Is inflation theory falsifiable?

[Halbhh]

Here's a nice little explanation of that orbital velocity in relation to mass *inside* it's orbital radius (a good rule of thumb for an average velocity):

Relationship between orbital radius, mass, and orbital velocity

Read the question, and then the top answer, the one with 4 upvotes.

 

[Michael]

Ok, but the first 2 news about finding more stars I remember quite well, and as you can see the dates are about 7 years back, and of course, we ought to be able to expect the ratio to dark matter was modified back then...

When was it modified? The bullet cluster study is over 10 years old at this point and all those major mass miscounts were discovered *after* 2006, yet nobody ever went back and tried to *minimize* the need for exotic matter in that cluster collision based on what we've learned since then.

Keep in mind that they started off by blowing the brightness of every galaxy by a factor of two to begin with.

About the 3rd on rouge stars *outside* galaxies -- those have zero effect on orbital velocities inside galaxies on averaging (ask me if you need more info for that, my degree is in engineering physics, but astrophysics is a long time hobby interest, and using many principles we learned in freshman physics).

In terms of the rotation speeds of galaxies in a cluster, I'd say that depends on exactly where those rouge stars are located, specifically if they're located closer to the center of mass of the galaxy cluster, or whether they're concentrated further from the center of mass. In terms of lensing features in that 2006 bullet cluster study however, it *all* matters, regardless of where those stars are located.

The same principle applies to halos of gas *outside* the radius of the orbiting stars traveling at the higher than accountable for velocity.

Who says that the halos have to only exist *outside* of the radius of the orbiting stars? I'd expect the density of the plasma (and the non ionized hydrogen gas) to *increase* as we move toward the core of the galaxy.

The principle is simple that it's the mass inside the radius of the orbit that matters for that average velocity, though some other effects happen like the higher density of a spiral arm nearby affects stars, etc.

I understand and agree with what you're saying as it relates to various rotation patterns and the location of mass, but as it relates to the lensing features of that 2006 Bullet Cluster study, it *all matters* because it will all cause additional lensing which they never accounted for in their study. The stellar mass problems as well as the neutral hydrogen halo are particular damning IMO because that mass is likely to simply "pass on through" any sort of collision due to the relative distances between stars and the various uncharged particles that wouldn't necessarily "collide" in such a process.

But the last link is the most interesting. Note these key sentences:
"The suggestion of a massive hydrogen halo arose among astronomers to explain an apparent discrepancy in the ratio of conventional, or “baryonic”, matter to dark matter in the Milky Way.

I translate that statement to mean: "Ya, we finally found our 'missing baryons', but that is in *addition to* all the other mass estimation errors that we made in that bullet cluster study."

"Using widely accepted proportions of dark to baryonic matter, set against the calculated mass of the entire system, the observed baryonic portion came up light – missing about 50 per cent of the heft the calculations require."
...
and the essential summary points:

“You don’t just see a pretty picture of a halo around a galaxy,” Zaritsky says.

“We infer the presence of galactic halos from numerical simulations of galaxies and from what we know about how they form and interact.”

"Based on such simulations, scientists predicted the presence of large amounts of hydrogen gas just hanging around the Milky Way.

"Drilling through the data, Zaritsky and Zhang confirmed not only the existence of the gas, but also that its mass matches that missing in the baryonic-to-dark-matter equation."

So basically there never really was a "missing baryon" problem. It's always been hiding in plain sight. Keep in mind that is *in addition to* that hot plasma halo they found in 2012 which is composed of *ionized* plasma which contains more mass than all the stars combined *after* we add back in all the underestimated stellar mass that was never accounted for in 2006.

See? They are only tidying up to find the expected normal matter to fit the ratio generally expected where the normal matter is about 1/5 of the dark matter....

No change in that.

What I see (at least from my perspective) is that their 'missing baryons' were always present in non-ionized hydrogen gas in that halo. I see that they *also* (in addition to) underestimated the number of stars in those galaxies by a huge amount, and they underestimated the amount of plasma around every galaxy as well. What I don't see is any actual attempt to *fix* those massive problems and *minimize* their need for exotic matter based upon the information that we've learned over the past decade. Instead I see them hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that it doesn't matter.

