically this one falls between the other two blog entires.

    Please note the condescending and insulting tone Anaconda took from very early on in the first BA entry, particularly towards DrFlimmer.

    You never did respond to our pointing out that anti-matter was real and produced in the lab after you strongly claimed that it was nothing more than theory.

    Anaconda: “One commenter even accused NASA of lying about electric currrents in space.”

    Was this about DrFlimmer’s criticism of one the graphics on the NASA PR release? The one with the coax cable around Earth?

  44. ND says

    Ignore the NASA PR bit from my previous post. DrFlimmer wasn’t a simpleton, as you put it.

  45. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Nancy, you wrote;
    “A new instrument called a polarimeter is being attached to the South Pole Telescope (SPT), which operates at submillimeter wavelengths, between microwaves and the infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum.” and “If the new polarimeter is sensitive enough, scientists should be able to detect the waves.”

    I’m a bit confused on the relevance of the article in regards this presumed newness of this polarimeter. As far as I know SPARO (Submillimeter Polarimeter for Antarctic Remote Observing) has been operating in Antarctica since 2002-2003. (See http://lennon.astro.northwestern.edu/index.html )
    Isn’t the whole purpose of the telescope is to do polarimetry?
    Do you mean when you say; “A new instrument called a polarimeter is being attached to the South Pole Telescope (SPT)” that a new polarimeter is being attached to the telescope?
    As far I can find, the instrumentation has not changed since 2003?

    Also, it was interesting to read that “Submillimeter polarimetry does not directly measure the field strength, but it does trace the field lines.” What is more interesting about the galactic observation is that they have been unobserved – being predicted solely on theory. Clearly the behaviour of the interstellar grains they are observing are more likely gravitational or thermal instability, with the role of the large-scale galactic magnetic field being rather speculative. Sadly the sensitivity of the instrument is not good enough for finer enough, so they can only conclude on a nebula by nebula basis – down to in distances of about 300-500 parsecs.
    The only thing this article doesn’t say, is how long do they expect to take before they can reach a conclusion? As far as I understand it might take years to do get useful results – especially if they are searching for large-scale fluctuations are cause by the influence of gravity waves.
    One other thing, the observers must be “tough nuts” to do work in such a remote and bitterly cold environment. If anything, that should earn some praise alone!

  46. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Aodhhan Says;
    “Instead of ridiculing someone for what they don’t know (in your eyes), try opening up your mind to what they are saying.”

    In most cases this is true, however, this assumes the writer is being upfront and is being realistic in their opinions. However,
    if others use deceptive means of proving points for your arguments, then such people must be absolutely exposed and ridiculed.
    The problem is Anaconda is he is using falsifying information to gain weight to his misguided conclusions. All I’m doing is exposing the absolute fraudulence used in his arguments.
    As an example. “Plasma physics” and “plasma astrophysics” are valid forms of investigation of science. Yet “Plasma Cosmology” is a on-standard line of cosmological that since envisaged has been more and more ignored by cosmologists. If it were a mainstream topic, I would think there would be more about it.
    So why does Anaconda always talk about some subject in terms of speculative “Plasma Cosmology”?
    He sees the words “magnetic field” in an astronomy context, and immediately associates this with his apparently mind-blowing mythical dreams of “plasma cosmology.” This is not actually science, it is manifestation of some kind of delusion.
    Really what he is saying is not some “opinion”, as his real motive, as already shown time and time again, is clearly very deceitful and the act of dishonesty. If he was being up front, he would not be fraudulently posting bogus sites.
    The reality in the end is it is Anaconda who has closed his mind, clutching on to something that has little to do with a possible avenue of research at a remote American observatory in Antarctica.
    As to you, well I happy you will “…definitely won’t have my ear in the future ” sort of defeat your argument doesn’t it… and you have the audacity of accuse me of not having an open mind! Oh dear.

  47. Astrofiend says

    Anaconda, way to twist my words! I guess that’s the modus operandi of pseudoscience though, isn’t it?

