A few miscellaneous thoughts about the imminent demise of Big Bang Theory:

[Davin]

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947

He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].

While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.

Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.

the different colors represent different ions.

This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.


https://study.com/academy/lesson/light-waves-facts-lesson-for-kids.html

Light waves are forms of moving energy made of tiny microscopic particles called photons. Scientists usually refer to light waves as electromagnetic waves, because they make up what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. (The term 'electromagnetic' means the waves are both electric and magnetic.)

Light being a wave is why the doppler effect (as well as a gravitational effect that has been accounted for since 1959), works on it:

(ions=plasma)

There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html

Definition of an Ion

Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.

There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.

Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.

[Rift Zone]

This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.

Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand.    Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions?  wtf?   But wrong?   is it?   no Davin, it's not wrong.   Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons.   Now work with me here Davin...   The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because we have filters that look for light produced by electrons jumping from one orbit to another.   "H-alpha" is one very commonly recorded jump.   Anyway, all those jumps mean the elements are in ion state.   and one ion is not a plasma, but three ions is a plasma.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/light-waves-facts-lesson-for-kids.html

Light waves are forms of moving energy made of tiny microscopic particles called photons. Scientists usually refer to light waves as electromagnetic waves, because they make up what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. (The term 'electromagnetic' means the waves are both electric and magnetic.)

Light being a wave is why the doppler effect (as well as a gravitational effect that has been accounted for since 1959), works on it:

yea sure!  I'm with you on that...   I don't see any point of contention there.

(ions=plasma)

There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html

Definition of an Ion

Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.

There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.

Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.

A few ions in mutual association is a plasma.   Plasma is defined as hot, ionized, electrically conducting gasses. 

[Dave]

RZ, are you equating

A few ions in mutual association is a plasma. 

with 99+% of the universe?

I am guessing that you will not get far in space without encountering, or being encounted by, an ion - but how many per cubic metre I wonder? 0.999m³ solid worth?

[Davin]

This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.

Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand.    Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions?  wtf?   But wrong?   is it?   no Davin, it's not wrong.   Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons.   Now work with me here Davin...   The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because we have filters that look for light produced by electrons jumping from one orbit to another.   "H-alpha" is one very commonly recorded jump.   Anyway, all those jumps mean the elements are in ion state.   and one ion is not a plasma, but three ions is a plasma.

You can try to be as condescending as you want to me, I don't care. xSP seems to care though, so for the sake of the forum I recommend you stop.

No, the reason we have colors in images from NASA is because they put them in. Otherwise they'd just be gray scale images. H-Alpha barely describes one specific wavelength of light (not the only thing that that wavelength could be), let alone is it or the same effect that produces it the reason why we get all the other wavelengths of light. For instance, we get light coming from things that have no hydrogen let alone light coming from hydrogen coming from when hydrogen electron falls to it's second lowest level.

Three ions make plasma? You're going to have to demonstrate that.

Here's a picture of ionic liquid (note that a liquid is a different state of matter than plasma). How many ions would you say are in that? I bet there's more than three ions.

(ions=plasma)

There are positively charged ions in plasma, but ions are not plasma. There are plenty of ions going about that are not part of plasma. That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ion.html

Definition of an Ion

Let's recap a few things you probably learned a long time ago. There are 3 subatomic particles that are found in the atoms of an element. They are the positively charged protons, negatively charged electrons, and neutrons, which have no charge. Elements normally have the same number of protons and electrons in each of its atoms. This being the case, the atoms of the elements are neutral, meaning that they don't have a net positive or negative charge.

There are some instances when an atom may have a positive or negative charge. When the atom has a charge, it is now known as an ion. Atoms will pick up or lose electrons, which creates this charge. Electrons move around to reach the goal of having a full outermost shell within the atom in order to be stable.

Or maybe you have some data and/or science to back up your claim that ions=plasma. I'm willing to listen to you if you can provide something other than just you saying it.

A few ions in mutual association is a plasma.   Plasma is defined as hot, ionized, electrically conducting gasses.

Yes, that is how plasma is defined, however that doesn't mean that all ions=plasma. I means that plasma has ions. Which is already corrected above:
"That's a bit like like saying that because there is oxygen in water, that oxygen=water. Or because there are ions in liquid, that ions=liquid"

[Dave]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

[Rift Zone]

RZ, are you equating

A few ions in mutual association is a plasma. 

with 99+% of the universe?

I am guessing that you will not get far in space without encountering, or being encounted by, an ion - but how many per cubic metre I wonder? 0.999m³ solid worth?

I hope we're both in agreement that was a statement about what constitutes we find within the universe, not a statement of its density.   Stars are plasma.   Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma.   Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma.   Yea man, most of this universe is plasma, by far. 



Davin, the colors we get in NASA images come from H alpha and a host of different signatures that arise from electrons changing valence states.   They're looking at ions, different signatures from different ions.   

I didnt attack anyone i made a comment pertaining to making sport of fools.    If you feel personally attacked it's only because you identify with the target group. 

Plasma is a state of matter.   You're right, 3 ions don't necessarily make a plasma, it's all about how they're interacting. 

