Nereid has suggested a couple of times that I start a truly "ATM" idea of my own to defend. I have finally thought of the ATM topic that I would personally like to defend.

IMO, current theory is no scientifically "better than" plasma cosmology as outlined by Hannes Alfv'en. IMO current (gravity centric) theory is based on a number of untestable assumptions and unexplained forces, and therefore current theory leaves large aspects of the nature of the universe completely "unexplained" (quite literally "dark"). In fact GR centric concepts of space require that the physical universe we see only makes up a small percentage of the whole physical universe.

Plasma cosmology as Alfv'en described it does not require "dark" anything to describe the movements of objects and the movements of plasmas in space. His theories simply require the presence of current flows and plasma flows in space. We already know that the universe is predominantly made of plasma and we have documented the existence of Birkeland currents in space. We can watch plasma flow out from the solar surface and watch it accelerate as it approaches the sun's solar sheath. Plasma flows and current flows are know to exist in space.

Furthermore Alfven's work and Alfven's theories are based on a lifelong study of the behaviors of plasma in space. More importantly however, his theories are based upon the careful study of the behaviors of plasmas here on earth in a real life laboratory setting where his ideas and theories could be verified by true "scientific tests", not "pure observation" from a distance. IMO plasma cosmology provides a natural bridge from a "GR/Empty Vacuum of Space" mindset that predominates today, toward a more balanced and informed approach to cosmology that includes and recognizes the role of the flow of plasmas and the flow of current in the behaviors of movements of objects in the physical universe.

So let's start with your definition of 'scientifically better than' (sbt), and your criteria for making judgements wrt sbt - could you summarise them please?

As we are in BAUT, please concentrate on astronomy and cosmology; I am particularly interesting to learn what your definitions and criteria are wrt purely astronomical observations (i.e. obtained solely by detection of electromagnetic radiation and (possibly) cosmic rays). For avoidance of doubt, this scope statement excludes in situ data collected by space probes such as Voyager 1 and Cluster.

How about this: In another thread you said that you accept that there is plenty of evidence for the expansion of spacetime. That is a general relativistic concept. How does the expansion of spacetime figure in plasma cosmology, where I presume you do not accept the validity of general relativity?

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Fair enough. Let's start with some basics that are generic scientific debate issues and that apply to all discussions in all areas of science:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

No arguments can begin with a logical fallacy. Therefore, from a logical and scientific point of view, we are obligated to reject all theories that begin with statements like:

Circular arguments won't qualify as "science", only "psuedo-science".

The term "better than" also relates to the verification of a theory via true (actual) "scientific tests", meaning ideas are tested "actively" in "controlled" conditions. In this case Alfv'en was able to test all of his theoretical mathematical models related to plasma flow with observations of plasma in *controlled laboratory conditions*.

In addition, I will agree to use all the "posted rules" as outlined in this forum that are used to gauge the validity of ATM idea to compare both ideas side by side in an equal and fair manner, without giving the mainstream position a "free pass". Each side must present their case. Each side must present evidence. Both ideas begin on equal footing. I accept that gravity exists and can influence the movement of matter. I accept that current flows exist in space and can affect the movements of matter. Beyond this, each claim will need to be verified "scientifically" in some manner, and no claim that begins with a logical fallacy will be deemed "scientifically acceptable".

I'm not sure yet. I will have to consider the answer to that particular question to be related to the issue and concept that is being presented. In other words if Alfv'en claims that current flow is directly involved in the movements of plasma in spacetime, then I will expect to see evidence of the existence of current flows in spacetime, and I will expect to see evidence that current flow can affect the movements of plasma and matter. Any truly "extraordinary" claims will require extraordinary evidence.

In other words, all the rules of contemporary science apply here equally to both current theory and plasma cosmology theory. The concept of burden of proof applies. Any explanation of a phenomenon seen at a distance should include some kind of "evidence" to support the claim, and preferably some sort of proof of concept. Any theory used to explain the movements of objects in space should be presented as precisely and scientifically as possible, and should include a scientifically well qualified and scientifically well quantified argument.

Actually Tim I certainly do accept the theory of GR, and in fact I insist that any attempted disproof for GR or QM or particle physics be set aside for debate in some other thread.

Oh, very clever. So you just defined away all astronomical observations. It's darn tough to test the behavior of a star or a galaxy or a quasar in *controlled laboratory conditions*. So do you think many kids would want to play a game with a little boy who demands that he can make up the rules so that he necessarily wins?

But back to your claim. Tell me this: How can "observations of plasma in *controlled laboratory conditions*" be concluded to have any application in a region that is somewhere on the order of 10²⁰ larger than the controlled laboratory?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Simulation and observation?

Small picture of the large scale structure.
http://www.bathsheba.com/crystal/largescale/

You can go to this site for Sloan survey VRML map.
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu...e/picture.html

There is no logical fallacy in the block that you quote, and it is definitely not circular. This is just a "red herring" that distracts from the real point of the discussion.

Since you accept general relativity, and since general relativity is the basis of modern cosmology (dominated by gravity on very large scales), there is an obvious problem with the idea that current theory is no scientifically better than plasma cosmology (dominated by plasma physics on very large scales). So let's try to find something specific.

Zwicky first proposed the existence of what we now call "dark matter", back in the 1930's. He did it by applying the virial theorem to the motions of galaxies in clusters, and showing that the luminous mass was not enough to produce the gravity required to hold the cluster together. This is a part of cosmology dominated by gravity. What is the equally valid plasma cosmology solution to this problem?

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

I'll get back to the rest of your post in a while*; for now, a question about this part.

