Is inflation theory falsifiable?

[Halbhh]

For clarity, I'm long familiar with electromagnetic stuff, Maxwell's equations, and endless electrical and magnetic phenomena from the sun, stars, planets. And those forces we already know can be of huge magnitude, like how pulsars work as beacons, etc.

Don't expect me to ever doubt all sorts of electric and magnetic plasma phenomena. Or gigantic electric or magnetic fields here and there, etc. Those are interesting and fun, and I've taken them for granted many years, decades actually. (I got into studying plasmas in fusion reactors for a while; but not years, just weeks).

So, I've only been trying to talk about this new to me idea I think ya'll are saying -- electric charge (net) on the scale of galaxies, or clusters, that is enough to partly (or more) balance gravity over long time periods or alternatively even push them apart from each other. I'm just guessing that such a powerful electric charge which could be enough for such an effect, would then be possible to measure it's more local effects. Just a notion to look at. If it could push clusters apart from each other, shouldn't we be able to see it doing smaller effects say on the scale of a galaxy? Possibly even a tiny effect on yet a smaller scale? Just a question.

To me, the only issues I'm trying to talk about here are just
1) this new-to-me-idea there could be electric repulsion on a huge scale level, like between clusters of galaxies
2) dark matter -- what it might be
2.5) what causes high redshifts of distant objects
3) later, the idea of cosmic inflation in the early Universe, which I'm reading up on lately
4) whether there is anything pushing things apart, accelerating an expansion of space, a 'dark energy' or cosmological constant, of any kind. Whether there is or isn't.

Of course, this is very many complex topics! lol

But you won't be needing to tell me charges can accumulate. have big effects.

I need to know a different thing -- what is the source of the building charge?

Also: do you think the Universe then has an increasing net charge? Is that the notion?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For clarity, I'm long familiar with electromagnetic stuff, Maxwell's equations, and endless electrical and magnetic phenomena from the sun, stars, planets. And those forces we already know can be of huge magnitude, like how pulsars work as beacons, etc.

Don't expect me to ever doubt all sorts of electric and magnetic plasma phenomena. Or gigantic electric or magnetic fields here and there, etc. Those are interesting and fun, and I've taken them for granted many years, decades actually. (I got into studying plasmas in fusion reactors for a while; but not years, just weeks).

So, I've only been trying to talk about this new to me idea I think ya'll are saying -- electric charge (net) on the scale of galaxies, or clusters, that is enough to partly (or more) balance gravity over long time periods or alternatively even push them apart from each other. I'm just guessing that such a powerful electric charge which could be enough for such an effect, would then be possible to measure it's more local effects. Just a notion to look at. If it could push clusters apart from each other, shouldn't we be able to see it doing smaller effects say on the scale of a galaxy? Possibly even a tiny effect on yet a smaller scale? Just a question.

To me, the only issues I'm trying to talk about here are just
1) this new-to-me-idea there could be electric repulsion on a huge scale level, like between clusters of galaxies
2) dark matter -- what it might be
2.5) what causes high redshifts of distant objects
3) later, the idea of cosmic inflation in the early Universe, which I'm reading up on lately
4) whether there is anything pushing things apart, accelerating an expansion of space, a 'dark energy' or cosmological constant, of any kind. Whether there is or isn't.

Of course, this is very many complex topics! lol

But you won't be needing to tell me charges can accumulate. have big effects.

I need to know a different thing -- what is the source of the building charge?

Also: do you think the Universe then has an increasing net charge? Is that the notion?

How small a scale would you like to go, say right here in the solar system?

'Levitating' Moon Dust Explained in New NASA Study

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

1) why not? We observe both repulsion and attraction in the lab with electric currents. And to date there has not been a single place we have sent a probe and not discovered electric currents or electrical affects.

2) Dark matter excuse me for being blunt is Fairie Dust. It is the application of the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter. In space plasma does not act like a fluid but a crystalline lattice. This causes a collective behavior and hence the rotation curves of galaxies are flat.

2.5) See one of my above posts. It is merely the interaction of light with the intervening plasma in space, combined with the charge (temperature) of the object itself.

3) There is no expansion of a magical, expanding, bending nothing. There is both movement away and movement towards our galaxy as we see in the local cluster. Only past about 600 Mega parsecs do all objects begin to be totally dominated by red shift. This is because as distance increases the intervening plasma increases, lowering the wavelength of light through the emission of bremulastrung.

