Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[davidbilby]

I'll give you that point. In science the onus of responsibility falls on the one making the claim.

Yup. We agree there.

Then again, you are claiming that these things/items *belong with/in* GR, and you have no evidence to support it.

Hardly - GR itself predicts that the universe will expand. The only way you can have a static universe is to "stuff" a constant in there holding it from expanding...

You can also put a constant in there to note the idea of an accelerated expansion, as evidenced by the time dilation of type Ia supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements. This is all part of extending a hypothesis. You are welcome to explain those two observations in other ways, but we're equally allowed to check the internal consistencies of those ways.

It's literally no better than me stuffing magic into GR.

In what way is the cosmological constant you require to maintain a static universe in GR different to the cosmological constant term for a theorized accelerated expansion of the universe, our explanation of the otherwise unexplained time dilation of the light curves of type Ia supernovae?

Since you cannot show that these things actually exist(ed), nor that they have any effect on objects with mass, you've never *qualified* your claims that these things even relate to GR.

Once again, you are attacking the notion of hypothesis itself. If the universe is expanding. There is no 'qualification' problem. The only problem is showing that there are no other explanations for what is going on, whilst also extrapolating predictions of our model and seeing if they're consistent. For example, if the CMB power spectrum from Planck had been substantially different, there might have been a major issue.

You are essentially saying that it is impossible to hypothesize any solution to any problem because until you prove the hypothesis true, you have no "qualification" (this is still a really odd way to phrase it btw).

For example, imagine a murder scene again. There is a guy face down on the floor with five kitchen knives in his back. It's highly unlikely it's suicide - thus, it is reasonable to say there was a murderer, OR some other occurrence that took place that causes him to have the multiple knives in his back. Maybe a kitchen exploded nearby and he was hit by the projectiles? Possible. Or maybe there was a murderer.

We're saying there was a murderer, but we don't know who it is. Your objection is essentially - how do you know there was a murderer? The answer is - we don't, but the alternatives seem highly unlikely since there's no evidence of any kitchens exploding nearby. You have no evidence of anything that could produce anything LIKE the cosmological redshift - none whatsoever.

You have evidence of things that are vaguely related - but they have all the wrong characteristics...notably wavelength dependance - and the additional burden that all of them you've suggested to date would be dispersive, along with the fact that quantum mechanics clearly shows that ANY such mechanism would be dispersive, VPs included. So, either you have to establish a new branch of quantum mechanics that corrects simple conservation of energy math, or you have to overturn quantum mechanics altogether. Since QM is empirically well-tested....well, you can hardly claim the empirical position.

It's pretty much a demonstrated fact at LHC (and other experiments) that C is the speed limit of matter.

No, it's the speed limit of information. Important difference.

I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming. We might be able to shoot two objects *past* one another, both traveling at near C. From their point of view they might appear to experience a "superluminal" expansion process once they pass each other. Is that what you mean?

No, actually GR and SR say something quite different, and this is where relativity gets really, really hard to understand, but it's quite logical....

To determine their speed relative to each other - which would seem at first glance to be 2C - you actually use this formula:

v_rel = (v_1 + v_2) / (1 + (v_1)(v_2)/c²)

So...in fact, if they are travelling at C and they pass each other:

v_rel = (c + c) divided by (1 + c times c / c squared)

thus v_rel = 2c / 2 = ...oh my god, C!

So to each object travelling at C - photons say, their relative speed would always be C. This is what we mean when we say photons travel null geodesics. They aren't billiard balls. Stuff gets real weird once you get close to C.

Things travelling at C always appear to travel at C. If you were to repeat the calculation and have two particles moving past each other at 99% of C, their relative velocity would be 99.9949% of C....not 198% of C.

Mind boggling, huh?

What I'm saying with relativity however is that superluminal expansion of space-time itself does NOT violate SR or GR because C by definition only applies to information moving through space-time. It does not apply to space-time itself, because space-time is not information. The coordinates themselves can expand superluminally and no information travels faster than C between two points within space-time.

 

[davidbilby]

You are incorrect, all of you. I never once said DM or DE violated relativity, I did indeed say Black Holes do though, and I stand by that claim.

Oh, ok. Glad you agree on DM and DE. However, your position is thus even more bizarre...black holes don't violate relativity at all. Quite the opposite - they are an actual (very neat) solution to the field equations. (They did exist prior to that as a concept, for more than a century).

So far from violating relativity - they're actually a problem essentially (in the modern era) born of relativity - General, specifically. Not only are they a solution - Birkhoff and Jebsen both independently showed they were the only spherically symmetrical solution.

You have some very odd ideas about physics....

Concerning DM & DE I said:


I said the only reason you need DM & DE is becaue you ignore 99.99% of the universe and the electrodynamic interactions in plasma. If you didn't you wouldn't need all that Fairie Dust. Get my claims correct first before you try to argue against them, that sometimes helps.

Well how about you get our claims correct?

The main reason we need DM & DE is because that 99.99% is the percentage of the visible universe that is plasma, not the percentage of the universe as a whole, and unfortunately, the best fit to the TT spectrum of the CMB shows that 99.99% is only about 4.82% of the whole picture.

It doesn't matter how that plasma electrodynamically interacts in the slightest, it's simply not all that there is in the universe; unless you make some very unsupported changes to gravity, and have a solid explanation for the time dilation of type Ia supernovae light curves, baryon acoustic oscillation measurements....etc. etc. etc.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, ok. Glad you agree on DM and DE.

I don't agree, it is Fairie Dust, it is only needed because you ignore the electrodynamic interactions of 99.99% of the universe.

davidbilby -However, your position is thus even more bizarre...black holes don't violate relativity at all. Quite the opposite - they are an actual (very neat) solution to the field equations. (They did exist prior to that as a concept, for more than a century).

So far from violating relativity - they're actually a problem essentially (in the modern era) born of relativity - General, specifically. Not only are they a solution - Birkhoff and Jebsen both independently showed they were the only spherically symmetrical solution.

