Plasma Cosmology debunked

Plasma Cosmology debunked theory wrong evidence plasma universePlasma Cosmology debunked - list of articles, forum threads, evidence, blogs arguing that the Plasma Cosmology theory is wrong.

If you are wondering what is Plasma Cosmology then this person on the Physics Forums writes about this thoughts on its ideology and concepts compared or related to the Big Bang theory.

Things related to the theories or ideas of Plasma Cosmology are sometimes refereed to or also known as the plasma universe.

The Electric Universe theory is based on a number of ideas and one of its influences is Plasma Cosmology.

Plasma Cosmology is NOT the Electric Universe theory. And the EU theory is not the Plasma Cosmology theory.

But if the whole Plasma Cosmology theory is completely wrong then are lots of parts of the Electric Universe theory (EU theory) also wrong by default?

plasma universe debunked theory wrong evidence

Plasma Cosmology debunked against arguments Alfven Alfvén Klein cosmology

Plasma Cosmology debunked articles

This is a starter list of arguments against the Plasma Cosmology. There are not that many listed to start with as there does not seem to be many on the internet.

If you know or find any other articles or evidence (or especially images that show this) debunking it then please mention them in the comments at the bottom of the page or send a message.

In 1965, Hannes Alfvén proposed a "plasma cosmology" theory of the universe based in part on scaling observations of astrophysical plasmas from in situ space physics experiments and plasmas from terrestrial laboratories to cosmological scales orders-of-magnitude greater. Utilizing matter-antimatter symmetry as a starting point, Alfvén suggested that the fact that since most of the local universe was composed of matter and not antimatter there may be large bubbles of matter and antimatter that would globally balance to equality (in what he termed an "ambiplasma"). The difficulties with this model were apparent almost immediately. Matter-antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons which were not observed. While it was possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell was simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition did not lend itself to observational tests.

While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.
Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma (chemeurope)

Alfvén was an early supporter of “plasma cosmology,” a concept that challenges the big-bang model of the origin of the universe. Those who support the theory of plasma cosmology hold that the universe had no beginning (and has no forseeable end) and that plasma—with its electric and magnetic forces—has done more to organize matter in the universe into star systems and other large observed structures than has the force of gravity.
Hannes Alfvén (Encyclopædia Britannica)

Plasma cosmology is the name for an alternative model for the universe. In very broad strokes, it proposes that electromagnetic forces in astronomical objects play not just the relatively important role that they actually do play, but that they also account for all the other astronomical structure that we now know are attributed to gravity and relativity. It's complicated and that's not a complete or very accurate description, but suffice it to say that plasma cosmology discards virtually every major astronomical discovery and theory of the past 50 years.

Unlike most crank alternative models, this one was actually proposed by a trio of real theoretical physicists. But they did so in the 1960s, before much of modern astronomy was known. For example, we now know that some of the observations the originators of plasma cosmology were trying to explain are the result of things like dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, concepts that were not yet proven back in those days. But even in those early days, plasma cosmology failed as a theory in too many other ways, and was never taken very seriously. Today, with our much more complete knowledge, it's completely unnecessary. It violates too much of what we know, and it fails to explain anything that's not already explained by proven phenomena.
Student Questions: Plasma Cosmology (reply on skeptoid)

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar System. This is contrary to the general consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists which strongly supports that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, and quantum mechanics. These can be used to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. As of 2015, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory.
Plasma cosmology (wikipedia)

Given that we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity, where's the problem that plasma cosmology is supposed to solve? Likewise, with the whole Universe, we explain a wide range of observations with Big Bang cosmology. If we are to even bother spending ten minutes thinking about plasma cosmology, we must first know: does it even show promise to explain everything, and what does it offer that the Big Bang does not?

In other words, plasma cosmology is a waste of time.

However, let me also take down one of the specific pieces of the model that underpins plasma cosmology. That's actually very difficult to do— not because the model is robust, but because it's so ill-defined!
How I know "plasma cosmology" is wrong (galacticinteractions)

Other Plasma Cosmology theory debunked articles and links