    Anyway – let’s get back to the original point at hand which was you claiming that there was some significance in not yet having detected gravitational waves. You just so badly want for gravity waves to not exist, don’t you? As I said in my post, LIGO and other such experiments were merely pathfinders and tech. demonstrators. And all you could come up with in response was ‘yeah but they didn’t find what they were looking for so that is significant’. No it’s not. Read any of the interviews with scientists working on these and they tell you straight out that there was almost no chance of finding gravitational waves with them. In LIGO for instance, the whole experiment was set up essentially to check that they could set up and maintain the stability of the interference fringes such that they could actually detect gravitational waves given a bigger experiment.

    Now, if LISA or even Advanced LIGO were to fail to detect gravitational waves, then THAT would be significant. THAT would require a revision to GR. That’s why we’re building the experiments. So how about we wait and see what the results are. If they are negative, then you can high-five yourself all night long. Quite frankly I’d be excited too, because proving GR was incomplete would be momentous – it may even point the way towards a quantum field theory of gravity or something. It’s pretty bloody unlikely though, considering all of the indirect evidence to support gravitational waves and the unlimited success of GR to this point, but we’ll see, won’t we?

    But even that would not be a nod towards plasma cosmology. Because when it comes down to it, when you cut away all of the posturing and the BS, it comes down to this, and it’s simple – what does your theory quantitatively predict, and do these predictions match what we observe? Better get calculating Ana.

    PS – this is getting boring; respond for the audience if you like but I won’t be back.

  48. Astrofiend says

    P.S – well said Salacious.

  49. Excalibur says

    @Anaconda:

    According to Wikipedia, wich may not be a scientific publication, but still a decent reference, molecular clouds make up approximately half of the mass of our galaxy interior to the sun’s orbit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud

    1% of the volume, 50% of the mass ! And these numbers are not abnormal.

    Although molecular clouds often mingle with plasma, per definition they are not plasma as they are comprised of neutral atoms and molecules.

    The universe also comprises alot of additional mass in the form of plasma, agreed, but unless you prove that there are about 100 times more mass in the form of plasma throughout the universe than neutral matter, i say you have to back away from your number 99%.

    I know the number 99% is often thrown around carelessly, as if 99% of all atoms in the universe are ionised. They are not, much of what is often referred to as plasma are actually neutral (= not plasma).

    There is also a matter of definition, as plasma can be considered cold or hot. In hot plasma, almost all atoms are ionised. In cold plasma only a small percentage is ionised (making the rest neutral). If 1 atom is ionized in one kilogram of gas, does that make a plasma ?

    And then ofc there is the matter about the ‘dark matter’ (that ofc you will not accept). But if dark matter actually do exist, i find it very presumtios to assume that it would be ionized by more than 99% (required to keep the original claim of 99% valid).

    What dark matter is, or is not, noone knows for sure yet – but the effects are often well modelled by assuming there actually is dark matter – now to find proof, or find another explanation that can be proven. If a plasma driven model can be shown to work, and proven by observations, then so be it – good for science.

    So please Anaconda, stop whining about how scientists cannot do their jobs properly, and get to work on actually providing something important and proveable yourself!

  50. Excalibur says

    Aodhhan :

    No i dont find this the right forum to perform groundbreaking scientific arguments or theory testing, as i believe it is intended to be a forum for presenting scientific news, and then be able to ask questions about the discovery and what it means, or what it may mean.

    But i dont like it when ppl with pet-theories try to high-jack the forum content for personal reasons.

  51. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Neat trick, dopey

    You said;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch
    Read it and weep. Salacious, you are a crank.
    Read that Wikipedia entry closely.
    And others I’d suggest you read it, too.
    Then weigh how much Crumb’s statements are worth.

    The words “plasma cosmology” does not appear in this article.

