Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
'It seems very misleading - I might even say propagandistic - to couple the fairly well established "black hole theory" with the much more speculative and so far strictly mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions.
It is equally inescapable that black holes lead inexorably to either a violation of quantum physics (losing information about the quantum state of an object falling into a black hole is prohibited) OR a violation of relativity (since any scenario in which information escapes from a black hole requires faster-than-light escape velocities). This fact has lead to proponents of black hole theory to construct mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way and to then insist that this must be how the universe IS.
My point was that if PC was found to be in violation of either GR or QP this would be enough to utterly falsify it and any attempt to 'fix' the theory with precisely the sort of 'mathematical solutions involving extra dimensions' the mainstream use in these situations would be seen as the worst kind of science fraud. And yet the mainstream has gotten away with this for years!
|
Well, since no proponent of "
PC" has so done, then this is a somewhat empty point, don't you think?
More generally, this comment seems to neglect a rather important aspect, of any "
mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way", or "
PC" - the ability to show consistency with relevant observational and experimental results.
One thing that you can say for sure about any of the "
mathematical models involving multiple dimensions folded in a particular way" (except for those which are explicitly 'work in progress') is that they take great pains to show they are fully consistent with GR and QM in the appropriate limits. Or, if you prefer, wrt any experimental or observation done to date, these exotic creations are as consistent as GR or QM.
What seems to be missing from "
PC" is a comparable match (and, if I may say so, a genuine acknowledgement by PC proponents that such a match is extremely important).
Quote:
'As I'm sure you know, mainstream astrophysicists are well aware that accreting matter onto the "central engine" of a quasar, for example, generates hugely powerful magnetic fields and beams that accelerate infalling gases to near the speed of light, viewed as radio lobes. Perhaps you could explain how renaming such a phenomenon and making rather vague, qualitative claims about it supports any effort to refocus all of cosmology to one man's particular bias?'
Ah ok I might have made a mistake here. Is this what Peratt refers to with reference to Cygnus A at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...ogyPeratt.pdf?
|
I doubt it.
None of the things in Perratt's paper resembles a quasar, in the sense of
Cougar's post -
Cougar was referring to the central engine in quasars, an accertion disk surrounding a black hole, together with a pair of jets.
The "radio lobes" in this Perratt document are,
pace Perratt, very poorly accounted for by his "supercomputer simulations of interactions between a pair of galaxy-size plasma filaments", if only because there is far, far more observational data than the mere "shapes" which Perratt mentions (and we will pass over his so-called 'spirals', which lack central bulges and nuclei, without further comment).
Quote:
BTW why would it have to be ALL of cosmology that refocuses its attention? I am pretty sure that while we were searching for the planet Vulcan (required to explain why Mercury's orbit deviated from the path predicted by the highly succesful Newtonian laws of gravity) the entire establishment was NOT refocused on writing a new law of gravity.
It was one bloke in a Swiss patent office, wasn't it?
|
I don't understand what you're trying to say here - can you clarify please?
Any plasma cosmologist is free to develop the theory of plasma cosmology in any way she sees fit.