And Einstein, the man that invented both SR and GR says they are not real, and I expect he knew more about his own theory than anyone else.
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality...The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light...The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/hilbert.pdf
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Unicorns.pdf
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/BB.pdf

You even got binary Black Holes, a double violation:

Before one can talk of relativistic binary systems it must first be proved that the two-body system is theoretically well-defined by General Relativity. This can be done in only two ways:
1. Deriviation of an exact solution to Einstein's field equations for the two-body configuration of matter; or
2. Proof of an existence theorem.
However, there are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for the interaction of two (or more) masses. Furthermore, no existence theorem has ever been proven, by which Einstein's field equations can even be said to admit of latent solutions for such configurations of matter.

You have some very odd ideas about physics....

I got odd ideas about physics???? I am not the one that claims a star spins faster than a dentist drill, yet doesn't fly apart. I am not the one claiming it is made up of matter never before observed, that is known to be impossible because two neutrons immediately fly apart and decay in less than 14 minutes when unbound to protons. I am not the one ignoring the electrodynamic interactions of 99.99% of the universe. I am not the one that claims Black Holes are real, when E himself said they weren't.

Well how about you get our claims correct?

The main reason we need DM & DE is because that 99.99% is the percentage of the visible universe that is plasma, not the percentage of the universe as a whole, and unfortunately, the best fit to the TT spectrum of the CMB shows that 99.99% is only about 4.82% of the whole picture.

It doesn't matter how that plasma electrodynamically interacts in the slightest, it's simply not all that there is in the universe; unless you make some very unsupported changes to gravity, and have a solid explanation for the time dilation of type Ia supernovae light curves, baryon acoustic oscillation measurements....etc. etc. etc.

And you know that the universe consists of 96% Fairie Dust because of how? How much have you seen or measured??? You only need it because you ignore the electrodynamic interaction of that 99.99% of the universe.

You mean these supernovas?
Why Won't the Supernova Explode? - NASA Science

You mean these mathematical explanations for supernovas that don't behave like you say they do? These supernova that for "DECADES" have failed to work? These are the supernova's you rely on to explain how the universe works? If your math was correct, the program would work. But as the old saying goes, garage in garbage out. We sure are not getting much of a bang for our buck, not even a fizzle actually.
I need make no changes to gravity, it is mainstream that wants to modify Newton's laws, gravity is the balanced magnetic and electric force, just as are atoms.
Atomic Bonding

Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge.

But plasma is mostly free electrons and ions (unbalanced atoms), This is why your rotation curves don't work, it is not a balanced medium and obeys the electrodynamic forces of Weber, Ampere, Gauss, Lorentz and Maxwell. Einstein just combined all the electrical equations for balanced matter, what we see around us. But the vast universe is made up of free electrons and unbalanced atoms, and so does not obey those laws. In our solar system this plasma in confined in close proximity, unlike the vast plasma clouds and filaments we observe everywhere. It does not act the same way in a cloud as it does when confined and balanced. It is this ignoring of the electric force that has led you to need other explanations to explain what you see.

Dark Matter has never been observed nor detected, despite fanciful claims to the contrary, What you do observe is matter not behaving like you "think" it should, because you call it dust or a hot gas. it is NOT dust or a hot gas, it is plasma, and plasma obeys the EM force laws, not the gravitational laws of balanced matter. You need not place your coffee pot lower than the wall outlet to make it work.

This is why everything builds up charge in plasma:
NASA - Analysis of International Space Station Plasma Interaction

This analysis created a model to predict the voltage difference between the ISS and the plasma background. The ionospheric plasma interacts with the ISS solar arrays and conducting surfaces, causing excess charge to be accumulated, thus creating the potential difference.

It is this charge imbalance within the plasma itself that causes plasma to behave like it does. plasma physicists do not use gravity to calculate plasma interactions, they use Maxwell's equations.
[1011.5801] Relativistic Laser-Plasma Interactions in the Quantum Regime
UCLA Laser Plasma Group
List of Publications
Perhaps if mainstream cosmologists stopped ignoring the EM force and started using the same electrodynamic equations as plasma physicists do, your rotation curves would act like the math says they should, without any Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Black Holes needed. Hmmm, what a novel idea, use the same force that 99.99% of the universe is composed of, imagine that. They might just get a different result when they do. So instead they continue to ignore it and instead postulate invisible, undetectable substances in complete opposition to everything known to explain what is a natural force in all plasma. How do you know it doesn't matter? Mainstream has never tried to apply this force, instead preferring their Fairie Dust.

 

[davidbilby]

I don't agree, it is Fairie Dust, it is only needed because you ignore the electrodynamic interactions of 99.99% of the universe.

Once again, that 99.99% is the percentage of plasma in the visible universe, a distinction you and that plasma website fail to understand. The CMB tells us about more than the directly visible universe...

And Einstein, the man that invented both SR and GR says they are not real, and I expect he knew more about his own theory than anyone else.

Actually, no - he didn't work out anywhere near all the implications of it, and he was wrong on black holes (as well as the uncertainty principle and some other stuff)

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Yeah, that's the paper. Sigh. It does not disprove the existence of black holes, only black holes made of particles in stable circular orbits (see equation 3 and the little bit that follows). If you imagine a particle in a stable orbit, it will orbit at a certain speed. If that particle moves closer, its speed will increase, and there will come a point (known as the Schwarzchild radius) where theoretically its speed in a stable orbit would be greater than C. This could not logically be the case.

However...what this ACTUALLY disproves is that the particle could be in a stable circular orbit at that distance, and not that the black hole could not exist, because it's exceptionally obvious that non-stable, non-circular orbits would be rather more likely in a black hole.

The notion that particles in the Schwarzchild radius would be orbiting in stable circular orbits and that's the only way a black hole could be is quite clearly erroneous.

He assumes a "stationary system with spherical symmetry" in the title, so it's not really that he screwed up - it's just that it doesn't disprove all black holes, and doesn't quite demonstrate what he thought it demonstrated. He wasn't wrong in the working, but the conclusion you draw that this paper disproves black holes IS wrong, and was known to be wrong almost immediately after the paper was published.

 

[davidbilby]

But plasma is mostly free electrons and ions (unbalanced atoms), This is why your rotation curves don't work, it is not a balanced medium

Medium for what? What do you mean balanced? These are meaningless statements.

and obeys the electrodynamic forces of Weber, Ampere, Gauss, Lorentz and Maxwell.

Newton? Kepler? Forgotten?

