RM> KK> The first good galaxy surveys, done starting in the early 80s,
RM> KK> showed that the universe is much foamier and lumpier than
RM> KK> contemporary BB models thought it should be.  But those surveys
RM> KK> also showed that some billions of years ago there were as many as
RM> KK> ten times more galaxies exhibiting really active star formation --
RM> KK> which supports the BB.
RM>This is true, however should there not be more rigorous attempts to
RM>refute the BB model(s) thus either exposing the real problems or (if
RM>the attempts are unsuccessful) providing support automatically?
It is indeed an unconscious habit of human beings that when we come
up with an explanation, we tend to look for support for it, even though
the most parsimonious way to proceed would be to look for something
that kills the hypothesis.  That is one of the major occupatinal
hazards of science.
In that sense, the plasma cosmology was important if only because
it used mostly the same data that the BB modelers were using, but
came to very different conclusion.  In a sense it doesn't really
matter whether the plasma cosmology is right or wrong -- what
matters is that no accurate cosmology can ignore plasmas.
Simply
RM>looking for support is not very scientific at all and ranks up there
RM>with religion and pseudoscience.
To rank it with pseudoscience would be to rank it with perpetual
motion machines, etc.  It think what is happening with the BB models
is that when a generation grows up with a particular paradigm,
it becomes part of the environment, like Coca-Cola or smog, and
people forget to look at the basic assumptions.
An even more important issue is that we need more data, and
it will be very expensive to get those data.  The current
proliferation of hypotheses is typical in situations where
there are enough data to support all of them but not enough
to kill any of them.  NASA is cooking up a couple of 'next
generation' space telescopes, but they aren't gonna fly for
at least five years.
RM> RM>> Sounds like a good policy.  Consider that 99% of the universe is
RM> RM>> highly conductive plasma,
RM> KK> Plasmas are highly ionized, and can therefore conduct electricity
RM> KK> and can therefore generate huge magnetic fields.  These EM fields
RM> KK> apparently explain a number of cosmological puzzles.
RM>For example?
Just the ones in Lerner's book -- formation of stars and galxies,
transfer of angular momentum from the sun to the planets, etc.
RM> KK> Plasma physics was a relatively obscure field until just this
RM> KK> decade.
RM>Plasma physics itself was not recognized cosmologically until the last
RM>decade.  The filamentry structure of the universe is just now becoming
RM>accepted.  The slow plodding pace of scientific revolution continues.
Yeah, but it's always been like that.  If you look at the leading edge
of any scientific field, it always seems to be in a state of crisis.
It was only 80-some years ago that most astronomers thought certain
objects they observed were objects within the Milky Way, and it
took Edwin Hubble to show that they were actually galaxies the
same size as the Milky Way, and at outrageous distances.
RM> KK> Mr Meic has been reading a very interesting book called "The Big
RM> KK> Bang Never Happened," by Eric Lerner.  Even if you don't give a
RM> KK> hoot about cosmology, you would probably find it a good read
RM> KK> because of its discussion of the philosophy and psychology of
RM> KK> science held by many recent physicists.
RM>Thank you for acknowledging alternative sources for information. :)
Well, since I'm not a physicist or a creationist, I don't have any
strong emotional attachment to a particular model.
 * SLMR 2.1a * .     Dammit Jim, I'm a writer, not a morning person!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------