Basic arguments, yes, however to delve deeper is near impossible and it proves to be a problem with sorting out assertions.
I don't see why you'd have to know all that much about either GR theory or EM field theory to understand that GR theory describes only the geometry of spacetime and it does *not* included EM field effects. It doesn't take that much knowledge to understand that most of the universe is in the plasma state. GR doesn't include EM field effects and in order to describe a plasma universe you have to include them!
That isn't special characteristics limited to that kind of data. You can perform the same kind of cross examination of data outside of the lab, though it'll require larger sets of observations to find what one needs to distill down to usable data sets.
But you can't determine actual cause/effect relationships without a *control mechanism* of some kind. For instance, Chen was able to vary his current and thereby show a relationship between the amount of redshift and the amount of free electrons in the plasma. Likewise lab results show that the movement of objects can cause photon redshift.
In terms of photon redshift, astronomers are simply *assuming the consequent* and never demonstrating it using actual *lab experiments*.
Sure, but as for science you need to go where no one have gone before, even at the risk of being wrong. Else, we'd go nowhere.
First you'd have to demonstrate a real "need" to go there in the first place. I already have *multiple logical ways* to explain redshift. I have no need for metaphysical constructs to explain photon redshift.
Verification isn't what we're talking about. It's falsification. Verification isn't nearly as useful as falsification, as you'd be able to just look at some small set of data and say "Here, it fits, therefore it's right!".
But as my conversation with david demonstrates BB theory isn't falsifiable anymore. When it failed it "last test", they added a new ad hoc construct called "dark energy" to fix it. Now that the Planck data shows hemispheric differences in the data, david intends to simply add a new invisible metaphysical construct to 'fix' his problem too! There's no way to falsify a belief system when the "believer" is free to add multiple supernatural constructs to the hypothesis at will. There is no logical falsification mechanism for Lambda-CDM. It's become a religion based on pure faith, apparently in soon to be *four* supernatural constructs.
And what you're talking about is obviously either several theories or hypotheses (easily discernible from your terminology). Which actually includes the possibility of falsification for each theory or hypothesis that differs from one and another on each predicted set.
I still fail to see why you think BB theory is falsifiable in the first place. When it failed it's last big test, 70 percent metaphysics was simply added to the mix. Now they want to add another supernatural construct to "fudge the math" to fit the Planck data set. As long as there's another supernatural construct waiting in the wings, how could any hypothesis *ever* be falsified?
And thus you use the data sets gathered from observations outside of our small sphere. Which is a perfectly valid method.
But the observation is "redshift', not "expansion". Expansion is *assumed*.
Lack of known source is of no consequence. As is lack of " 'control' ".
Or, if you disagree, please provide with some explicit general reasoning around this. I'd love to hear (read) why it is you return to this and, possibly, change either your or my opinion of this. It might even be the subject for an entire new thread (or two).
Well, for starters, without an experimental test of concept, all you have is claim and an 'act of faith' in the unseen (in the lab) and no way to test that claim. It's akin to seeing a lost dish and *assuming* that invisible monkeys took it.
You've stated earlier that it is possible to falsify, at the very least least, versions of it. (Which leads to an obvious contradiction of your positioin)
*I* personally would accept Planck data as a falsification of Lambda-CDM theory. David will not. Even the concept of falsification becomes dubious if david can simply add supernatural constructs on a whim. The 'tests' we might use to falsify the idea then become meaningless.
As an honest reply to your though: I haven't studied enough to understand EM fields (which kind of neatly demonstrates my earlier point).
You don't even need to know that much about EM field theory to know that it has been left out of GR. You don't have to know that much about the nature of a plasma universe to know that GR alone cannot describe it adequately.
And yet you haven't provided with one line of math that I can look at that wouldn't demonstrate the problems I've, with my limited knowledge, observed.
I provided you with Holushko's math, and Ashmore's math, and Brynjolfsson's math. You seem to handwave them all away over no math at all that was included in Zwicky's one paper written in 1929. If I'm not mistaken, Zwicky's original claim was a *handwave* in the first place. Your personal math (not published) doesn't really address any work written by Brynjolfsson for instance.
That we'd expect a zero amount of inelastic scattering is something I've never claimed, and repeatedly stated so, along with several others who've engaged at the same point.
But that's just it. There *must be* some amount of inelastic scattering spacetime. The mainstream doesn't allow for *any* scattering in photons reaching Earth. That alone should be your first clue that they have a serious problem.
What I've argued, and some (if not all) others, is that there's no way that there's a significant amount.
Those galaxies with a redshift of 10 would suggest otherwise. They're blurry as all get out. I can barely make out anything related to the shape, and certainly not any spiral arms. They are nothing but blurry blobs in a "semi galactic" shape.