Einstein just combined all the electrical equations for balanced matter, what we see around us.

Meaningless pseudoscientific word salad. Einstein did nothing of the sort! Do you mean "baryonic" matter?

But the vast universe is made up of free electrons and unbalanced atoms

and a lot else besides....

and so does not obey those laws.

I'm unaware of the notion that, say, matter curves space-time differently depending on whether, say an electron is bound to a nucleus or not. Matter curves space-time the way it curves space-time. Your statement that electrons flout the laws of physics if they are free is utterly bizarre.

In our solar system this plasma in confined in close proximity, unlike the vast plasma clouds and filaments we observe everywhere.

So you are saying there is a certain - relatively low - plasma density where the laws of physics fall apart completely. Ooooookay.....

It does not act the same way in a cloud as it does when confined and balanced.

An electron bound to a nucleus is far from "balanced" and most definitely not "confined"....

It is this ignoring of the electric force that has led you to need other explanations to explain what you see/

If that were true, you've not shown how, and it's not, so you're just stringing word salad together. Condescending word salad at that...

Funny you missed out Keplerian dynamics and Newtonian gravity and cited a whole bunch of less relevant things to rotation curves. One might almost think you knew nothing about what you were talking and were stringing science-y sounding stuff together.

But...you say that....galaxy rotation curves don't work....because in a galaxy the matter is distributed as plasma clouds and filaments of...I guess, a certain lack of density or whatnot, and somehow, taken as a whole, this invalidates Keplerian dynamics? Bizarre.

And none of that would have any effect at all on gravitational lensing, which also quite clearly demonstrates that there is a large portion of mass that isn't accounted for. Completely separate lines of evidence telling us the same thing...you're wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again, that 99.99% is the percentage of plasma in the visible universe, a distinction you and that plasma website fail to understand. The CMB tells us about more than the directly visible universe...

Yes it does tell us a lot, it tells us that the source of the radiation must be nearby. If it is light from the furthest reaches of the universe then where are the shadows from the great galaxy clusters and great wall of galaxies? Should these not be silhouetted by this background light? You said earlier no links could be traced for the CMB to existing structures. Therefore it must be a closer source for these great galaxy filaments not to show up. After all, it is its homogeneity that fits theory isn't it?
Sloan Great Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CfA2 Great Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Huge-LQG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, no - he didn't work out anywhere near all the implications of it, and he was wrong on black holes (as well as the uncertainty principle and some other stuff)



Yeah, that's the paper. Sigh. It does not disprove the existence of black holes, only black holes made of particles in stable circular orbits (see equation 3 and the little bit that follows). If you imagine a particle in a stable orbit, it will orbit at a certain speed. If that particle moves closer, its speed will increase, and there will come a point (known as the Schwarzchild radius) where theoretically its speed in a stable orbit would be greater than C. This could not logically be the case.

However...what this ACTUALLY disproves is that the particle could be in a stable circular orbit at that distance, and not that the black hole could not exist, because it's exceptionally obvious that non-stable, non-circular orbits would be rather more likely in a black hole.

The notion that particles in the Schwarzchild radius would be orbiting in stable circular orbits and that's the only way a black hole could be is quite clearly erroneous.

He assumes a "stationary system with spherical symmetry" in the title, so it's not really that he screwed up - it's just that it doesn't disprove all black holes, and doesn't quite demonstrate what he thought it demonstrated. He wasn't wrong in the working, but the conclusion you draw that this paper disproves black holes IS wrong, and was known to be wrong almost immediately after the paper was published.

You mean a "stationary system with spherical symmetry" just as the "Schwarzschild solution"?
Deriving the Schwarzschild solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schwarzschild solution is one of the simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein field equations (see general relativity). It describes spacetime in the vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object.

[physics/9905030] On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein's theory

That same stationary system with spherical symmetry that all of Relativity is derived from? Are you saying Schwarzschild was wrong? Yet you claim it is this that allows the Black Hole. Your word games only work on people that do not know better.

Explain please how you add mass to the equation when Ric=0 is a mathematical statement that there exists no other mass in the universe? Where does this mass come from in the corrupted version, plainly evident when compared with what is really the Schwarzschild solution.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Waves-1.pdf

Stress–energy tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.

Ric=0 says there is no source of the gravitational field besides THE singularity, as no other mass can exist in the universe without first describing it with an energy momentum tensor, which is set to 0. So unless you have derived a theorem for a gravitational field apart from the "stationary system with spherical symmetry"? Which if you had you would not be using Relativity, because it is derived from this "stationary system with spherical symmetry". I was not aware you had supplanted Relativity with a new theorem?

Did someone win the Nobel prize for solving the equation for two or more masses in Einstein space, which IS the gravitational field? I must of missed that article, please point it out? Although that wouldn't be saying much since they have handed them out for Dark Matter theories, when no detection has ever been made.

But you never answered my question. Why are your supernova models not working if the math is correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Medium for what? What do you mean balanced? These are meaningless statements. I'm unaware of the notion that, say, matter curves space-time differently depending on whether, say an electron is bound to a nucleus or not. Matter curves space-time the way it curves space-time. Your statement that electrons flout the laws of physics if they are free is utterly bizarre. So you are saying there is a certain - relatively low - plasma density where the laws of physics fall apart completely. Ooooookay.....

Don't play stupid, must I take you for an idiot? Do you know ANYTHING about the Electromagnetic Force that all of relativity is based upon? Do you know anything about charge imbalance? Do you even know what an ion is? Here, let me help since you are too lazy to look it up, or choose to remain ignorant.
Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom a net positive or negative electrical charge.

Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed") is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). Heating a gas may ionize its molecules or atoms (reducing or increasing the number of electrons in them), thus turning it into a plasma, which contains charged particles: positive ions and negative electrons or ions.

And it is mainstream scientists actually that say yes, "there is a certain - relatively low - plasma density where the laws of physics fall apart completely":

The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers.

Plasma has properties quite unlike that of solids, liquids or gases, yet you still think of it as nothing more than a gas, this is why your math does not work in the universe, but only within the solar system itself, where it is compressed by its own EM force.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is what you are observing in the center of galaxies giving off all that radiation, a plasma pinch.
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why your galactic rotation curves don't fit the math, because you are using the wrong math. You need to use Maxwell's equations.