[Rift Zone]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.

[Dave]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.

Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.

Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.

Later:

Never mind, I think that I have found an early version of your claim:

Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.   We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe.   So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics.   But you know what?   You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals.   With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon.   Um, say what?  -you shady little bastards!   So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals.   It will be known in plasma circles first.   Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long.   ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about.   And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.

My bold.

I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!

Care and precision in presentation is as important as that in measurement. One missing word can change the meaning radically and lose you lots of kudos.

[Magdalena]

This is wrong. The different colors represent different wavelengths of light, not ions. You could say "photons" too.

Davin, try not blindly lashing out at things you don't understand.    Now it's perfectly cool (you don't look like an ass) if you say ions?  wtf?   But wrong?   is it?   no Davin, it's not wrong.   Many of the pictures you see of space objects area composite image that get different colors for different reasons.   Now work with me here Davin...   The reason we have different colors in professional/NASA style images is because ...

You can try to be as condescending as you want to me, I don't care. xSP seems to care though, so for the sake of the forum I recommend you stop.
...

RZ, I'm watching you.

[Rift Zone]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.

Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.

Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.

My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe.   Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context.  Then there's the fact stars are plasma.   Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma.   Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma...   The initial claim checks out.   

[Rift Zone]

RZ, I'm watching you.

eek!

[Dave]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.

Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.

Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.

My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe.   Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context.  Then there's the fact stars are plasma.   Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma.   Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma...   The initial claim checks out.

Repeating a later addition to sn earlier post of mine:

Quoting an early post by you:

Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.   We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe.   So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics.   But you know what?   You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals.   With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon.   Um, say what?  -you shady little bastards!   So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals.   It will be known in plasma circles first.   Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long.   ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about.   And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.

My bold.

I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!

[Rift Zone]

I began to think that a qualification was missing somewhere in terms of this ion busibess, wondered if it might be "matter".

Took a look, found this:

The plasma universe
It is estimated that 99% of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state...hence the expression "plasma universe." (The phrase "observable universe" is an important qualifier: roughly 90% of the mass of the universe is thought to be contained in "dark matter," the composition and state of which are unknown.) Stars, stellar and extragalactic jets, and the interstellar medium are examples of astrophysical plasmas (see figure). In our solar system, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, the magnetospheres and/or ionospheres of the Earth and other planets, as well as the ionospheres of comets and certain planetary moons all consist of plasmas.

[ more]

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma2.html

for the purposes of this discussion, unless contested, dark energy and dark matter have been discounted, leaving only observable matter, of which 99.999+% is in plasma state.

Please refresh my memory, was your earlier claim, "99.999+% of the universe..." or, "99.999+% of the matter in the observable universe..." ? Ignore the question of dark matter for the moment if you please.

Bit late at night for my eyes to go trawling thtough the whole thread.

My initial claim was pertaining to the state of observable matter in the universe.   Sorry for the ambiguity, I was hoping the next line in the intial statement pertaining to the rest of the matter being in solid, gaseous, and liquid states would firmly establish context.  Then there's the fact stars are plasma.   Thus, irrespective of the planets, 99+% of our solar system is plasma.   Galaxies are plasma, the filaments between galaxies are plasma, the large scale web structure of the universe is plasma...   The initial claim checks out.

Repeating a later addition to sn earlier post of mine:

Quoting an early post by you:

Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.   We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe.   So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics.   But you know what?   You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals.   With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon.   Um, say what?  -you shady little bastards!   So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals.   It will be known in plasma circles first.   Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long.   ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about.   And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science.

My bold.

I think that you meant "observable universe" but the sloppiness of your wording led some, myself included, think you meant the whole universe. I should have psid more attention to the implications of the following sentence once I had got over my surprise at the first!

Fair argument, though,,,  It was a determination of what everything in the universe is made of.   As noted above, the context was established through identifying the remaining ~.001% as solid, liquid, and gas.  The initial statement even identified plasma as the primary state of matter.   But it means more than "observable universe", because that's only supposed to be like 4% if all the "stuff" that's out there.   since we've dispensed with darkwhateverthefucks that statement was really trying to say 99.999+ of all stuff out there period is plasma.  There is nothing else.   Sorry for my lack of eloquence!   how we approach language more or less amount to human laws, and I have a tendency to break human law in my quest to know nature/natural law.   I'll try to be more succinct in the future.

[Tank]

..
I didnt attack anyone i made a comment pertaining to making sport of fools.   ...

Come on! By implicatin that is a personal attack on anybody here who disagrees with your view. And therefore breaks the civility rules of the forum. I know arguing with Davin is like trying to scratch haemorrhoids, which is why I can't be bothered to engauge with him in debate anymore. Just add him to your ignore list and you won't see his comments anymore. Problem solved.

[Dave]

Rift Zone, had you been more accurate in your use of English regarding plasma then 75% or more of this thread would probably not have happened.

I say "probably" because I agree with Tank regarding arguing with our Davin. Chances are Davin would have found something else to chew on!

You will have to qualify your arguments precisely, offering unassailable evidence, to get anyone with a brain to accrpt it. Wish you luck, you have work to do.