In terms of your criterion (for "better than"), to what extent does the work:

a) done by Hulse and Taylor (which earned them a Nobel) constitute "verification of a theory via true (actual) "scientific tests""?

b) leading to the identification of certain emission lines, from certain nebulae, as (a) 'forbidden transition(s)' of an oxygen ion (constitute ...)?

c) leading to the conclusion that Sirius B is a "white dwarf" {insert mass, radius, temperature, etc parameters here, including +/- estimates} (constitute ...)?

d) leading to validation of standard solar models {including densities, pressures, and nuclear reaction rates} (constitute ...)?

*Suffice it to say that it seems you have a view of what constitutes science that is at least somewhat inconsistent with what most astronomers (astrophysicists, cosmologists) actually do!

I must say Tim, it concerns me a great deal that you still cannot see the circular nature of this sentence even after I provided you with my magic wand analogy, and the invisible cheeseburger analogy, and after all the efforts I have made to point out the logical fallacies in this sentence. It makes me very suspicious about validity of the "science" this industry is promoting when a guy of your obvious scientific caliber has a tough time recognizing logical fallacies and circular arguments in the premise that is being presented.

This is no "red herring" Tim, it's a scientific principle on which I will not and cannot compromise. No scientific argument can begin with a logical fallacy. Period. That is true in any area of science, and it is true in any sort of debate. You cannot assume that the idea you are presenting is true and is responsible for the observation in question until you have already established as fact that the observation in question is due to the idea you are presenting. You simply assumed your premise just like I did with my magic wand. That is not acceptable Tim. Until you can show me how your dark energy is superior to my magic wand, I will have to consider any "phrase" inserted into the quotes to be "pseudo-science", not science.

How would my mere acceptance of the concept of gravity somehow make current theory "superior" to plasma cosmology? Plasma cosmology recognizes the role of mass in the movements of the universe. It simply doesn't try to define all the movements and configurations of matter *solely* in terms of gravity.

In other words, a purely "gravity centric" approach doesn't even begin to adequately account for the movements we observe in space. A new approach is needed.

The solution is current flow and plasma physics as Alfv'en outlined it.

I'm quite at a loss here, MITM, so I do hope you can sort this out.

At one level, I think you have, with your definition of "logical fallacy", rejected every theory in science, and (possibly) all of mathematics as well.

Why? Because all scientific theories, logically, begin with assumptions (a.k.a. 'postulates'). Further, all scientific theories include, implicitly or explicitly, something to connect 'arguments' (your term) with 'reality' ... and that connection is, I think, at least partly self-referential ... and so, in one reading of your criterion, 'circular'.

Can you please clarify? Specifically, please show how, in terms of your stated criterion, the foundations of science (or, if you prefer, all sciences) are not tautological (a.k.a. circular arguments)?

I believe that I can clarify things for you. A "postulate" is a singular concept that must be supported by valid scientific "evidence". For instance I might posit that my magic wands exist, but this is an "extraordinary" claim. I therefore must provide "extraordinary" evidence that my magic wand exists. If I try to use the movement of distant objects as "evidence" that my magic wand exists, it becomes beholden upon me to not only demonstrate that my magic wand exists, but that it can furthermore move the distant objects in question. I have now created two different postulates, and I become beholden to demonstrate both things with valid scientific evidence.

What I cannot do is point to the movement of the objects in question and claim that the movement of the distant objects is caused by my magic wand because the movement in question is by definition the cause of that effect. This is where my argument becomes "circular" in nature. Neither postulate has been demonstrated.

Does that clarify the issue?

I wanted to note where this issue directly ties back into "plasma cosmology" as outlined by Alfven. Alfven claims that EM fields and current flow exist in reality, and that EM fields and current flow are responsible for some of the movements we see in distant objects.

Unlike my magic wand theory, there is valid scientific evidence from many fields of science that EM fields and current flow exist in reality. There is no "extraordinary" claim in that statement. He furthermore posits that the "cause" of the movements in question are related to these forces. It then becomes beholden on the plasma cosmologist to demonstrate that EM fields and current flows exist in "spacetime", inside our solar system and if possible outside our solar system as well. It must also be demonstrated that these forces can cause the movements of plasma. Birkeland currents have already been documented inside of our solar system, and the acceleration of plasma as it approaches the solar sheath would support the idea that Birkeland currents exist outside of the solar system. Alfven's work with plasma physics in the lab demonstrates that EM fields and current flow can cause the movements of plasma. Both points have been satisfied.

Plasma cosmology "theory", unlike my magic wand theory, has scientific support from many areas of science, it has been lab tested, and it has support from direct observations from space. From a scientific perspective, it is far "better than" my magic wand theory.

(Emphasis added) This is very confusing. We have evidence of an effect. Are you saying that the effect is "by definition" also the cause, or are you saying that you have evidence for a specific cause?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Try this Van. Try isolating the logical fallacy in the sentence above.

We've been through that already. This is your argument, please answer my question.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I think all you have done here is establish, by fiat, a privileged set of postulates ... or merely pushed the testing one level back.

In particular, you seem to have created two classes of 'scientific "evidence"' - that which you assert exists independently of any (scientific) theory (and so 'valid' by definition), and that which is 'valid' because the theories upon which it critically depends have passed your (arbitrary?) test.

But maybe I simply misunderstand, so let me ask a question: what are the criteria for determining which 'scientific "evidence"' is 'valid' and which is not? Or perhaps the question concerns your criteria for 'supported by'?No; as I said, it merely seems to push the issue one step back - the circularity in logic, under your explanation, arises from your need to have a (scientific) theory to judge the validity of any 'evidence', which is then used to validate (another) scientific theory! How do you break the circle?