    “Hence; “whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.”
    This is simple wrong and is a deliberate falsehood. You know it is wrong, I know it is wrong.
    Any peer review containing such rubbish, would immediately throw it in the bin.” ”

    And I’m a crank!

  52. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda said;
    “Your approach is transparent — perhaps, somebody should take you aside and explain how you come across to others.”
    You really do think you are so clever tossing this same line back at me again and again and again. However, fortunately this is nothing compared to the absolute dingbat-like views that you are presenting.
    Attack me if you must, and other can say what they want, but the bottom line is;

    You have been EXPOSED AS BEING BOTH FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING. [Get it!]

    Once done, your own arguments simply disintegrates as neither right or wrong, but simple totally irrelevant – disappearing into the seemingly vast quantum vacuum in your head.
    So you can say what you like about me, and frankly who cares – but on this valid point on your now non-existent credibility, nothing you say from mow on will change it.

    Have a NICE day, mate!

  53. Anaconda says

    @ Excalibur:

    No, I have a comment that is peacefully awaiting moderation.

  54. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    Here is additional evidence for my position.

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

    “They [z-pinch] have applications to particle beams[21] including particle beam weapons[22], and astrophysics[23]. ”

    23
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988LaPaB…6..471P

    Title:
    The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe

    The abstract is available for inspection at the link.

    I note Harvard University catches this paper.

    There are more peer reviewed scientific papers that investigate and report on electromagnetic phenomenon in interplanetary space and beyond.

  55. Excalibur says

    It seems that once Anaconda is confronted by evidence countering his own statements, he dissapears…

    “The sword again peacefully rests in the petrified cranium of what used to be Anaconda’s skull”

  56. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    No, it was two cites explaining the Z – pinch and a peer reviewed paper in support of it.

    [http://w]]ww.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

    “They [z-pinch] have applications to particle beams[21] including particle beam weapons[22], and astrophysics[23]. ”

    23 Title:
    The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe

    [http://w]ww.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

    I acknowledge taking names and kicking ___ can be, and often is counterproductive.

    Accusing me of being fraudulent is also counterproductive.

  57. Anaconda says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb:

    Dr. Anthony Peratt, of Los Alamos National Laboratory, author of the cited scientific paper would disagree with your assessment that Plasma Cosmology is not the same as Plasma Astrophysics.

    Your personal attack against me does nothing.

    Your problem is not with me, I am but an imperfect messenger, your problem is with a branch of science you don’t understand.

  58. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda
    Let’s get this right once and for all, without these endless recriminations and blame.
    The problem you have is the way you approach your arguments. Clearly there is no doubt that some additional observations regarding the current cosmology are required to confirm our currently held hypothesis. This is not a crises per se, but relies on various experiments based on current technologies. Gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs boson, do remain to be discovered, and this remains is the current active path of cosmology and science. Confirmation remains years away, and increasing the sensitivity of the equipment even as we speak, has been the more task of the scientists than finding these missing pieces. (Even the observations of this submilimetre telescope will likely not bear fruit until well into the next decade.)
    As far as I can see, plasma astrophysics is still in it infancy. Presently explanations of astrophysical phenomena seem mostly and significantly influenced by gravity, and that the effects of electromagnetic forces are fairly minor. An example is in star-formation, which is without doubt mostly driven by gravity, from density-waves collapsing molecular clouds to the stars themselves. We can predict how stars are formed as we have overwhelming evidence of various stages in the process.
    (Actually in astrophysics there are far more problems with the elimination of angular momentum, which remains an interesting issue.)
    Furthermore, galactic magnetic fields, for example, do also play apart, but this is grossly difficult to measure. Sadly, the influence of magnetic fields on cosmological scale is even more tenuous in our understanding.
    Really your term “plasma cosmology” that you seem so hell-bend to literally shove down our throats has been generally reject because its predictions regarding the universe have mostly failed. I.e. Star formation processes (as mentioned above).
    The bottom line is you have done yourself no favours by stating and bludgeoning everything in absolute terms I.e. “..the identified and observed physics will be electromagnetism and “modern” astronomy will be required to back away from this infatuation with invented imaginary “forces” and concentrate on known, observed, and measured physical forces.”
    In reality, very few people agree or would even consider this logical or sensible course. (I even put up the theory, prediction and discovery of the forces of strong and weak nuclear forces and their associated particles, as an example, showing why this tenet was wrong. You instead just ignored it. Your premise stated above is therefore false.)
    In the end, if you do wish to influence others to change there opinions, you initial approaches didn’t win you any favours. The moment you started using language to attack current theory and investigation is when you immediately lost the argument.
    Talking always in terms in absolutes are frankly ridiculous way to behave. It is obvious that even the tenets of your presumed “plasma cosmology” are, at best, merely a theory that has understandably been mostly discarded. At the moment the consensus, as pr your argument, is the “Inflation Theory” (actually “Inflationary Model” for the origin of the Universe offers the most promise.)

