Another post I'd missed, sorry.
In light of the post immediately before this, PlasmaSphere, I must say I'm quite confused.
First, I can't quite square the inclusion of so many 'Arp et al.' papers in your list with this post of yours that I am quoting; for example, how can you assert that the Arp-Narlikar VMH is consistent with "[a] gravitational, object oriented viewpoint [being] replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint
"? What part of the VMH is "electromagnetic
Second, even more astonishing is this: "instead of putting limits on the beggining and end of the universe, it [plasma cosmology] leaves that question open and focusses much more on present events that we can be more sure of
". I mean, not only is most of astrophysics focussed on "present events that we can be more sure of
", but to strongly imply, as you do, that "an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint
" is weak or absent in contemporary astrophysics displays a breath-taking ignorance of the field (perhaps you relied too heavily on material from the 'resource list' you linked to?).
For example, ADS lists 3,261 abstracts1
(mostly papers, some conference proceedings, some books) with "MHD"2
in the title. To take just one example
(the link is to the arXiv preprint; the MNRAS keywords are "accretion, accretion discs , instabilities , MHD , waves , methods: analytical , methods: numerical"):
And don't get me started on the mis-characterisation of "the Big Bang framework
"! For starters, given the mutual incompatibility of GR (General Relativity) and the Standard Model, and the high likelihood that we won't be able to study phenomena where that incompatibility becomes observable for a thousand years or more yet, that framework cannot
be about "how the universe as a whole began or will end
However, most alarming is your apparent desire to restrict the scope of the sciences of plasma physics, astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology. For example, you seem to be saying that the CMB (cosmic microwave background) should not be studied - despite it being a quintessential 'observable' - simply because it is "inherent to [...] the BB paradigm
But perhaps I simply misunderstood your point; if so, would you mind clarifying please?
1 And if we search on "MHD" among the keywords, the number rises to over 11,000
2 Magnetohydrodynamics - in 1970, Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on this