 

[Halbhh]

Good point that of course a 'halo' isn't all outside the orbit of stars out in the spiral arms, but much inside. Just as with the putative dark matter. Is it enough to be the dark matter? Good question, but my immediate guess is not close at all to enough. Certainly worth watching for more info on.

I haven't any particular concern for what the dark matter is, like if it turned out to be lots more free floating Jupiters, I'd be perfectly content, if the halo gas is very massive, I'm content. I haven't any particular bias to expect any particular outcome. It is intriguing the notion I've seen that this dark matter we cannot observe directly in any way is all around us, right here, right now, including even through our own bodies, etc. That's intriguing. But I'm not attached to it, and would be just as please to find it it's a bunch of gas.

I have no attachment to the idea of inflation either.

The last really big joker in the deck from my point of view is "dark energy" the putative cause of accelerating expansion, and my intuitive sense from reading is its got less of a sure thing observational support. There are a few things about the estimate of the expansion rate that are questionable and still up in the air. But that's just the normal process of science -- lots of blundering around in the dark with a few clues until one finds the light switch. We know there is missing mass. Perhaps we will figure out what it is, or not, but it's there, something is there, and it's fun the search.

 

[Michael]

Here's a nice little explanation of that orbital velocity in relation to mass *inside* it's orbital radius (a good rule of thumb for an average velocity):

Relationship between orbital radius, mass, and orbital velocity

Read the question, and then the top answer, the one with 4 upvotes.

I understand and agree with what you're saying in terms of the location of mass and how it affects the rotation patterns of galaxies, but I have no evidence to suggest that either the hot plasma "halo" or the cool non-ionized hydrogen "halo" are restricted only to areas *outside* of the stellar mass environment. I would in fact expect both halos to be most concentrated near the core of the galaxy, and to be less concentrated away from the core.

 

[Michael]

Good point that of course a 'halo' isn't all outside the orbit of stars out in the spiral arms, but much inside. Just as with the putative dark matter. Is it enough to be the dark matter? Good question, but my immediate guess is not close at all to enough. Certainly worth watching for more info on.

I haven't any particular concern for what the dark matter is, like if it turned out to be lots more free floating Jupiters, I'd be perfectly content, if the halo gas is very massive, I'm content. I haven't any particular bias to expect any particular outcome. It is intriguing the notion I've seen that this dark matter we cannot observe directly in any way is all around us, right here, right now, including even through our own bodies, etc. That's intriguing. But I'm not attached to it, and would be just as please to find it it's a bunch of gas.

I have no attachment to the idea of inflation either.

The last really big joker in the deck from my point of view is "dark energy" the putative cause of accelerating expansion, and my intuitive sense from reading is its got less of a sure thing observational support. There are a few things about the estimate of the expansion rate that are questionable and still up in the air. But that's just the normal process of science -- lots of blundering around in the dark with a few clues until one finds the light switch. We know there is missing mass. Perhaps we will figure out what it is, or not, but it's there, something is there, and it's fun the search.

Keep in mind that while you and I might be happy to accept ordinary matter as 'dark matter', that won't work for LCMD proponents. Their entire nucleosynthesis claims are directly influenced by the ratio of ordinary matter to "exotic" matter and too much ordinary matter messes up those calculations for them.

Even the concept of "space expansion/acceleration" is based on the assumption that none of the cosmological redshift is caused by any amount of inelastic scattering in plasma which is a non-starter in the first place IMO. That's the whole cause of their error, and it's also why they need exotic matter to get their nucleosynthesis claims to work. If you don't *assume* that redshift is related to expansion, you don't necessarily end up with a creation event to start with, and you don't have any "needs" as it relates to the composition of "dark matter".

 

[Halbhh]

You agree that expansion would cause redshift I presume? So, if the redshifts observed are generally consistent with the model of expansion, without a good reason to think there is another cause one wouldn't go searching for another cause.