    In the end, this is how it is, and how science works.

    (NOTE: The is NOT an invitation for continue the argument, because everyone else has moved on – including me.)

    As for your;
    “No, I have a comment that is peacefully awaiting moderation.”

    Mean what? Oh! I already know. Heaps and heaps of references and sources to bamboozle us all, just to try to show how brilliant and right you are!

    How do you trust someone, when they use tactics that just uses trickery and deception? Sorry whatever you say from now on, it just doesn’t matter anymore.

  59. ND says

    Salacious B. Crumb,

    Well written summary and it fits well with what I’ve seen in the debates.

    The belief I’ve come to about Anaconda is that he’s not so much interested in converting people but going on ego trips. In all the debates he has been confronted with people who have been open minded and less wedded to the current state of cosmology as he is against it. He never really understood the people that he has been debating. I don’t believe I fully understand Anaconda himself. He always falls back on the idea that those who do not take to PC are being close minded.

    I’m still puzzled as to why he’s so upset about current state of cosmology and things like black holes, about things far away when he could focus his energy on sciences that affect us immediately such global warming, or teaching of ID (regardless of whether he’s for or against). I think the ego-trip hypothesis might explain it. He seems to have found a topic he thinks he understand and attack people with it.

  60. Salacious B. Crumb says

    ND
    Yes, I do take your points, and ego does some one of them.
    When I was learning about teaching people, I was always take by the educational theory that a small percentage of the population are unable to see the point-of-view of others. Most move past this in their first years at school. Such cognitive behaviour is easily exposed in simple argument, setting traps where the individual fails to see the point of various simple logical statements. Interestingly, such views of the learning process, are apparently independent of the individual’s own intelligence.
    The difficult is how to dealing with these kind of people., If you let them go without confronting them, they tend to distort the discussion and sway others ho don’t know better. In this regard, this is a kind of conversion.
    Alternatively, you can confront them, and expose the fallacies to the stage that it is plainly clear the logic they present is totally wrong. (I presume his still can’t see it at all, as in his response;
    “No, I have a comment that is peacefully awaiting moderation.” to Excalibur.) Perhaps the other threads and webpages he has be espousing the same views, might now have a better perspective.
    Anyway, appreciate the candour on the issue here. Thanks.

  61. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Yes, I do take your points, and ego does some one of them.
    This should read; “Yes, I do take your points, and ego does seem one of them.”
    Apologies

  62. ND says

    Salacious B. Crumb,

    Yeah.

    Recrimination is the point of diminishing returns. Which is why I liked your closing summary.

  63. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda
    Making false and misleading statements is also counterproductive, as is having an prearranged agenda.
    Really get some professional help, mate. I think you really need it!

