Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Plasma cosmology
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 31 (243964)
09-15-2005 10:06 PM


I recently learned of an interesting cosmology, supported by Hannes Alfven called plasma universe. When researching it, however, I could find very little info about it. Can anyone explain this to me?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminBen, posted 09-15-2005 10:27 PM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 8:40 AM christ_fanatic has replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 31 (243978)
09-15-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by christ_fanatic
09-15-2005 10:06 PM


Welcome!
Hi christ_fanatic.
First off, welcome to EvC! At the bottom of this post are some links that may help make your time here more enjoyable. Please take a look at them at your convenience.
As for your post; it would be very helpful if you could outline what you DID learn from your research, and if you could add any links / references of information that you came across.
Please add any information that you can, and I'll be happy to promote this topic to the "Big Bang / Cosmology" forum.
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-15-2005 10:06 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 6:30 AM AdminBen has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 31 (244065)
09-16-2005 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminBen
09-15-2005 10:27 PM


Re: Welcome!
Okay.
Basically what I learned was that plasma cosmology is dependent upon the em and nuclear forces being dominant over gravity in the universe on a grand scale. With that, I learned that plasma cosmology is extrapolating the current data to say that we are in a subset a large (maybe infinite) universe with subsets (like the known universe) that are expanding and contracting. As I said, I learned very little. What I do know comes from Unverse by Design by Danny Faulkner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminBen, posted 09-15-2005 10:27 PM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminBen, posted 09-16-2005 9:45 PM christ_fanatic has not replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 09-16-2005 10:51 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 31 (244258)
09-16-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by christ_fanatic
09-16-2005 6:30 AM


Re: Welcome!
Thanks christ_fanatic.
To start us off, I've grabbed a couple of articles from a Google search. Here are two articles that talk about the subject:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/.../pl/plasma_cosmology.htm
Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia
But you can get a sense of the kinds of questions about whether or not it's even a theory, and what that theory might be, here:
Talk - Wikipedialasma_cosmology
This is in no way authoritative information. But it's a starting point for those who have none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 6:30 AM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 31 (244260)
09-16-2005 9:46 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
AbE: I'm not sure if Plasma Cosmology is "science" or not. Let's assume it is for now, and see what happens. I reserve the right to move this thread out of this forum, if it simply can't hold up and degrades into a mess.
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/09/16 06:48 PM

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 6 of 31 (244268)
09-16-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by christ_fanatic
09-16-2005 6:30 AM


Re: Welcome!
Note that I am not an astronomer, and I haven't followed this very closely.
At one time, Alfven was given a lot of observation time at Palomar and other observatories, to allow him to find supporting evidence for his plasma theory. Most cosmologists were skeptical.
Alfven never did develop solid evidence, and I gather that the astronomers have grown a little tired of it. He probably has more difficulty now in getting telescope time. I think he is viewed as something of a crank.
The main criticism I have seen of the theory, is that the plasma should cause some degree of diffusion of the light, and this is not observed.
I don't think Alfven's theory is a promising alternative to the Big Bang. If you are a BB skeptic, I suggest you look elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 6:30 AM christ_fanatic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 10-04-2005 4:24 AM nwr has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 31 (244318)
09-17-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by christ_fanatic
09-15-2005 10:06 PM


As with most fringe theories, it raises one hundred problems for every problem it attempts to solve. It's not worth wasting your time over. If you read through that wiki-talk on the topic, you'll see the level of complete confusion and lack of peer reviewed published material.
Also, again true of most fringe theories, they are not a one hundredth as bizarre and wonderful as the main contender! This is mainly because they are based upon human ideas of "what should be", rather than allowing the maths and the science to speak for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-15-2005 10:06 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-17-2005 1:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 31 (244404)
09-17-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-17-2005 8:40 AM


Thanks.
Thanks for this info. Right now, I think a version of a white-hole cosmology will eventually replace BB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 8:40 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 2:09 PM christ_fanatic has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 9 of 31 (244415)
09-17-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by christ_fanatic
09-17-2005 1:42 PM


