Um, the first paper that I cited doesn't even mention the Copernican principle. So how do you figure that results in any particular contradiction?
It is should be blindingly obvious.
The Copernican principle is integral in your cited paper and not worth commenting on by the authors unless it was impacted on.
In the Colin’s et al. paper the violation of the Copernican principle plays a central role.
Wait a minute! You first said that they *do not* contradict each other, and now you're claiming that they do. Which is it? What does the Copernican principle have to do with anything related to the paper that I cited?
Oh I see you are up to old tricks again of taking me out of context.
I made it perfectly clear in my previous post I had reread the Colin’s et al. paper and found details I missed previously.
The facts as they stand now the papers do contradict each other; the Copernican principle applies or it doesn’t; you can’t have it both ways.
Well, for starters, the existence of mass consistently results in gravity.
Whether it's related to a curvature of spacetime or something else, it's definitely "caused" by mass.
GR theory doesn't require the existence of gravitons to begin with.
No, by my own logic only a claim about gravity which requires the existence of gravitons would be a "metaphysical" concept.
This is a non answer.
You either demonstrate by your own standards a lab test reproducing the cause of gravity otherwise gravity is a “metaphysical” concept.
That’s your definition not mine.
The gravity example highlights the ridiculousness of thinking lab tests are required to define causes.
The fact is there is no lab test; Newtonian gravity is a classical phenomenological theory which by definition doesn’t require a cause.
GR is a semi phenomenological theory which doesn’t explain the cause either.
Not understanding the cause hasn’t been an impediment in working out why planets orbit in ellipses, the trajectories in sending astronauts to the moon and back, or why celestial mechanics is still largely based on Newtonian gravity to name a few.
You misunderstood me; I asked you how the deuterium/hydrogen ratio which includes the nature of the spectrum itself can be explained by a static universe.
Um, no. The non-zero constant that Einstein introduced to explain a static universe could be caused by anything, including ordinary EM fields. It need not be composed of a new form of exotic energy.
It “can be caused by anything” is an amateurish response that might as well include unicorns and tooth fairies.
Since EM fields are mentioned show me the lab test that demonstrates how ordinary EM fields can keep the universe from collapsing.
Is it starting to sink in your arguments on lab testing are somewhat hypocritical.
No, it simply demonstrates that Thomson scattering can't be the *whole* cause of cosmological redshift. Since I never suggested such a thing, it's no skin off my nose.
You are totally confused; I am the one making the claim not you.
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of Thomson scattering.
Thomson scattering does not involve photon energy loss.
Thomson scattered photons reach us from the distant CMB with a familiar signature of being polarised but are also redshifted.
If the photons are redshifted by being scattered by plasma they lose energy, are not polarised and therefore not Thomson scattered by the time they reach the observer.
Cosmological redshift on the other hand preserves the polarised signature when the photons reach the observer.
You can throw up any link, spin story or lab test you like it doesn’t change the fact the existence of Thomson scattered photons totally destroys the idea that redshift is scattering by plasma.
Actually your comments simply demonstrate that you're simply misrepresenting my beliefs or don't understand them well.
Beliefs being the operative word; your confusion and misunderstandings in your post are a clear indication of who is suffering the comprehension problems.