    For the record (yet, again)
    You said;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch
    Read it and weep. Salacious, you are a crank.
    Read that Wikipedia entry closely.
    And others I’d suggest you read it, too.
    Then weigh how much Crumb’s statements are worth.
    The words “plasma cosmology” does not appear in this article.
    “Hence; “whereas Plasma Cosmology has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.”
    This is simple wrong and is a deliberate falsehood. You know it is wrong, I know it is wrong.
    Any peer review containing such rubbish, would immediately throw it in the bin.” ”

    To be crystal clear; statements “plasma cosmology” and “has a demonstrated process in the Z – pinch constriction of magnetic fields that concentrates matter.”

    This is a incorrect statement, as the alleged article never says that!! [Get it, now?]

  64. Salacious B. Crumb says

    As for your link to you own site, at [http://w]]ww.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch
    “They [z-pinch] have applications to particle beams[21] including particle beam weapons[22], and astrophysics[23]. ”

    How stupid do you think we are?

    “Astrophysics” and “Cosmology” are two separate and different lines of study.

    “Plasma Cosmology” IS NOT THE SAME as “Plasma Astrophysics” and “Plasma Physics”.

    “Plasma Universe” is just your ridiculous way of confusing the issue. BS following BS. [Get it!!!]

  65. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda
    Please, please stop this really bizarre behaviour, I am seriously now really worried not about the rights and wrong of your presumed revelations on “plasma whatever”, but of your own issues of mental health.
    Even if your views were correct, absolutely no-one would go to the obsessive heights that you seemingly are doing here.
    Clearly, logic doesn’t work, reasoning doesn’t work, proof doesn’t work, and clearly humiliating you doesn’t work with you. Frankly, I am very concerned that if this argument goes any further, you might do yourself some serious harm.

    After reading several of your other posts here and there on the Net, your behavioural traits are bordering on some kind of pathological sickness related to apperception or delusion.

    Seriously get some professional help, because various psychotic disorders can be somewhat dangerous.

    I really feel sorry I can’t help you anymore.

  66. ND says

    Anaconda,

    Why are you so crazy about PC?

  67. ND says

    Salacious B. Crumb,

    I can understand your frustrations but that’s a bit harsh, no?

  68. Cronos D says

    Wow, there is quite a different type of dialogue going on in these comments to articles…As Freaud would, “Hmmmm that is very interesting…” or something similar…take care all!

  69. Cronos D says

    He may also comment on my typing errors in above comment….lol

  70. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anacond said;
    “Dr. Anthony Peratt, of Los Alamos National Laboratory, author of the cited scientific paper would disagree with your assessment that Plasma Cosmology is not the same as Plasma Astrophysics.”

    Yeah, and the dog ate my homework.

    This is an opinion, and worst, actually your opinion. So what!
    You just misleadingly use the terms “plasma cosmology”, “plasma astrophysics”, “plasma universe” and “plasma physics” almost randomly to avoid direct scrutiny.
    I will say it again.
    You have been EXPOSED AS BEING BOTH FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING.
    Once done, your own arguments simply disintegrates as neither right or wrong, but simple totally irrelevant . So you can say what you like but on this valid very point on your now non-existent credibility, and nothing you say from now on will change it.

  71. Anaconda says

    @ ND:

    You ask: “Why are you so crazy about PC?”

    Because I do want Man to advance scientfically. Being in denial regarding electromagnetism’s role in space is an impediment to Man’s scientific advancement.

  72. ND says

    Anaconda,

    I don’t think I buy your answer. But I also don’t know what goes in that head of yours. I don’t know who you are. Your fanaticism for PC exceeds the “pro-gravity” “stance” of those you’ve debated in the past month or two. And I find myself in a certain morbid fascination about your fanaticism.

  73. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda, in saying this, “Being in denial regarding electromagnetism’s role in space is an impediment to Man’s scientific advancement.”; is the very heart of your own delusion;

    Let’s make a close examination of this quite revealing statement.