Is it not quantum theory mainstream is enamored with that says neutrons are composed of three charged quarks? Let's see, one positive, two negative makes a charge imbalance, and lo and behold protons don't fly apart. That's how chemistry works, another subject you should look into. Forces are shared:
Atomic Bonding - Covalent Bonds
Some are bonded, some are free:
Atomic Bonding - Metallic Bonds
But in plasma it is almost entirely made up of free electrons or ions (atoms with extra electrons or missing electrons) giving the entire plasma a net electrical charge. This is why space is highly filamentary.

A dust tentacle notwithstanding the description of a plasma filament.
Space Dust Tentacle Hides Baby Stars in New Photo | Taurus Constellation & Taurus Molecular Cloud | Star Formation, Space Images & Radio Telescopes | Space.com
Plasma filaments everywhere we look, regardless of what your gravitational math says.
Gallery - Spooky space pictures: a Halloween gallery - Image 4 - New Scientist
Also regardless that you want to claim its spacetime and Dark Matter, when in reality it's nothing more than twisted current filaments connecting it all.
BLDGBLOG: Filaments of space-time

Let's call them by their real name.
Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/015/255/original/taurus-molecular-cloud-comparison-2.jpg?1329257507

It's simply Birkeland Currents through plasma in Dark Mode. You ought like that Dark part, should fit right in. Dark Mode is current not emitting in visible light. Glow Mode is currents emitting in visible light, and Arc Mode is currents emitting almost all the spectrum. Unstable pinches emit all radiation including neutrons and Synchrotron.

It all depends upon voltage differential and the current density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage

Voltage, electrical potential difference, or an electric tension (denoted ∆V and measured in units of electric potential: volts, or joules per coulomb) is the electric potential difference between two points, or the difference in electric potential energy of a unit test charge transported between two points.[1] Voltage is equal to the work done per unit charge against a static electric field to move the charge between two points. A voltage may represent either a source of energy (electromotive force), or lost, used, or stored energy (potential drop). A voltmeter can be used to measure the voltage (or potential difference) between two points in a system; usually a common reference potential such as the ground of the system is used as one of the points. Voltage can be caused by static electric fields, by electric current through a magnetic field, by time-varying magnetic fields, or some combination of these three.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_density

In electromagnetism, and related fields in solid state physics, condensed matter physics etc. current density is the electric current per unit area of cross section. It is defined as a vector whose magnitude is the electric current per cross-sectional area. In SI units, the electric current density is measured in amperes per square metre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

In addition, relativity theory shows that in moving frames of reference a magnetic field transforms to a field with a nonzero electric component and vice versa; thus firmly showing that they are two sides of the same coin, and thus the term "electromagnetism"

So just why again do you justify leaving a nonzero electric component out of the equations? And you wonder why the math doesn't work. Why none of the observations match theory. Why they had to invent Fairie Dust to save the theory, because time after time mainstream ignores that nonzero electrical component and only considers the magnetic component.

The theory doesn't need saved, it just needs mainstream science to put the electro back into electromagnetism.

Here's some more of those supernova you rely on in your math.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIHfzviGgA
Hmm, redder than can be explained, because its plasma interaction, not distance and velocity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppzggRl2S2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwGvmg2mSwk
Look like an explosion to you?
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/supernova/2007/10/video/a/

And let's not forget your quasar's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40

 

[Michael]

Yup. We agree there.

Hardly - GR itself predicts that the universe will expand.

Technically, with a zero constant it predicts expansion *or* contraction. GR in that configuration (zero constant) doesn't necessarily predict a static universe in and of itself. The only reason Einstein tinkered with a non zero constant for awhile was to explain a *static* universe. Once he believed that the universe was expanding, he set the constant back to zero, and claimed the whole concept of a non zero constant was his "greatest blunder".

Objects in motion stay in motion and that motion can explain a simple expansion phenomenon. I hardly need exotic claims to explain an expanding universe.

The only way you can have a static universe is to "stuff" a constant in there holding it from expanding...

Or it keeps it from contracting. The thing is david, something quite "ordinary", say an ordinary EM field from cathode suns, or external current might explain a "stable" universe. Again, nothing particularly 'exotic' needs to exist in nature to explain even a static universe scenario.

You can also put a constant in there to note the idea of an accelerated expansion, as evidenced by the time dilation of type Ia supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements.

I haven't heard you "explain" those curves or any of your claims yet related to "normal" and "exotic" matter, and acoustic oscillations yet, so I'll have to reserve judgement on that claim for the time being. The "signal broadening" that you're calling "time dilation" is in fact "predicted" in some "new tired light" theories, and apparently even some VP oriented papers. The "theme" seems to be that something 'holds onto' the photon for awhile, yet doesn't change it's trajectory in that "holding" process.

Now of course simple laser experiments go a long way to demonstrating much the same thing:

Prof. Lene Hau: Stopping light cold - YouTube

This is all part of extending a hypothesis. You are welcome to explain those two observations in other ways, but we're equally allowed to check the internal consistencies of those ways.

You're asking me to let you extend GR theory with "magic", without even demonstrating that magic exists, or that it has any effect on matter. Why would you expect me to let you do that?

In what way is the cosmological constant you require to maintain a static universe in GR different to the cosmological constant term for a theorized accelerated expansion of the universe, our explanation of the otherwise unexplained time dilation of the light curves of type Ia supernovae?

My constant actually exists in nature (EM fields), and it has a tangible effect on plasma. Yours doesn't.

Once again, you are attacking the notion of hypothesis itself. If the niverse is expanding.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Actually, no I'm not. I'm fine with an expanding universe as described in that paper, and as described as objects in motion. You're not talking about basic expansion, you're talking about something very different than simply the movement of objects.

There is no 'qualification' problem.

That is *exactly* like me claiming that there is no qualification problem with stuffing "God energy" into a GR formula, or "magic energy" into a GR formula. If you cannot demonstrate your claim that it even belongs in a GR formula to start with, why should I let you simply "fudge" the whole qualification process? I didn't simply "make up" EM fields to use as a non zero constant, whereas you simply 'made up' a new force of nature and called it "dark energy".

