Most of the hypothesis about galaxy formation and such are very much like hypothesis within the framework of Evolution -- some more substantial, akin to "punctuated equilibrium", as envisioned likely having some correct pieces (along with missing and wrong pieces) -- there are so many hypothetical models in astrophysics, and many have to be at least partly or mostly wrong when many address the same thing, etc., but the broader framework...bag...the hypotheses are inside of, like evolution, or even something like Cosmological expansion -- that framework/bag seems to have some realness in it's fabric. Completely apart from whatever errors in various hypotheses are tossed into the bag at some point in time.
There is probably an age component in terms of holding opinions about which errors got tossed into that bag. I'm old enough to remember BB theory without dark energy or inflation, and the last SN1A study put the whole concept of accelertion a couple of sigma short of a "discovery", yet here we are, stuck with dark energy already. In spite of the results from a larger study, dark energy is virtually impervious to modification now because they think that they already 'fixed' their BB theory by adding dark energy, so taking it back out now just makes them look bad. IMO it was a mistake to put it in there in the first place based on less than 60 SN1A events and the "assumption" that they are all "standard candles". That last assumption has even been shown to be false.
I'm also old enough to remember when the term 'dark matter' didn't automatically translate into "extraordinary forms of matter", which was another "error" that got tossed into that LCDM bag IMO.
It's not so much the "expansion" concept that I have a hard time with, it's the "space expansion" concept that I don't buy. "Space expansion" is not required to explain photon redshift and it's not related to ordinary Doppler shift from moving objects as the mainstream likes to imply in their "explanation" of space expansion. That's a pure equivocation fallacy IMO.
FYI, I should point out that you don't *need* to give up the expansion concept to embrace EU/PC theory, but you'll most likely *want* to embrace scattering in plasma because it happens in the lab, and it would therefore happen in plasma in space, and it does happen in plasma in space.
As that one paper I cited earlier pointed out, the combo of moving objects and time dilation does away with the need for "space expansion" anyway. You don't have to toss out GR theory to toss out dark energy and "space expansion" from that bag.
?? --> Galaxies forming earlier than many thought possible? Ok, that's just a typical weekly bit of news it seems. It's not a big deal to find out a popular hypothesis is wrong.
They've been continuously "surprised" by how early galaxies formed, and how "mature" they are since I can remember. It's always a surprise to them. It doesn't say much about their galaxy formation "models", other than they don't really make very accurate "predictions" or they wouldn't be so surprised all the time.
But, completely toss out cosmological expansion? That's almost like (ok, it's isn't really) claiming the Earth is flat (ok, hyperbole. Sorry!).
That kind of comparison really bugs me quite honestly. Nothing like "space expansion' is necessary to explain cosmological redshift, and even Hubble himself entertained the possibility that photons lose momentum the medium over distance. It doesn't make sense for the mainstream to be so entrenched into a single explanation in the first place, particularly one that fails to show up in the lab.
We can see it's expanding via 'cosmological redshift' -- a hypothesis that is elegant and accurately consistent with observations.
Just observations, explained elegantly.
I have hard time calling a non-empirically demonstrated claim an "elegant" hypothesis. It's *a* hypothesis, but there are others as well. What makes one better than another?
We tend to use Occam's razor.
In that case LCDM is toast because four of it's "supernatural" processes can be replaced with two ordinary observations from the lab, scattering and extra plasma.
You've got four supernatural components in there to justify with that razor of yours.
If you want what is actually a more elaborate model/bag/framework, you will reasonably face a lot of questions.
I'm not really looking for a more "elaborate' model, I'm looking for models that work in the lab, not just on paper. The concept of 'simple' and 'elegant' go hand in hand IMO. When we have to deviate from empirical physics, we're getting 'uglier", not more elegant IMO.
Basic questions that arise. Of course, just redshift of full spectra sets alone is likely very hard to explain in a new way! But, let's put it aside for a moment.
Let me see you justify that claim by showing me a published study that demonstrates that every single wavelength, from the highest energy gamma rays to lowest energy microwaves are redshifted exactly the same amount from say an R>5 redshifted galaxy. I think you're going to find that you've been told an "oversimplified" story that isn't entirely accurate.
Since that "assumption" seems to be the core premise that keeps you interested in "space expansion", I strongly suggest that you check it out for yourself. I think you'll soon discover that it's not that simple.
Let me look at the static (not contracting or expanding) Universe notion for the moment. The Universe in rough equilibrium (or nearly) of forces, over billions of years.... wow!
Why is that a "wow" considering the fact that our planet has orbited the same star for billions of years, and our solar system has been orbiting the center of our galaxy for billions of years too.? You're making it sound like gravity is guaranteed to pull everything back together again, regardless of the kinetic energy of objects and regardless of other potential influences, like electricity. I don't see how it's really a "wow". By adding even a tiny bit of current to the system you might achieve equilibrium over *trillions* of years for all I know.
Like: If the galaxy as a whole is creating one-sided charge -- an entire galaxy becoming charged or a group becoming charged, in order to balance out gravity.... -- such as an excess positive or excess negative, shouldn't the excess charge push it apart?