If you don't have a mechanism that has the possibility to produce the effect you're looking after you either have to find it or find another solution (effectively abandoning the idea). There's no reason to hold a position that is solely hypothetical and untested.
You'd have to demonstrate to me that *no combination* of all inelastic scattering mechanisms, and the movement of objects was incapable of generating that redshift pattern. That requires extensive lab testing that has never been done.
They have the observational data sets, that continues to grow, of space. Eventually the data sets derived from those will falsify the notorious versions you've mentioned and actually be equivalent to lab experiments.
That's only applicable if you abide by the outcome of those "tests". If inflation predicts a relatively homogenous layout of matter and an even temperature everywhere, and the temperature is variable between hemispheres, that "should be" enough to falsify the claim. If however we simply allow others to 'stuff in' more brands of metaphysics, nothing can be falsified.
But they effectively falsified their old model (assuming you're telling me the truth). What you're naming as the same model isn't.
What you're suggesting is that we won't allow supernova data to falsify BB theory once and for all, and it's "ok" to add 'dark energy' to make it a "new model'. Likewise we can use hemispheric data from Planck to simply "make up" a new form of metaphysics (curvatons) and that's somehow a "new and improved" hypothesis. What you're *not* doing however is allowing the BB concept itself to be falsified based on tests. You're just *assuming* BB theory is "correct" and adding whatever supernatural construct is required to keep that BB dogma alive.
It's a new theory/hypothesis that has borrowed large parts from an earlier falsified theory/hypothesis (or a set of those).
It's one metaphysical and supernatural kludge built upon another, built upon yet another. There's no end in sight to the supernatural constructs. Guth set a precedent with his unsupported inflation claim. Anything goes in astronomy apparently.
And isn't that great that they found that mass? I bet that they'd be equally exited to replace the dark matter with regular, so far not observed, matter.
No they're not. If they were, they'd already have a great start on it. In just the past five years, we discovered more mass in plasma than had ever been found, effectively 'finding' all their missing baryonic matter. *On top of that* we discovered that we miscounted stars and the universe is at least twice as bright as we imagined. They could already do away with a big chunk of it if they wanted to, but that would "mess up' all their other calculations related to elemental abundance figures. They're stuck. They can't admit that it's *all* normal matter now, because it's *too much* normal matter to fit with their other calculations!
I've seen some of the discussion you've had about this structure and it's way over my head, as you're surely aware of.
Old news at this point. I read davids rebuttal paper and I can't be sure it's all one structure, nor can david be sure it's not. It's ultimately irrelevant actually.
Earlier in your reply you acknowledged to lessen your use of derogatory terminology. Supernatural is inflammatory and, by extension, derogatory.
It's an honest appraisal and relevant in terms of this forum. Inflation isn't "natural". It's not something that I use in my daily life. I could live and die and never know about it, particularly if I wasn't 'into' current astronomy theory. Likewise 'dark energy" isn't 'natural'. The whole concept was "made up' because no "natural" force of nature could explain it (supposedly). I have no idea how they actually ruled out EM fields as a "cause' of the acceleration of a mostly plasma universe mind you, but they *invented* dark energy to save one otherwise cosmology theory from certain empirical death. It has no other useful purpose outside of that single cosmology theory. Don't even get me started on david's new curvatons.
I'll reserve this reply for the extended reply about falsifications of versions of theories/hypotheses.
I'd like to know how it's even possible to falsify BB theory at this point. It's taken on a life of it's own. If they actually used real 'tests' to falsify the concept of an expanding universe, that would be fine. Instead however, they liberally add whatever ad hoc entity they require to keep the BB theory from dying a natural death. Dark energy was the last one. Curvatons seems to be the 'up and coming' form of supernatural constructs.
They assumed? I, for one, didn't assume. I looked at the examples you provided and deduced that they're insufficient.
You can't "deduce" something without checking your work in real lab. You *alleged* something with a few lines of math, but you didn't "deduce" how light travels in plasma, or the amount of redshift that way.
Then lets expand on the subject, preferable as general as possible without returning to this specific instance to which you obviously have a lot of emotional attachment.
IMO you have that backwards. I have *no/zero* emotional attachment to any metaphysical constructs. Even 'God'/the universe would be entirely *empirical* IMO.
It seems to me however that the mainstream is *seriously* emotionally attached to the concept of a 'big bang'. Whatever it's going to take to continue to peddle that dogma, they seem willing to do. When supernova called their redshift dogma into questions, they added 'dark energy' to save it. Now that the Planck data shows anomalies that shouldn't be there, they're so attached to their redshift interpretation that they're willing to add *even more* ad hoc elements to make the math fit. It absolutely reminds me of that epicyle math that kept getting more and more complicated over time until someone realized there's a "simpler' explanation. The "simple" explanation IMO is that Birkeland was right, we live inside of an electric universe and GR theory alone cannot describe it properly.