The only problem is showing that there are no other explanations for what is going on, whilst also extrapolating predictions of our model and seeing if they're consistent.

To show that there are no other explanations would require *extensive* laboratory testing on the scale and sophistication of the Harvard study. That takes *big money*, which I don't have to spend thanks to your invisible entities that have no business even being in a GR formula in the first place!

For example, if the CMB power spectrum from Planck had been substantially different, there might have been a major issue.

Why? It wasn't a "major issue" for you when the Planck data didn't jive with your theory as it relates to the two hemispheres. You seem to be able to "tweak and bend" your herd of metaphysical entities to achieve a very *wide variety* of different configurations. Just because you might not be able to dream up a way to "work around the problem", doesn't mean that *nobody* can come up with a way to "fix it".

I really see no logical way to falsify these claims since they are "adjusted on the fly" as necessary.

You are essentially saying that it is impossible to hypothesize any solution to any problem because until you prove the hypothesis true, you have no "qualification" (this is still a really odd way to phrase it btw).

No, not at all. Were you stuffing an EM field into that non zero constant, you wouldn't hear me cry metaphysical foul. It you put *any known force of nature* into that non zero constant, I'd be fine. It's the fact that you *made up* a *brand spanking new* force of nature, *just to make one cosmology theory work right* that I object to.

We're saying there was a murderer, but we don't know who it is. Your objection is essentially - how do you know there was a murderer?

In this case there's no evidence that a murder was even committed in the first place because there is no actual physical knife, no demonstration that your "invisible knife" has any effect on a body, and there is no body!

Redshift *is* caused by inelastic scattering. There's no logical way to ignore the fact that it's going to occur in space. Redshift is also due to the movement of objects and again, you can't be sure it's not a "combo deal" to begin with!

You apparently see something in the sky. You *assume* there's been a murder. You're apparently happy to rule out the usual suspects with nothing more than 6 lines of math, and one published paper from 1929 written by a guy with a completely *self serving motive* that only discussed a *few* types of inelastic scattering and never tested any of them personally.

The answer is - we don't, but the alternatives seem highly unlikely since there's no evidence of any kitchens exploding nearby. You have no evidence of anything that could produce anything LIKE the cosmological redshift - none whatsoever.

That's simply false IMO. You wouldn't know if inelastic scattering in *various conditions* would or would not produce cosmological redshift because you've never done the kinds of *extensive experimentation* required to demonstrate such a claim. You apparently expect me to accept exactly 1 published paper from 1929, and your personal six lines of *unpublished* math?

You have evidence of things that are vaguely related

They are not "vaguely" related at all, they are *directly* related to photon redshift. In fact, the movement of objects produces effects *identical* to your mythical type of "space expansion". You guys even keep trying to ride the coattails of Doppler shift!

Inelastic scattering also produces *photons redshift* and there are *many kinds* of inelastic scattering, not just one.

- but they have all the wrong characteristics...notably wavelength dependance -

Again however, you wouldn't really know that because you haven't really tried them all out yet in the first place, certainly not in a lab, not with lots of variations in temperature, density and EM field characteristics in the plasma.

and the additional burden that all of them you've suggested to date would be dispersive,

The universe *is* dispersive of light!

along with the fact that quantum mechanics clearly shows that ANY such mechanism would be dispersive, VPs included.

That last paper I cited on VP's suggested that the VP's slowed down light but *did not* change it's trajectory. Those Harvard experiments would tend to support the idea that the speed of light can *vary* depending on the conditions of the medium. You can't just *assume* things based on six lines of math, you have to *experiment in the lab* to determine these things. Chen did that. You pretty much handwaved it away claiming that it was wavelength dependent without so much as a single test of concept *in the lab*.

So, either you have to establish a new branch of quantum mechanics that corrects simple conservation of energy math, or you have to overturn quantum mechanics altogether.

I don't necessarily need to do either of those things until I get into a lab and verify these things in *real life experiments*. Until then you're just making bold claims *about* QM that have no basis in demonstrated fact.

Since QM is empirically well-tested....well, you can hardly claim the empirical position.

QM experiments with inelastic scattering *support* the claim that photons *are* affected by the medium in which they traverse. You're not going to get the high ground via QM.

No, it's the speed limit of information. Important difference.


No, actually GR and SR say something quite different, and this is where relativity gets really, really hard to understand, but it's quite logical....

To determine their speed relative to each other - which would seem at first glance to be 2C - you actually use this formula:

v_rel = (v_1 + v_2) / (1 + (v_1)(v_2)/c²)

So...in fact, if they are travelling at C and they pass each other:

v_rel = (c + c) divided by (1 + c times c / c squared)

thus v_rel = 2c / 2 = ...oh my god, C!

So to each object travelling at C - photons say, their relative speed would always be C. This is what we mean when we say photons travel null geodesics. They aren't billiard balls. Stuff gets real weird once you get close to C.

Things travelling at C always appear to travel at C. If you were to repeat the calculation and have two particles moving past each other at 99% of C, their relative velocity would be 99.9949% of C....not 198% of C.

Mind boggling, huh?

I'll let you read through that expansion paper and see if that's what you mean.

What I'm saying with relativity however is that superluminal expansion of space-time itself does NOT violate SR or GR because C by definition only applies to information moving through space-time.

You haven't demonstrated that it happens any other way!

It does not apply to space-time itself, because space-time is not information.

Huh? "Spacetime" *is inclusive*, not exclusive of photons and mass. It's *completely informational*. You're not talking about a "moving object" sort of expansion anymore, you're describing a *mythical* form of expansion that again lacks any sort of *qualification* on your part.

The coordinates themselves can expand

How? How does that *physically* happen?

Again, from my skeptical perspective, you're pretty much handwaving away, claiming that the only way to explain photon redshift is via 'magical' extensions to GR theory. I'm sorry but I simply don't buy that idea, particularly since your *entire* claim seems to be based on *one* published paper from 1929, and your own personal *unpublished* handwaves!

 

[Michael]

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/015/255/original/taurus-molecular-cloud-comparison-2.jpg?1329257507

It's simply Birkeland Currents through plasma in Dark Mode. You ought like that Dark part, should fit right in. Dark Mode is current not emitting in visible light. Glow Mode is currents emitting in visible light, and Arc Mode is currents emitting almost all the spectrum. Unstable pinches emit all radiation including neutrons and Synchrotron.