It might counter gravity a little bit, but it's not guaranteed to push it apart. There are more forces that come into play.
The charge if effective on a cosmic scale would actually destroy the galaxy or cluster!
That could only happen in the influence of charge was greater than the influence of gravity, which I seriously doubt.
But clusters, galaxies are not pushed apart,
Um, but according to LCMD they push apart from each other, in fact they claim they accelerate away from each other. "Space expansion" doesn't happen here on Earth because the influence of gravity is presumably much greater than the influence of 'space expansion". In the same sense, the influence of the charge of each sun might be relatively insignificant compared to gravity in *local* gravity wells, but separate the gravity wells a bit, and maybe you might get a repulsive influences. I'm really not proposing anything that the mainstream isn't already proposing with 'dark energy', only I'm not introducing anything "new".
thus evidently any charge is *not* on a truly powerful scale.
FYI, I'm fine if charge is a minor influence compared to gravity and if charge isn't the
be-all-end all of galaxy formation. I'm simply suggesting that if we logically extend Birkeland's cathode solar model to every sun in the galaxy we should end up with a slightly positive non-zero component based on charge, and we will have to account for it in GR.
It's worse though. I doubt even just less force (even much less than needed for a static Universe) -- even if the scale is smaller it would *still show up in interactions* on the smaller scales -- what we call gravitational interactions, orbits, etc. -- which are *already accurately following General relativity with precision to the limit we can measure*, right? Where's the current General Relativity model of orbits failing to be accurate?
GR is very accurate inside the solar system, but it's not particularly accurate outside of the galaxy cluster, or you wouldn't need to introduce a non-zero constant that you cannot even *explain* in the first place.
GR doesn't guarantee that object must all contract or all expand, and gravity isn't necessarily the *only* force to account for in space. Just the heat source of the corona, and the constant stream of solar wind demonstrates that EM fields overcome all the gravity of an entire sun. We do see many instances (like solar flares) where EM fields *must* have a major role that far outweighs any influences described by GR.
Where's the observation? (see my response below about the precession of Mercury for example of the accuracy we now can have)
I should point out that I personally embrace GR theory without all the "space expansion' and 'dark energy" nonsense, and neither of those things is necessary to explain events inside our solar system, including the orbit of Mercury.
There are EU/PC proponents that outright reject GR theory in favor of QM oriented definition of gravity, or Newton's definition of gravity, but I'm not one of them. I'm perfectly happy with GR theory without all the supernatural LCDM add-on's which fail to show up in the lab. As long as you stick with pure empirical physics, I fully embrace GR theory.
In other words, there cannot be the kind of excess charge in a typical star's system that has any significance at all as compared to gravity we can deduce simply from observation of orbits to date, right?
I think we can assume that gravity is the *dominant* force inside our solar system, our galaxy and our galaxy cluster just like it's dominant in LCDM. Once we venture outside of the cluster however, even the mainstream claims that gravity plays a bit part and something else overcomes gravity entirely. As long as you assume the "charge repulsion* aspect is minor in comparison to gravity, it's no big deal.
FYI, only a *sun* would necessarily have a cathode surface in Birkeland's model, not planets, so we would not expect anything other than gravity would be necessary to explain the basic rotation patterns of planets.
You'd have to look at galaxy features to even hope to see some evidence of charge repulsion between suns.
This is already established in our own solar system I know. We do simulations using General Relativity, of the solar system. Mercury precesses as predicted by General relativity, to fantastic accuracy.
We already see that orbits in our own solar system follow General Relativity down to a fantastically high degree of precision. Ergo, no excess charge of significance affects any celestial interaction in a typical star system. Just gravity.
etc.
But that's all we would expect to see in Birkeland's model anyway since only the sun's surface has a charge with respect to "space". The planets are simply embedded in a current flow process that takes place between the surface of the sun, and the heliosphere.
Where we'd expect to see evidence of Birkeland's cathode sun, is in the flow of solar wind toward the helioshere, a hot solar corona, discharges in the solar and planetary atmospheres, and planetary aurora. We'd also expect to see "magnetic ropes" form between the sun and various planets in Birkeland's model. We wouldn't necessarily expect anything other than GR/gravity to have an effect on planetary movement however.
The only places we might hope to see any sort of charge repulsion come into play would be in galaxy mass layout patterns and in IGM.
I think you have a misconception here as to the predicted influences of EM fields inside the solar system. I'm not suggesting that they have much if any measurable influence on the movements of planets inside the solar system.
Assuming that someday someone ties EM field and gravity back together in some "theory of everything", then there might be a basis for suggesting an EM field influence on the motion of planets, but without a "TOE", I'm just fine with GR.
The only thing I might add to GR as Einstein taught it to his students, is a non-zero constant related to charge repulsion of suns, but even I would expect that non-zero constant to be virtually trivial, or irrelevant in most instances.
On the other hand, if I was trying to describe a charged solar wind particle that was leaving the surface of the sun using only GR, that non-zero constant would have to be *huge*.