Re: Thanks.
Hmmm... I wonder from where you get that idea
I've addressed this topic before but quite where it is in BB and Cosmology I have no idea! Anyone know?
But please don't rest your hopes on this white-hole cosmology. Believe me, although it is based in GR, it is nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-17-2005 1:42 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-17-2005 4:28 PM cavediver has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 31 (244431)
09-17-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
09-17-2005 2:09 PM


Re: Thanks.
The WH cosmology can explain evidence the BB has yet to. Does it have difficulties? Yes. But this mainly due to its infancy in age and a short amount time for refining it. Don't forget, the BB was like this for more than 20 yrs until the CBR (CMB) was discovered.
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-17-2005 04:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 2:09 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2005 7:36 AM christ_fanatic has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 11 of 31 (244555)
09-18-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by christ_fanatic
09-17-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Thanks.
Unfortunately it's not a case of refining the model. The difficulty with WH cosmology is that it just doesn't work. Russel Humphrey's isn't quite as good at relativity as he thinks, and his model doesn't say the things he thinks it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-17-2005 4:28 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 9:45 AM cavediver has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (244575)
09-18-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by cavediver
09-18-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Thanks.
His was a good starting point, and what about the article about a WH cosmology in SA (?)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2005 7:36 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2005 10:09 AM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 09-18-2005 10:19 AM christ_fanatic has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 13 of 31 (244584)
09-18-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by christ_fanatic
09-18-2005 9:45 AM


Re: Thanks.
I didn't see it. Have you a link?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 9:45 AM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 12:58 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 31 (244585)
09-18-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by christ_fanatic
09-18-2005 9:45 AM


Re: Thanks.
christfanatic writes:
I recently learned of an interesting cosmology, supported by Hannes Alfven called plasma universe. When researching it, however, I could find very little info about it. Can anyone explain this to me?... What I do know comes from Unverse by Design by Danny Faulkner.
Hello, CF! I had to look up the references that you have cited and here is what I found:
Some astronomers look at the stars and planets through a telescope. Author Danny Faulkner views them through a biblical perspective in this unique book. Written for the well-read layman from high school through adult, Universe by Design explores and explains the historical development of this science, including current ideas in the field. From a creationist standpoint, Faulkner also addresses common misconceptions, difficulties, and critiques about relativity and cosmology. This book would be an excellent supplement to any home school curriculum. This sounds like an interesting book, but I am not much of a science guy. I have read some of the articles distributed by Answers In Genesis and Ken Ham, but as a believer (also a Christ fanatic) I concluded that I.D. did not make sense. You seem much better educated in science than I am,however!
I believe that this topic would be better placed in Intelligent Design. Big Bang and Cosmology is a science perspective rather than a creationist perspective. Do you object to this topic in Intelligent Design? I realize that one of the drawbacks is that you cannot interact with many of the people here because they already do not believe in the I.D. theories. Aside from what Faulker believes, (which no doubt is convincing) why do you believe in Intelligent Design?
In other words, science forums use references from other scientists.
Faith forums use references from the Bible.
You have one primary reference from an author who touts the I.D. perspective. You DO seem to have a scientific quest, however. If you want to explain to me why you think that Faulkner makes sense, lets discuss it!
I am one of the Faith moderators here at EvC. I love Jesus, and I like science a lot! My questions and perspectives concerning the Big Bang and Cosmology are these:
1) Eternally existing Creator? (Yes)
2) Possibility of Creator allowing life to "evolve" on Earth? (Yes)
3) Will humans "evolve" so as to understand the mind of Christ/God? (No)
At this point, lets discuss what you believe if you wish...or you can ignore the "faith" aspect and continue in your discussions with our many biologists and science minded folk. Most of them do not believe that I.D. is a compatible science...perhaps in your dialogues with them you will soon see why. And if you wanna talk about it casually, we can meet in the coffee house! Hang in there!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-18-2005 08:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 9:45 AM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-18-2005 1:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 31 (244630)
09-18-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by cavediver
09-18-2005 10:09 AM


Re: Thanks.
I found a reff for it in an article I read about it in. It is apparently not online. Its from Proccedings of the National Academy of Sciences published Sept 2003.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2005 10:09 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Matt P, posted 09-19-2005 6:04 PM christ_fanatic has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024