    Actually, the contrary view is what is true here. Your OWN denial of gravitation’s “role in space” is the real major flaw. (I do assume you mean the whole Universe – being the proponent of Plasma Cosmology. Do you know what you mean?)
    The classic example is star formation, gravity’s role is the formation of stars is far more important than the role of light and
    localised and galactic magnetic fields. The majority of astronomers (and, of course, astrophysicists and cosmologists in you broader definition), HAVE REJECTED such views (your view) of the dominance of such fields in the process.
    So read this very very carefully.
    Such fields do exist, but their role is minor compared to the role of gravity. [Get it!]
    Hence; The failure of applications to star formation logically rejects your contention above. This statement is therefore false.

    In truth by your circular arguments (again and again and again) it is YOU that who is denying of the role of gravitation in space.

    In actually, BOTH gravity and magnetic fields do exist is space. However, the role of gravity vastly exceeds the influence on astronomical and cosmological phenomena, FACT.

    Clearly all astronomical phenomena cannot generate magnetic fields without a gravitational source. FACT.

    Most plasma in the Universe exists within stars. FACT.

    So in the end, and what you should heed, what is absolutely true; “”Denial any force or phenomena in the role in space is an impediment to Man’s scientific advancement.”;

    Yeah, now I do get the source of your own delusions, where;
    “And only the true Messiah denies his divinity.”

  74. Salacious B. Crumb says

    @ Anaconda

    So in the end, and what you should heed, what is absolutely true;

    “”Denial of any force or phenomena in the role in space is an impediment to Man’s scientific advancement.”;

  75. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda says;

    Divide and conquer, eh? @ this, @ that. How about @ yourself?

    When you were ask by ND: “Why are you so crazy about PC?”

    You said “Because I do want Man to advance scientfically.”. And also earlier “…I am but an imperfect messenger,…”

    Oh dear. Now we see the real manifestation of self-professes delusions. Who gives you the right to do this, eh? ND might be right, this is manifest of your own manic ego.

    Are we not already advancing scientifically?

    YET, the real error you always make, is your own arguments and methods are NOT scientific at all. Guess you are imperfect after all.

    Note: In case this is also a deception; It is spelt ‘scientifically
    NOT ‘scientfically’.

  76. Salacious B. Crumb says

    @ Anaconda;

    I said ; “You just misleadingly use the terms “plasma cosmology”, “plasma astrophysics”, “plasma universe” and “plasma physics” almost randomly to avoid direct scrutiny.”

    Please define these definitions. (at least for prosperity)

  77. Anaconda says

    ND:

    I gave you a straight forward answer.

    You choose to spin it into fanaticism.

    But when you look at the debate, who is fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation?

    Let’s see where the evidence leads.

  78. Anaconda says

    ND:

    You don’t like the way I express my opinion. Fine. That’s a far cry from the science, itself.

    The science, itself, stands on it’s own merits.

    Unless, of course, what you are saying is that because I don’t like the way you express your opinion, that effects how I view the science.

    I’m I reading you right?

  79. Excalibur says

    “But when you look at the debate, who is fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation?”

    You are…

  80. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    Anaconda: “You [ND] choose to spin it into fanaticism.

    “But when you look at the debate, who is fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation?”

    Extract from Wikipedia — SOPHISM:

    “In modern usage, ‘sophism’, ‘sophist’, and ‘sophistry’ are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).

    “A ‘sophism’ is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.

    “A ‘sophist’ is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

    “‘Sophistry’ means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.”

  81. ND says

    Anaconda,

    “Let’s see where the evidence leads.” Yes, that’s how science, including Astronomy works. But you didn’t really give satisfactory evidence towards PC being the predominant shaping force in the cosmos. And those you accuse of smothering asked questions and asked for convincing evidence and even explained to you in words and using math why they were asking the questions they were asking.

    You are clinging to an idea, regardless of how much of it has merit, that you don’t fully understand. You don’t have the scientific background to truly understand the science of plasma physics, gravity, relativity, and any number of the sciences that were touched on in the discussions. And yet you defend and cling to PC tooth and nail. I believe that this makes you, frankly, fanatical. Yes, fanatical because you’re claiming that EM predomiantes everything from star formation, star life and death to galaxy formations without really understanding the science nor have the evidence to show it.

