What is Plasma Cosmology and its impact on current scientific understanding?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mangaroosh
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Plasma Cosmology, exploring its validity, current research status, and its impact on scientific understanding compared to mainstream cosmological theories. Participants express varying levels of familiarity with the topic, seeking clarification and insights into its claims and controversies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to understand Plasma Cosmology, mentioning its claims about cosmic background radiation and spiral galaxies, and seeks information on its current research status.
  • Another participant references Wikipedia, suggesting that Plasma Cosmology is qualitative and lacks detailed experimental predictions compared to mainstream theories, but acknowledges that new ideas can lead to valuable inquiries.
  • A different participant asserts that Plasma Cosmology has devolved into pseudo-science, criticizing its proponents for ignoring evidence and recommending that interested individuals first understand the Big Bang theory.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of Plasma Cosmology, with one participant describing it as a "scientific cult" that disregards mainstream physics, while still recognizing the importance of plasma physics in astrophysics.
  • Links to external resources are shared, including essays and tutorials that critique Plasma Cosmology and explain mainstream cosmological theories.
  • Another participant notes that Plasma Cosmology is on the closed topics list of the forum, indicating a lack of ongoing discussion or support for the theory within the community.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and curiosity regarding Plasma Cosmology. While some acknowledge its potential for inquiry, others firmly categorize it as pseudo-science, indicating a lack of consensus on its validity and relevance.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the challenges in Plasma Cosmology, including its perceived lack of empirical support and funding, as well as the contentious nature of discussions surrounding it. The references to external resources suggest a reliance on varying interpretations of evidence and theory.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring alternative cosmological theories, those curious about the intersection of plasma physics and cosmology, and anyone seeking to understand the debates surrounding mainstream versus non-mainstream scientific ideas.

mangaroosh
Messages
358
Reaction score
0
I am posting this in the anticipation that I will be derided and ridiculed for it, but I am doing so in the spirit of honest inquiry. My level of scientific "taining" doesn't extend beyond [the Iirsh] juniuor certificate (GCSE UK equivalent), so I am trying to seek out a more informed opinion.

With such a basic level of scientific knowledge, I rely largely on documentaries as my source of knowledge, when it comes to the sicences. I have spent quite a bit of time recently trying to understand more about two main topics, Quantum Physics - String Theory in particular - and Cosmology. Recently, little more than a week ago, I was searching for some documentaries on cosmology, and I stumbled across something on Plasma Cosmology. It was the first time that I had ever heard of it, so I am now in the process of trying to find out more about it.

I did search the site before starting this thread, just to see if there was anything on it, but the main thing I came across was the locked thread in S&D, so it appeared that this was the place to start the thread.

As I said, I am just inquiring honestly to find out what the deal with it is. Where is research wrt Plasma Cosmology at the moment; have the claims about cosmic background radiation, spiral galaxies, birkeland currents etc. been verified or debunked; is plasma cosmology gathering or losing momentum; what are the main things about Plasma Cosmology that should be looked into?


I apologise if this is nor the right place, or if this has been raised before and dismissed, but as I say, I only stumbled across it recently myself so am in the process of researching it - in layman's terms that is. If someone could point me in the right direction with regard to understanding this better, e.g. highlight threads on thsi forum, or potential other forums specifially for people without a scientific background, etc. that would be much appreciated.

thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Never heard of it...but Wikipedia has this online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Based on what is said there, sounds like its rather qualitative, lacking in some detail, and so far has not made the detailed predictions confirmed experimentally in mainstream theories...but new ideas can often lead to new avenues of inquiry and different perspectives that may take a number of years to appear.
 
Naty1 said:
Never heard of it...but Wikipedia has this online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Based on what is said there, sounds like its rather qualitative, lacking in some detail, and so far has not made the detailed predictions confirmed experimentally in mainstream theories...but new ideas can often lead to new avenues of inquiry and different perspectives that may take a number of years to appear.

cheers for the response.

I checked out that wiki page alright.

there seems to have been quite a bit of dispute over the editing of the page, so I would wonder who is editing it at the moment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Plasma_cosmology


some other things:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/To-Bang-or-not-to-Bang-15095.shtml
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

Part of the reason that it is claimed that few detailed predictions have been made is due to lack of funding, as it is not a main-stream theory.

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/index.html

It seems to be a fairly interesting theory, if what they claim is correct.
 
Yeah, plasma cosmology has basically descended into the realm of pseudo-science in the last few years, as its primary proponents (Halton Arp big among them) have utterly refused to pay attention to the evidence.

Basically, if you're really interested in this, I would recommend first reading up on the big bang theory, and getting an understanding of the breadth of evidence in support of it. This essay is a good place to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

If you can read and understand that essay, and therefore get an idea of why we are rather confident that the big bang theory is true, you should be able to see why Plasma Cosmology just doesn't make any sense.

So, if you're really interested, I hope you'll give the above essay a try, and come back here with any questions for clarification on what the big bang theory is, or what any of the various pieces of evidence are all about. I think focusing the discussion in this way would be much more fruitful.
 
mangaroosh said:
I am posting this in the anticipation that I will be derided and ridiculed for it, but I am doing so in the spirit of honest inquiry. My level of scientific "taining" doesn't extend beyond [the Iirsh] juniuor certificate (GCSE UK equivalent), so I am trying to seek out a more informed opinion.

With such a basic level of scientific knowledge, I rely largely on documentaries as my source of knowledge, when it comes to the sicences. I have spent quite a bit of time recently trying to understand more about two main topics, Quantum Physics - String Theory in particular - and Cosmology. Recently, little more than a week ago, I was searching for some documentaries on cosmology, and I stumbled across something on Plasma Cosmology. It was the first time that I had ever heard of it, so I am now in the process of trying to find out more about it.

I did search the site before starting this thread, just to see if there was anything on it, but the main thing I came across was the locked thread in S&D, so it appeared that this was the place to start the thread.

As I said, I am just inquiring honestly to find out what the deal with it is. Where is research wrt Plasma Cosmology at the moment; have the claims about cosmic background radiation, spiral galaxies, birkeland currents etc. been verified or debunked; is plasma cosmology gathering or losing momentum; what are the main things about Plasma Cosmology that should be looked into?


I apologise if this is nor the right place, or if this has been raised before and dismissed, but as I say, I only stumbled across it recently myself so am in the process of researching it - in layman's terms that is. If someone could point me in the right direction with regard to understanding this better, e.g. highlight threads on thsi forum, or potential other forums specifially for people without a scientific background, etc. that would be much appreciated.

thanks.

There's been a lot of discussion here about the Plasma theories, usually negative. Researchers into plasma cosmology have persecution complexes and a lot of nutty ideas, generally ignoring mainstream physics in order to make their pet ideas work. Or they don't even bother and just loudly assert their theories are true.

Basically it's a scientific "cult". But plasma physics and plasmas-in-astrophysics are important fields of research and well worth your time to learn if you decide to learn the basic physics required to understand them. It's a few years of pretty heavy maths, but lots of people survive the process ;-)

A good introduction as to why plasma cosmology is wrong can be found here...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html"

...and a good introduction to cosmology can be found here...
"[URL
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K