Dark lightning sheds light on gamma-ray mystery - physicsworld.com

Apparently you'll now have to add "dark lightning" to that list of ways that currents can manifest themselves in dusty plasma, and oh look, a *real* source of free positrons.

 

[Michael]

Don't play stupid, must I take you for an idiot?

FYI, I've chastised david plenty over directing his comments at the individual rather than the topic. I'd rather we focus on the topic. I can assure you from our conversations that david is *highly* intelligent, if somewhat misguided.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

FYI, I've chastised david plenty over directing his comments at the individual rather than the topic. I'd rather we focus on the topic. I can assure you from our conversations that david is *highly* intelligent, if somewhat misguided.

I know, that's why I asked him to quit playing stupid.

When complex molecules begin to form the electromagnetic force is muted, balanced.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm[/FONT]

"Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge."

So in the innermost parts of the galaxy where the plasma density is at its highest, gravity seems to act normally (there are more atoms in close proximity - the electric and magnetic fields are in balance), but as the plasma density decreases, the distance between atoms lessen, they align less often and the electromagnetic force begins to control the interactions.
There is no need to modify Newton's laws, no need to posit some form of matter that can't be seen or detected because its composed of something never observed anywhere in the entire universe.
[FONT=&quot]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002126[/FONT]
My comments in {}

The evidence for the existence of dark matter in the universe is reviewed. A general picture emerges, where both baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter is needed to explain current observations {galaxy rotation curves for example}. In particular, a wealth of observational information points to the existence of a non-baryonic component, contributing between around 20 and 40 percent of the critical mass density needed to make the universe geometrically flat on large scales {the CMB shows filimentation, large clumping, not what the Big Bang predicts - so it's got to be}. In addition, an even larger contribution from vacuum energy (or cosmological constant) is indicated by recent observations. To the theoretically favoured particle candidates for non-baryonic dark matter belong axions, supersymmetric particles, and of less importance, massive neutrinos. The theoretical foundation and experimental situation for each of these is reviewed. Direct and indirect methods for detection of supersymmetric dark matter are described in some detail. Present experiments are just reaching the required sensitivity to discover or rule out some of these candidates, and major improvements are planned over the coming years.

But I don't think I need to post again the results, do I?

During the past few years, remarkable progress has been made in cosmology, both observational and theoretical. One of the outcomes of these rapid developments is the increased confidence that most of the energy density of the observable universe is of an unusual form, i.e., not made up of the ordinary matter (baryons and electrons) that we see around us in our everyday world.

A partially true statement, because what we see around us in the everyday world is in non-plasma form. The rest is plasma which is a distinct state of matter and behaves quite unlike solids, liquids and gasses, to which they cannot comprehend.

For example, big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately, and combined with analyses of galaxy cluster dynamics, supernova data and the cosmic microwave background radiation this gives convincing arguments for the existence of a large amount of non-luminous, i.e., dark, matter. The matter content of the universe seems to be at least a factor of 5 higher than the maximum amount of baryonic matter implied by big bang nucleosynthesis. This dark matter is thus highly likely to be “exotic”, i.e, non-baryonic.

First they tell me that " big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately," then tell me that " The matter content of the universe seems to be at least a factor of 5 higher than the maximum amount of baryonic matter implied by big bang nucleosynthesis." So observations seem to imply that this theory is incorrect, that there is more matter than the theory predicts, simply because they can't explain things without it. Do they look for another cause in reality, not fantasyland? No, they without hesitation insist it must point to the addition of this undetectable substance. So all the evidence points to the theory being incorrect, unless of course they imagine a never before detected substance, put in just the right places, it isn't needed everywhere. A substance that doesn't react to the electromagnetic force, stays on the outskirts of galaxies, even though gravity should have caused it to condense inwards. They claim to be able to detect it gravitationally, yet it just doesn't want to obey those laws either. And what is meant when they say detected gravitationally, is that galaxies don't seem to obey the gravitational laws, so it has to exists. Or, maybe they should look into the electromagnetic force laws, since 99% of a galaxy is plasma that obeys those laws. Of course they have left out half the observable mass.
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Now a team of researchers has studied a catalogue of galaxies and found that dust shields roughly 50 percent of their light... The result will likely cause many astronomers to revise their calculations of the intrinsic brightness of many celestial objects, Driver said... Since dust lies in the disks of spiral galaxies, and not the dense central bulge, when we view galaxies from the side we are looking through thicker layers of dust, so we should see less light. In fact, the researchers counted about 70 percent fewer edge-on galaxies than face-on galaxies.

So once they add 50% more mass from all the light blocked by dust (read plasma), then suddenly the need for non-baryonic matter reduces drastically. Then add 70% more mass from edge on galaxies hidden by this dust (read plasma) and the need reduces even further. I thought " big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately"? Then why did it not predict 50% more mass and 70% more edge on galaxies?

Although the existence of non-baryonic dark matter is now generally accepted by most of the astrophysical community, the nature of the dark matter is one of the outstanding questions in standard cosmology. In fact, since 1998 there is for the first time strong evidence for the existence of non-baryonic dark matter in the universe, in the form of massive neutrinos. This is due to the discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations in the Super-Kamiokande experiment. However, the natural neutrino mass scale of around 0.1 eV which is implied by the neutrino oscillation data is not large enough to influence cosmology in a dramatic way (although this type of non-baryonic dark matter would contribute about as much to the total mass density of the universe as do the visible stars).
Even if the mass of one of the neutrinos is higher (up to, say, 5eV which would be possible if neutrinos are nearly degenerate in mass or if there exist a fourth, sterile neutrino), the mass density would not be large enough to explain the matter fraction of the cosmic average density. There are also arguments from galactic structure against an all-neutrino dark matter population. Therefore, it is natural to ask which other fundamental particles could be good dark matter candidates.

They thought they would throw that in, so you would think they have possible proof, even though they then tell you it wouldn't matter one bit if the value was imagined to be higher, or even if they postulated another imaginary form. Isn't it just as likely that it is natural to ask if dark matter really exists, and that another force we are now observing everywhere in space might have some cause? So even if you pretend that neutrinos oscillation was 5eV instead of the 0.1eV detected it wouldn't matter anyway in the calculations. So the missing mass is still missing. Regardless that plasma z-pinches emit neutrinos as a natural consequence of the pinch process.