    Your answer that you are a messenger does not add up because you have been abusive to others in the discussions and basically tried to beat people over the head with PC. It’s right there for the world to see on the BA blog entries. And yes I have not been totally nice with you either. I’ve called you a crank and arrogant person. I’ve found it hard to keep a cool head with your style of discussion. Even Tom Marking, who you seem to have the most respect out of the bunch called you a snake man.

    Arp, Perrat, I accept their passion since they’re in the sciences themselves. If you were passionate about how ID is being forced into biology classes even though you are not a scientist, that I would also understand because it undermines the integrity of the science taught in our schools. But cosmology? So much passion for far away black holes and galaxy formation?
    Ultimately it has not been about how this universe, the soup of natural forces, operates. It has been about how you presented your case.

  82. Mr. 1=0 says

    Anaconda said;
    “But when you look at the debate, who is fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation?
    Let’s see where the evidence leads.”

    Even more delusions piled on other delusions. Why is it when someone asks you a question, you don’t actually answer it? All you just do is delve off into a different irrelevant direction, and show you are simply unable to give (mathematically or verbally) some real documented or observational evidence to support your point of view. Instead you offer nothing more than opinion.
    Yet the worse is that you cannot even provide the basic definitions, but you have the audacity to say everyone else smothering your comments!
    It is as I said earlier, you don’t logically debate. Even when direct evidence is staring at you directly in the face, all you do is divert from the issue, and instead accuse someone else of not understanding what you are saying. I.e. “…your problem is with a branch of science you don’t understand.”
    It is YOU here who is making the contentions, of those who are responding to it!
    Your problem, and what has really you rattled, is there are too many people do understand and comprehend your wrong beliefs, and simply (with evidence) reject your stance as just being plainly wrong.
    Worst, you feel such disdain to people who are taking away your precious virgin audience away from you, and that is why you think those that dare disagree are, as you said; “…fanatical about smothering the comments of the other guy and wanting to trump the conversation”
    However, what is their real motive, eh?
    Jealousy, perhaps?
    Are they doing it to cover up some perceived truth? (as you contend)
    Are they doing it to deliberately hurt you?

    Evidence leads to the conclusion you have a serious problems.

    – You do not know how to explain things rationally
    – You never debate rationally
    – You do not listen to others rationally (if at all.)
    – You fail to see someone else’s point of view
    – You are prepared to falsify information and mislead people to maintain your point-of-view
    – You do not have the knowledge or the intelligence about cosmology or astrophysics
    – You cannot converse in the language of cosmology or astrophysics. I.e. Mathematics
    – You dismiss out of hand evidence and phenomena that contradicts you own views
    – You think science is based solely on belief and belief systems instead of the basis of science. I.e. logical reductionism.

    ND is quite correct when he says;
    “Ultimately it has not been about how this universe, the soup of natural forces, operates. It has been about how you presented your case.”

    Note: The saddest part, is that you will only drawn the debate somewhere else. However, from the similar debates (here and elsewhere) I think your number is up.
    Really, no one buys this meaningless diatribe anymore.

  83. Mr. 1=0 says

    Anaconda said to ND;
    “Unless, of course, what you are saying is that because I don’t like the way you express your opinion, that effects how I view the science. I’m I reading you right?”

    Same stupid trick; “Accuse the accuser”

    You are just a pretender, as science is NOT based on opinion!! Clearly, you don’t know anything about science, because you don’t play by its rules. WAKE UP!!

  84. Salacious B. Crumb says

    “The science, itself, stands on it’s own merits.”

