1. Yes, PC/EU has limits, like any theory.
In terms of cosmology theories in general, EU/PC theory is *far* more restricted than most. One of the "raps" against M-theory is the fact it can be "tweaked" to accommodate just about any scenario. I mean if you're going to allow for more than a half dozen new "dimensions" of spacetime, just about anything and everything can be explained by tweaking variables somewhere in the process that happen to be "invisible" in our three dimensions plus time.
Lambda-CDM has no less than *three* metaphysical fudge factors that can be "tweaked" to accommodate just about any expansion scenario, though they die a slow, agonizing and horrible death when facing a static universe scenario, and that 2011 data from LHC.
Plasma physics theory is basically restricted to the known laws of physics. IN PC theory there is no place in "space" where plasma does not exist. PC expansion theories for instance are limited to "object expansion", and nothing with mass can travel faster than C. That's a "real" physical limitation in electric universe theory that does not exist in most "scientific" cosmology theories. Most cosmology theories have extra dimensions galore to hide various fudge factors, and Lambda-CDM has three fudge factors that essentially make up more than 96 percent of their theory, particularly as we factor in inflation theory. It's possible to do just about anything if the laws of real physics are limited to only 4 percent of the entire theory in question and 96 percent of the theory is just "made up" to accommodate about anything one wants it to do.
2. I'm not certain that space expansion is a metaphysical concept.
The only type of expansion that shows up in a lab is object expansion. Unless you have evidence to the contrary *without* pointing to the sky, it's a metaphysical concept. Supposedly this expansion of space thing requires the absence all mass, which never happens in PC theory.
3. All laws has been "made up".
Not exactly. Some laws do seem to be "verifiable" in empirical experimentation. They are replicable by others, meaning that the universe does operate based on certain physical principles that do seem to be universe in scope. GR theory for instance (without the metaphysical kludges) has been verified again and again and again. That isn't to say it will not fail one day, or be replace by a "quantum field" orientation to gravity, but so far, so good for GR. It works, just like Newton's ideas work to get us around inside this solar system rather effectively I might add.
4. What does freedom (i.e. the "limits") to have with natural science?
"Natural science" is based upon a respect for nature, and an appreciation of the laws of nature. It recognizes the universal laws of physics that show up in labs and Earth, on the moon, and every place we've sent a probe to in this universe thus far.
5. Has there been any math done on what angle deviations that would be acceptable before plasma redshift (each tested alone) becomes inapplicable?
AFAIK, it's only been attempted for Compton redshift based upon an oversimplified attempt at *falsification*, not *explanation* as I recall. Unfortunately however all the funding is currently being misdirected at "dark energy" research, and nobody seems to care what plasma and photons actually do in the lab.
That is, what is the maximum angle before the light, lets say 99% of it, won't reach us?
Most such calculations would require that we actually *know* how much plasma and dust are in space, it's temperatures, it's composition, it's average electron densities, etc. All of these numbers would need to be "made up" to fit the observation in the final analysis. That's essentially what Holushko did actually. He did it the "old fashion" way, he "postdicted" a fit. I'd say that's probably the best anyone could do at the moment.
What would the maximum redshift of the light reaching us be?
I do not think we will know until the James Webb telescope is launched. Right now Hubble sees "blurry patches" at the furthest reaches of it's technology. I suspect those blurry patches will turn out to be mature galaxies for as far as the Webb Telescope can see. Stick around for another decade or two and we'll find out.
(These are two questions that I need answers to, they are central to my doubt)
IMO what should be "central to your doubt" is the fact that both inflation and dark energy can be replaced with pure forms of plasma physics, and processes that actually can be demonstrated in the lab. What should also be central to your doubt is the fact that SUSY theory died a painful, agonizing death at LHC in 2011, and the standard particle physics model is now complete without the need for SUSY theory. These should fuel your doubts IMO.
6. The issue isn't the allowance of expansion. You act as if people are attached to the notion.
The problem is simple to demonstrate. If they are incorrect, and plasma redshift is the real cause of photon redshift, then both dark energy *and* inflation become "gods of the ever shrinking gaps" arguments. That's also true of "dark matter" theory, every time someone like Ned Wright finds "normal matter" in the form of plasma that nobody has yet accounted for. The whole theory starts to 'reduce itself" to pure PC theory, the very moment we start to include any plasma physics *realities* that have been demonstrated in the lab! Their entire theory starts to reduce itself toward pure PC theory, whereas PC theory adapts itself to expansion models *without* resorting to metaphysical entities! Surely you can see how this all plays out in terms of how it works? If we *realize* they left out plasma physics processes like plasma redshift from their calculations, it's easy to see why the whole thing starts to reduce itself to PC theory the moment we start to incorporate PC physics into their theory. It *must* reduce to PC theory because we're introducing real plasma physics processes into it's maths. Lambda-CDM theory is a metaphysical house of cards that is predicated upon *not* recognizing the effect of plasma on photons.
7. With an infinite universe, existing an infinite amount of time, what would explain the oscillation required to counteract the expansion we observe (if the redshift has any explanation in expansion) in order to not create a void in the middle?
I assume it's a static universe, but if we allow for expansion, there is no guarantee that our little "sliver" of the visible universe would contain a "peek" at that particular hole in the middle. We might observe some odd layouts of matter, and indeed, if you study the actual mass layouts in the universe, they have some odd features.
Dark flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8. You give the impression that the "mainstream theory" has problems with adjustments (not problems in opinions, problems in leeway for even minor changes).
In terms of the fact that it becomes a metaphysical entity of the gaps argument, it sure does. Whereas EU/PC theory allows for expansion without incorporating metaphysics, the metaphysics of their theory literally "melts away' the moment we start to introduce plasma redshift into their calculations. Huloshko's model shows the limits of that "shrinking of the gaps" until there literally are no gaps, and there is no longer any need for metaphysics in the first place! Anything in between would suit me fine actually, as long as nobody is claiming the universe is expanding faster than C.
I don't know and I have no estimation at all.
Whereas PC/EU theory accommodates expansion by allowing for expansion of objects, Lambda-was-falsified-at-LHC-in-2001 theory reduces to pure PC/EU theory.
Specific for the signal broadening, I don't even know what it does and where it applies.
Not every photon will experience the same number of interactions inside of a plasma or fiber optic cable. Ashmore does a good job giving a simple explanation of pulse broadening inside of a fiber optic cable. Light will in fact "separate" into colors to a degree, and the signal will "elongate" as some photons experience more interactions in the medium and are "slowed down" more than others. The whole signal gets longer over time and distance. What they mainstream "interprets" as "time dilation" is simply an example of pulse broadening in plasma.
No sweat. I'm enjoying the conversation on whatever timeline works for you.