There are also indications, although still somewhat preliminary, of the existence of vacuum energy, corresponding to the famous “cosmological constant” that Einstein introduced but later rejected (although without very good reasons) in his theory of general relativity.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life

So we in reality find that the cosmological constant was added by him to make a static universe work, which he took out because it was started to theorize that redshift = distance meant expansion. So Einstein took it out to make his theory match expansion, but the author of the paper implies he took it out (although without very good reasons), yet now they want to use the cosmological constant to explain expansion and dark Energy. Well, which is it?

A problem arises with inclusion of the cosmological constant in the standard model: i.e., the appearance of solutions with regions of discontinuities (see classification of discontinuities at typical matter density). Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe. Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical observations, particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the cosmological constant. All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is included.

So when they include it, they have problems with dark Energy, but the author wants to include it to explain Dark Energy and expansion, yet Einstein added it to explain a static universe, not expanding. He only took it out because they insisted it was required he take it out to explain an expanding universe. So by wanting to add it back, they again show Einstein was correct to include it the first time which explains a static universe. I am not sure the author understood why it was removed. It was removed to fit the then formulated theory of expansion, yet he argues it was removed (although without very good reasons). Double-talk once again.

It is neither an expanding universe, a collapsing universe or a static universe. It is a universe separated by untold distances trying to establish equilibrium. It is expanding in some places, contracting in others. Sometimes galaxies appearing to come apart really are, but such is the EM force, overall attractive, but repulsive over short distances depending on current direction and angles between masses (Alignment).
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/images/2010/active-galaxies.jpg

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dark lightning sheds light on gamma-ray mystery - physicsworld.com

Apparently you'll now have to add "dark lightning" to that list of ways that currents can manifest themselves in dusty plasma, and oh look, a *real* source of free positrons.

Yah, kind of upsets their entire theory of gamma ray bursts doesn't it. Must be tiny little black holes or colliding tiny little neutron stars in the atmosphere. No, wait, it's Dark Matter!

 

[Michael]

Yah, kind of upsets their entire theory of gamma ray bursts doesn't it. Must be tiny little black holes or colliding tiny little neutron stars in the atmosphere. No, wait, it's Dark Matter!

It pretty much calls into question just about every high energy emission from space.

FYI, I do personally do entertain the concept of heavy gravitational objects, albeit not objects with infinite density. Most gamma rays from space however are likely to be directly related to electrical discharge activity around various objects in space. We see electrical discharges in our own atmosphere. Jupiter and Saturn experience far more powerful discharges in their atmosphere.

And then of course the "granddaddy" of our solar system, our sun produces them 24/7, three hundred and sixty five and a quarter days of the year.

 

[Michael]

First they tell me that " big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately,

FYI, I am patiently waiting to hear david explain how and why he believes that is possible by the way.

 

[Michael]

So just why again do you justify leaving a nonzero electric component out of the equations?

FYI, I'd like to hear you answer that question too david.

 

[davidbilby]

FYI, I've chastised david plenty over directing his comments at the individual rather than the topic. I'd rather we focus on the topic. I can assure you from our conversations that david is *highly* intelligent, if somewhat misguided.

Well, that's most kind. I would disagree on the very last bit but you probably know that already .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It pretty much calls into question just about every high energy emission from space.

FYI, I do personally do entertain the concept of heavy gravitational objects, albeit not objects with infinite density. Most gamma rays from space however are likely to be directly related to electrical discharge activity around various objects in space. We see electrical discharges in our own atmosphere. Jupiter and Saturn experience far more powerful discharges in their atmosphere.

And then of course the "granddaddy" of our solar system, our sun produces them 24/7, three hundred and sixty five and a quarter days of the year.

I have no problem with theory about compressed matter, that is what z-pinches do, compress plasma and bond elements together. When current density becomes too great for the surface area it is ejected and the planets are born. Or more properly I should say the sun's core itself fissions into one or more separate objects to spread the current over a larger surface area. Why we see most electrically stressed stars with binary companions. What we see in the galactic core.http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/110801milkywaycenter-550x412.jpg
http://www.herschel.caltech.edu/media/images/nhsc2011-013/nhsc2011-013a1-Sm.jpg

One can even see the twin polar filaments.

But the mere idea that matter can occupy a 0 volume space is absurd. Density is [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ρ = m / V. so all of the mass / 0 volume = 0 density. Which equals 0 mass. [/FONT]The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho). So agreed, infinite density is strictly prohibited by the mass as division by zero is zero.

I think gamma ray bursts are Birkeland Currents connecting our Sun to the spiral arm currents where the double layer has expanded and tripped the circuit breaker so to speak. Storms are caused when the charge in the magnetosphere becomes greater than the breakdown potential capacity of the atmosphere and the circuit that was space to cloud connects to ground. Most likely double layers also form around that area to separate the different layers of atmosphere charge potential, just as we observe in plasma. Real life has shown that charge differential exist in the higher atmospheres, why spacecraft and probes immediately build up charge on their surfaces. The plasma already there in glow mode becomes visible when the main light of the star fades away.

A theory about globular clusters I'll share some time.

The IBEX probe has measured huge, what they term "ribbons" around the heliopause. Birkeland Current filaments would be a better description, but hey, they are still learning the proper language.
IBEX: Interstellar Boundary Explorer

There are likely many current pair filaments encircling our sun, some just more energetic than others. A likelihood suggested by what we actually observe in supernova, an increase in current density, that may or may not effect the central star after the initial event. It is apparent that SN1987A once exploded due to a double layer collapse, but the new increase is clearly not due to an explosion, but multiple current filaments surrounding the star.