    Yeah, but clearly not the same when compared to your own dodgy merits

  85. Salacious B. Crumb says

    In this attempted hijacking of this Universe Today news article by Anaconda, I found some additional interesting evidence against this view of plasma cosmology (now forever known as plasma whatever). This is to do with a statement made here by Anaconda, in which he says;
    “I think it’s safe to say that Wikipedia is no friend of Plasma Cosmology. Why do I think it has that view? Because folks like you want it that way.”
    Again, this is a prime example of deception.
    The reason why Anaconda does not agree with Wikipedia, is that probably he and certainly several of his proponents of this wacky, non-standard and unfounded view of the universe have been banned from editing the Plasma Cosmology Wikipedia page. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology )
    This talk page on the article is unbelievably long
    I.e. One of the biggest proponents is “Iantresman”, who has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and can no longer edit this page. This was allegedly reinforced for sock puppetry; “using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, misleading others by making disruptive edits.” Another user “Elerner” was also banned from editing this same plasma cosmology on 3rd December 2006. According to the Talk page, this was for tactics used in pseudoscience.

    It is interesting to see that the same kinds of tactics and avoiding reasonable arguments that have been used also here by Anaconda. This issue is probable the final coup de grâce of this discussion thread.

    To be fair, I have no problems with Anaconda expressing his personal views, but I do have serious issues with using methods that are seemingly quite fraudulent and misleading. Evidence, like this one of similar tactics with wikipedia, proves beyond doubt that proponents of “plasma cosmology” (and it variants used regarding the subject in the comments here.)

    The sad thing in the whole issue in the debate here is the amount of effort that has had to be done to defend the current models of investigations into astrophysics and cosmology. The tactic used by Anaconda has been to bog down the debate by bamboozling us with side and irreverent issues.

    The fact of the matter +99.9% of astrophysics and cosmologists REJECT the so-called “plasma cosmology.” They do so for good reason. That is the science has enough evidence to support the current astrophysical and cosmological models. End of story.

    In the end, the truism is in the old adage / saying;
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Anaconda take note.

  86. Salacious B. Crumb says

    If you think the ideas Anaconda is truly dangerous, one has only to look at the influence such people exert in the Encyclopaedia of at the educational site Kids.Net.AU at; http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/pl/Plasma_cosmology
    Here you find a site with its supposed “kids safe portal for children, parents, schools and teachers” article “Plasma cosmology”, which reads as an “Alternative cosmology to the Big Bang theory.” Worst still, it links to the Plasma Universe site given by Anaconda. Among the definitions of this same site are “Plasma physics.”. (It defined, mind you, as; “Plasma cosmology – scalable magnetohydrodynamic phenomenon”
    The information pervades several pages in the site under “cosmology”, “Non-standard cosmology”, etc. as well.
    – Under “plasma”, the “Plasma Universe” site is actually linked!
    – Also under the title appears at the article on the Big Bang “However, there remain small numbers of who still support non-standard cosmologies in which the big bang is considered incorrect.”
    – Even the section of on the definition of the ‘Universe’, has the unbelievable statement;
    “During the second half of the 20th century, the development of observational cosmology[?], also called physical cosmology[?], led to a split in the meaning of the word Universe between observational cosmologists[?] and theoretical cosmologists[?], where the former (usually) abandon the hope of observing the whole spacetime continuum, while the latter retain this hope, trying to find the most reasonable speculations for modelling the whole of spacetime, despite the extreme difficulty in imagining any empirical constraints on these speculations and the risk of sliding into metaphysics.”

    This clearly shows the real dangerous problem with the Internet of nothing less than science subversion.

    Note: I have never seen Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kamp” methods used in astronomy subjects to now. here I though only intelligent design was so dangerous.

  87. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    @ Salacious B. Crumb,

    Speaking of Wikipedia, it has an excellent article on the characteristics and psychology of “cranks”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

    For example:

    * Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
    * Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
    * Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
    * Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

    Also, Denialism Blog has an article called “Unified Theory of the Crank”:
    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.php

  88. ND says

    Congrats Salacious, you just rand into Godwin’s Law. You’re the only one who’s done that in a discussion of PC. I wouldn’t put PC in the same danger category as ID. PC isn’t being forced down people’s throat through law.

Leave a Reply