Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
They argued that plasma cosmology can also account for observations but do not require anything beyond verified phenomona to do so. They may be talking crap, but I have spent a long time looking for proof that this is so, and the best I can find is the opposition saying 'our theories (which require 75% of the universe to be unknown matter/energy) are mathematically elegant'.
|
There is a lot more to it than that. "Our Theories" also make a lot of specific predictions and those predictions happen to match a lot of observations. Do they explain everything, no. But, "our" different theories also happen to match each other, when their domains of applicability overlap. And, dispite the claims of many of the different plasma groups, current astrophysics does take into account plasma physics.
The plasma cosmology people do a lot of comparisons of large scale effects with smaller scale effects and like to claim that the effects are the same, without providing much more proof than "it looks the same". There is a dearth of specific, testable quantifiable, predictions by the plasma groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
That is not sufficient for me. Sorry.
|
Nor, should it be sufficient. The theories should stand or fall based on how well their predictions match observations. There have been several discussion on plasma cosmology here on the board. Do a search and you will find several. Also, compare the different quantified specific predictions of the current mainstreams astrophysics compared to those quantified specific predictions of the plasma astrophysics and see which one match observations the best. The problem, as you will find, will be finding
quantified specific predictions for a lot of the plasma astrophysics.