Rember what is being redshifted is a *spectra*-- a set of absorption lines. The entire set is shifted, together. See? Nothing in between us and the star (except gravity) can affect that. It's well understood. A star emits a spectra, and then if you see a shift in the location of the lines, all the same amount, that's the redshift -- due to relative velocity vs us observers -- and no other factors even matter for that part.

In contrast, the question of accelerating expansion on the other hand is for me at least very much an open question in my view, for instance relying on presumptions about of the population of type 1A supernovae. One article that comes to mind is a discovery years ago that this population is not uniform. I don't off hand know to what extent that's been accounted for. That's only one variable, also.

 

[Michael]

You agree that expansion would cause redshift I presume? So, if the redshifts observed are generally consistent with the model of expansion, without a good reason to think there is another cause one wouldn't go searching for another cause.

Expansion of *objects* results in redshift in the lab, as do many forms of inelastic scattering. "Space expansion' is a hypothetical process that could *hypothetically* cause photon redhsift, but nothing like that has been observed in the lab.

Edwin Hubble actually entertained two possible explanations for photon redshift of distant objects, 'expansion' and 'tired light' (inelastic scattering in plasma). The fact that an expansion explanation would require faster than C expansion should have been their first clue that expansion probably wasn't the underlying cause of photon redshift. Instead of accepting the fact that at least *some* of the cosmological redshift was caused by inelastic scattering in plasma, they *assumed* that some new process (space expansion) must be the real cause of the phenomenon of photon redshift without any evidence of that claim from the lab.

What makes one explanation "better" than another?

More telling IMO is the fact that no comprehensive study of various inelastic scattering possibilities have ever been written about by the mainstream. In reference to ruling out scattering, the mainstream can only reference one published paper from the 1930's written by Fritz Zwicky when Zwicky was selling his *own tired light* theory. In that paper he showed one math formula related to *one* type of inelastic scattering (Compton Scattering) and stated that if all redshift were related to *Compton scattering*, the universe would be "blurry" at larger redshifts. It is actually "blurrier' at larger redshifts by the way.

Even if we ruled out *one* type of scattering, specifically Compton scattering as the *entire* cause of photon redshift, there are many other types of inelastic scattering that take place inside of a plasma medium. The mainstream didn't even check out any of them. Were it not for Zwicky trying to sell his own tired light theory based on GR theory, they wouldn't have *any* published papers to cite which actually explored that possibility! That's how bad it really is.

The only other reference that the mainstream ever cites in debate to eliminate tired light solutions to redshift is a single website created by Ned Wright, who basically cites Zwicky's one paper. I'm not making this up, that's really how it always goes down in debate. Apparently Zwicky, using the most *primitive* of technology single handedly discovered "dark matter' and ruled out all forms of "tired light" even though he personally proposed a tired light solution to the problem. I kid you not. He's the only only published reference in terms of even "testing" various forms of inelastic scattering.

I should mention that there have been some more recent studies of a single model of tired light by Herman Holushko that has been "tested", and actually passes many of the same complicated tests as an expansion solution.

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

Rember what is being redshifted is a *spectra*-- a set of absorption lines. The entire set is shifted, together. See? Nothing in between us and the star (except gravity) can affect that.

FYI, Zwicky's own "tired light" solution was based on gravity theory and GR specifically. Even if your statement is true, it doesn't eliminate tired light solutions from consideration.

It's well understood. A star emits a spectra, and then if you see a shift in the location of the lines, all the same amount, that's the redshift -- due to relative velocity vs us observers -- and no other factors even matter for that part.

If you look at the raw data however, you'll notice that they have to use "templates" at various redshifts because some amount of scattering is still taking place and the net result is absorption and emission lines that get blurrier and more distorted over distance.

When you say it's "well understood", it's actually more like "well assumed" and "well oversimplified".

In contrast, the question of accelerating expansion on the other hand is for me at least very much an open question in my view, for instance relying on presumptions about of the population of type 1A supernovae. One article that comes to mind is a discovery years ago that this population is not uniform. I don't off hand know to what extent that's been accounted for. That's only one variable, also.