There is no way one can watch the time lapse of SN1987A and come to the conclusion the brightening is due to an explosion, even if they have because they lack the proper resources. The main current strength simply switched to the outer filaments. Path of least resistance. The star didn't explode, it slowly fades away and the outer filaments brighten as the currents switches paths. A plasma jet is beginning to form from one pole of the star. I expect soon it will reverse and the star will shine again, despite having ummm, imploded and then exploded off it's outer layers (inner layers?). It did implode according to mainstream theory did it not, mixing all the layers?
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - NASA's Hubble Telescope Celebrates SN 1987A's 20th Anniversary (02/22/2007) - Release Videos

Or maybe its a new type of Black Hole that forms from low mass stars?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

FYI, I've chastised david plenty over directing his comments at the individual rather than the topic. I'd rather we focus on the topic. I can assure you from our conversations that david is *highly* intelligent, if somewhat misguided.

Well, that's most kind. I would disagree on the very last bit but you probably know that already .

Yes, I've read his posts, and he is quite clever at the sleight of hand of mainstream manipulation. It is only too bad he won't fairly compare the two without his preconceived notions. He would make a welcomed addition to the future. I can't believe that since the 1980's almost every data set returned from space has fulfilled the EU/PC paradigms and set mainstream back to the drawing board to tweak the numbers. The sad thing is the EU has just really started in the last 10 years.

Yes, we had pioneers like Alfven, Birkeland, Jergens, etc, working with limited data, but they were starters, literally lone voices in the wilderness. The EU/PC swells in numbers everyday as more and more put down the View Master and "really" see the data for what it is. All we ask is one look, one "honest - no preconception" look and then you can help pioneer the next science of the future. Because if you set the View Master down even for a minute, you will take it off more and more in spite of yourself until you finally throw it away.

Come join the Dark Side David.

 

[davidbilby]

Yes it does tell us a lot, it tells us that the source of the radiation must be nearby.

No, it doesn't.

If it is light from the furthest reaches of the universe then where are the shadows from the great galaxy clusters and great wall of galaxies?

Wow, we're pulling out the pseudoscience stops today, aren't we? You are talking about the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, and yes, we do see exactly what you're talking about, and it's even been used to find superclusters we didn't even know existed. Here's an example from the early data from PLANCK:

ESA Science & Technology: Planck and XMM-Newton image of the galaxy supercluster PLCK G214.6+37.0

Should these not be silhouetted by this background light? You said earlier no links could be traced for the CMB to existing structures.

Er...no I didn't.....

Therefore it must be a closer source for these great galaxy filaments not to show up.

They do show up.

After all, it is its homogeneity that fits theory isn't it?

Homogeneity to a certain degree yes.

Sloan Great Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SGW is three structures, not one, and is compatible with the Yadav fractal boundaries for homogeneity in LCDM (and was also theorized to be a single structure using a rather shaky algorithmic approach similar to the one Clowes used for HLQG, which has been demolished pretty recently by two other papers - see

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1700v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3970v2.pdf

CfA2 Great Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not incompatible with Yadav either, and a common target for dark matter computer models. A curious one to cite for your position since it would be very difficult indeed to explain how such a structure would form without a very large amount of additional unseen matter....but whatever.

Huge-LQG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HLQG is almost certainly not a structure by any meaningful statistical definition as regards homogeneity, as evidenced by the two papers above. (Funny that you get your science from wikipedia? Here is Clowes' original paper that the Nadathur and Pilipenko et al. papers rebut so beautifully. Warning: more big boy physics. [1211.6256] A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology ).

You mean a "stationary system with spherical symmetry" just as the "Schwarzschild solution"?

Deriving the Schwarzschild solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[physics/9905030] On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein's theory

That same stationary system with spherical symmetry that all of Relativity is derived from? Are you saying Schwarzschild was wrong?[/QUOTE]

Huh? Schwarzchild's metric is a particular solution of the field equations. Relativity does not derive from it.......it derives from Relativity. It is a particular case. (It is also not the only solution of the field equations leading to a black hole - particularly the non-stationary, spinning black hole as derived by Kerrr)

What Einstein's paper says is that stable circular orbits will, at a point within the Schwarzchild radius, require the particle in question to be travelling in excess of C. This is clearly not possible. The erroneous conclusion is to say that because of this, black holes are impossible, because it does not take into account other types of black holes (eg. Kerr) for starters, and secondly, does not actually lead to the conclusion pseudoscientists think it does.

We now know there are no stable orbits within a certain radius (3/2, or 1.5 times the Schwarzchild radius, because at that point gravity will force photons to orbit - any closer, and a stable circular orbit is impossible).

Einstein was unaware of Kerr's later generalization, obviously, dying a decade or so before it was found...

Yet you claim it is this that allows the Black Hole.

No. It is several solutions to the field equations that imply black holes will form. The assumption of stable circular orbits within a particular form of one of those solutions (the simplest) does not disprove their existence, because we know within 3/2 of the Schwarzchild radius there is no such thing as a stable, circular orbit......

Explain please how you add mass to the equation when Ric=0 is a mathematical statement that there exists no other mass in the universe?

Add mass to which equation in particular? Which mass term are you objecting to? Your statement doesn't seem to be accurate. Newtonian gravity is a good example of another theory that works when the concept of a "point mass" is used to describe something that clearly isn't a single point mass.

Where does this mass come from in the corrupted version, plainly evident when compared with what is really the Schwarzschild solution.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Waves-1.pdf

This literally makes no sense as a question. What mass term are you objecting to in which of Einstein's field equations?

Stress–energy tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ric=0 says there is no source of the gravitational field besides THE singularity, as no other mass can exist in the universe without first describing it with an energy momentum tensor, which is set to 0.

So unless you have derived a theorem for a gravitational field apart from the "stationary system with spherical symmetry"?

Kerr would be one example. GR does not specify stationary systems, which is good, since it'd be pretty useless if it did.

Which if you had you would not be using Relativity, because it is derived from this "stationary system with spherical symmetry".

As pointed out prior, you are muddling up the cart with the horse. The stationary system with spherical symmetry is a particular case of Relativity...relativity does not derive from the Schwarzchild solution for GR....

I was not aware you had supplanted Relativity with a new theorem?

I haven't, but it appears you have.

Did someone win the Nobel prize for solving the equation for two or more masses in Einstein space, which IS the gravitational field?

Well, if you ignore Kepler's solution (one mass vastly bigger than the other), there have actually been great inroads made into the two-body problem, as it's usually called. There's certainly no theorem that says its unsolvable, and some approximate solutions that work in computer model, so it's hardly a done deal.......