The last study of SN1A events used a much larger data set than the first one (something like 700 vs 54), and it only put the acceleration possibility at about 3 sigma, far short of a 'discovery' in physics (5 sigma).

Even a *tiny* amount of inelastic scattering would eliminate any need for acceleration.

By the way, it's mathematically possible to 'explain' photon redshift without any type of "space expansion" using ordinary doppler shift and time dilation.

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

LCDM theory is both irrelevant and unnecessary to explain any observation from space, including observations of photon redshift.

 

[Halbhh]

The redshift of a light source, or even of a spectral line, alone -- yes, more than one possible cause.

But, the redshift of an entire spectrum of absorption lines..... not more than 2 possible causes I know of -- relative velocity (doppler shift), or gravitation.

Other mechanisms, scattering, absorption/reemission, etc., all, whatever -- wouldn't shift all the spectrum, every line, as a set, equally. Right?

The spectra of the star in question isn't distorted (so far as I know), but shifted as a full set.

Of course, it can also be affected, additionally by stuff in between us and the star, which is merely a separate effect.

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps this is more clear wording:

All sorts of stuff can affect the spectra of a star. Many things.

But the only 2 things that can perfectly shift the entire set of absorption lines, together, keeping the spacing perfectly, but shifting the location of all of the lines together -- these only 2 things that can shift all of the frequencies shown equally are only relative velocity vs the observer, and gravity. Nothing else than I know of.

Lots of things can affect the spectra in other ways though.

 

[Halbhh]

About Compton scattering --

Compton scattering is at a random angle, but of course only extremely tiny angles would allow the light to continue to us, the distant observer. Or alternatively, the compton scattered light...'halo' (if you like the word) would be diffuse (very much like a rainbow effect) and varying in it's frequency shift by angle -- like a rainbow actually. Look at that Compton scattering formula. See the angle of scattering in the equation. See?
Now, at those tiny angles, there is practically no redshift.

By the equation.

Plug in yourself a small angle, like 0.1 degrees, into the formula. What is the shift? Very tiny.

But actual redshifts are *huge*. Many orders of magnitude higher.

See?

At even these still small but somewhat higher angles were we can get any detectable (and tiny) shift yet still observe an object, we are only talking about some kind of diffuse halo like image, with varying shift by angle. Neither applies to the actual observed spectra of point like stars -- supernovae. Galaxies.

 

[Halbhh]

Here's someone that goes much further and more precise than me, with additional points that are just the math and observations, and worth your look (just a page) --

Kierein's Erroneous Compton Model for the Redshift

He points out for instance that if Kierein's inventive correction/modification of Compton scattering works, then it implies impossible results here on Earth through our own atmosphere.
The paragraph containing the result of the method Kierein used then implies: "So if Kierein were correct radio waves at 300 MHz could not penetrate the ionosphere" (!) Which they do, of course. So, that idea is wrong then by observation. The empirical evidence. It is falsified. See?

 

[Michael]

Perhaps this is more clear wording:

All sorts of stuff can affect the spectra of a star. Many things.

But the only 2 things that can perfectly shift the entire set of absorption lines, together, keeping the spacing perfectly, but shifting the location of all of the lines together -- these only 2 things that can shift all of the frequencies shown equally are only relative velocity vs the observer, and gravity. Nothing else than I know of.

Lots of things can affect the spectra in other ways though.

I have a hard time with the use of "perfectly" in relationship to that spectrum. It may be 'close' to perfect, particularly at low Z redshifts, but every single time the mainstream has made such a claim, it's been oversimplified to the point of absurdity. The only way it could be entirely perfect, and devoid of templates altogether is if *no* inelastic scattering ever occurred in space.

I tend to think that the type of scattering we're seeing is more along the lines of Brillouin scattering, or a combination of several types of inelastic scattering, not *just* Compton scattering. I'm sure that Compton scattering occasionally happens too, but I'm more inclined to believe that photons run into temperature and EM field gradients more often than they run into actual particles.

I briefly skimmed through the link that you send me related to Compton scattering. While the density figure argument might have merit, the constant reference to big bang concepts like the age of the universe, nucleosynthesis predictions, and density effects on BB theory are actually a red herring since they wouldn't even necessarily apply to a static universe.

I haven't read the original paper yet either, so I'll check them both out in more detail as I get time today.

Suffice to say that even if you attribute every bit of photon redshift to gravity or to expansion, Zwicky's tired light theory is based on gravity, and time dilation effects as described in that Arxiv link can do away with any need for "space expansion". Either way, LCDM is unnecessary to explain redshift.

 

[Halbhh]

But, an *acceleration* of the expansion seems an yet-uncertain possibility to me.

I've been addressing above only expansion alone, not accelerating expansion, not a 'dark energy' style acceleration of the expansion. I think I haven't seen enough to have much confidence yet in an acceleration. I merely think of it as a possibility.

 

[Michael]

FYI, the electron density in spacetime in EU/PC theory (my favorite) would necessarily be radically different (much higher) than the standard model. That argument also seems "frail" from my perspective, but again, I'm not personally attached to a *single* type of inelastic scattering, in fact I'd assume that they must *all* apply to some small degree or another.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, I'd be delighted to find out redshift was entirely misunderstood, and the Universe is quite different even in that way than thought.

But, there are many kinds of evidence for the age of various stars, first and second generation stars -- and thus indirectly for the age of the Universe. Not only redshift through velocity.

Example -- we have a variety of independent types of evidence pointing to the age of the Earth at around 4.55 bn years, and that is yet another bit of evidence of our star being somewhat older than that. So, a variety of unalike, independent types of evidence.

When many kinds of ideas converge, it suggests the big picture is at least partly correct.

 

[Michael]

But, an *acceleration* of the expansion seems an yet-uncertain possibility to me.

I've been addressing above only expansion alone, not accelerating expansion, not a 'dark energy' style acceleration of the expansion. I think I haven't seen enough to have much confidence yet in an acceleration. I merely think of it as a possibility.

As long as you're not attached to acceleration, Zwicky's tired light model or Chodoroski's model should work just fine. Holushko's tired light model seems quite promising as well IMO, but it doesn't identify or limit itself to a single type of scattering. It more of a "bumpy road"/QM type scattering effect.

 

[Michael]

Well, I'd be delighted to find out redshift was entirely misunderstood, and the Universe is quite different even in that way than thought.

But, there are many kinds of evidence for the age of various stars, first and second generation stars -- and thus indirectly for the age of the Universe. Not only redshift through velocity.

When many kinds of ideas converge, it suggests the big picture is at least partly correct.

The thing about EU/PC theory is that it can describe an expanding universe, or it can describe a static universe. Hannes Alfven essentially wrote the book on EU/PC theory, and he describes an expansion model in his book Cosmic Plasma. I'm personally more inclined to believe that we live in a relatively static universe that's filled with current carrying threads that link all the galaxies together. The current density, and electron density of EU/PC theory is indeed quite different from the standard model, so that probably will factor into the process.

Here's another related link by the way:

Light Red Shift in Cosmic Background Photon Gas

 

[Halbhh]

Let me expand a bit on my last comment.

Example -- we have a variety of independent types of evidence pointing to the age of the Earth at around 4.55 bn years, and that is yet another bit of evidence of our star being somewhat older than that. So, a variety of unalike, independent types of evidence.

Why do first and 2nd generation stars matter in the big picture -- because the higher metal content relies on early generations of stars to produce the metal for the next generation.

We can see both generations, including the ones very far away that are low metal and long ago....

Lot's of independent types of evidence point to the age of the Universe as being up there in that area well over 10 bn years.

So....if static, it would collapse already, or be in contraction, unless there was a strange new force we haven't figured out holding it up against the gravity.....

 

[Michael]

This is a link to Holushko's tired light model which was tested in that paper that I cited for you earlier and which passed that test.

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v3.pdf

 

[Halbhh]

Ergo, it cannot be static, or else physics is not just mostly incomplete, but wildly more incomplete even than people like me think... lol

Where is any evidence of a force holding the Universe from collapsing if it is thought to be near static vs the evident age of it over 10 bn years?