4) Supposedly the cosmological constant was Einsteins greatest mistake. Yet now they use this same cosmological constant that they said was his greatest mistake, change the sign, and use it to show expansion instead of staticness. Expansion is simply the refusal to let falsified theory die. I grew up with the theory. At one time it was the actual recessional velocity of those galaxies. Then as technology advanced the z values became to high to support that view any longer. Instead of letting it die and looking for another cause (see my above post) they changed it to a magical expanding nothing.

I don't believe it has an increasing net charge, but neither does it have a decreasing one. We know from laboratory experiment that charged particles moving in magnetic fields generate energy. But they are also constantly emitting energy in the form of radiation (electromagnetic waves). These are in balance in some places and out of balance in others. Also energy is transported from star to star and from galaxy to galaxy along the Birkeland current pathways. Sometimes these pathways between stars get broken and the backlash along the pathway creates what we term a supernova. Just as if a switch is improperly closed along transmission lines the energy of the entire line is released in an explosive event.

Overall charge is conserved as what is being gained is also being lost. The amount gained slightly less the the amount lost, hence things decay over time.

I for one can not accept that atoms can continue to radiate energy for thousands of years without having a form of energy generation as well. They would "run down" in no time at all with the amount of energy they release if they were not also gaining it at the same time.

If you need a source of energy look at those vast clouds of plasma moving in the galaxies magnetic field.

 

[Halbhh]

Why? It is actually quite easy to explain without adding ad hoc hypothesis of something never observed in the lab.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Ok, getting around to this. I'll be reading it. Michael had more than just a few links to look over, and I've not finished those either. I've been brushing up on redshift stuff, so I've have some triangulation on what I'm reading.

 

[Michael]

Ok, getting around to this. I'll be reading it. Michael had more than just a few links to look over, and I've not finished those either. I've been brushing up on redshift stuff, so I've have some triangulation on what I'm reading.

That tired light model by Paul Marmet is excellent by the way. That is another potential way to explain photon redshift in a static universe. It's also based on a distance/redshift relationship, and it's one example of a "tired light" alternative to photon redshift. Zwicky's personal favorite tired light theory (his own) was based on GR theory, but it achieves the same basic results. It is possible to explain photon redshift from distant galaxies as being a function of momentum loss/distance as photons interact with the medium and transfer some of their momentum to the medium.

FYI, Edwin Hubble did *not* reject the concept of tired light or the potential of a static universe model as the mainstream would imply in their videos.

I'll toss one more link at you that is directly related to falsifying the inflation hyopothesis. There's a notable and measurable "cold spot" (and a hemispheric variation problem too by the way) that defies the predictions of inflation theory. You could use that overly large cold spot as a falsification mechanism for the inflation hypothesis, but the mainstream has a bad habit of not allowing for falsification. Instead they "save the day" by injecting their theory with yet *another* ad hoc and supernatural construct to supposedly "explain"/fix the problem. The last time that happened we ended up with "dark energy" to save the day. The time before that we got "inflation". Since the mainstream refuses to allow their beliefs to ever be falsified, the next so called "fix" to the LCDM model is likely to include some reference to a "multiverse" that just so happens to "save the day" and keep the LCDM model and the inflation hypothesis from falsification.

As long as the mainstream is willing to just keep adding in more ad-hoc and supernatural elements into their model, there's absolutely no way to actually "falsify" their basic claims. They simply add in more ad-hoc constructs onto the four that they are already using and they think that's "rational" behavior. How then is falsification of the original inflation claim ever possible? Inflation theory has *failed* pretty much every "prediction" it's ever made, including it's failure to predict that cold spot, or those hemispheric variations seen by Planck.

Competing claims over cause of cosmic cold spot - physicsworld.com

LCMD isn't even "science" anymore because nothing about it can be falsified in any conceivable way, and certainly not in the conventional scientific way.

 

[Strathos]

Is EU theory falsifiable?

 

[Michael]

I need to know a different thing -- what is the source of the building charge?

Also: do you think the Universe then has an increasing net charge? Is that the notion?

I think the concept of "net charge" is going to become unnecessarily confusing. It might be more accurate to say that every sun ends up being an electrical generator (Alfven called it a homopolar generator) that's driven by local fusion processes in Birkeland's model and in Alfven's solar model. There's a third EU/PC solar model (Jeurgen's model) that relies upon external electrical current to help generate the pinches that generate fusion in the sun. That's the only model that requires an external energy source.

Alfven's "expansion" cosmology model is based upon the concept of a preexisting field of "ambiplasma" (matter and antimatter) that contracts due to gravity to the point that the matter and antimatter begin to interact with each other which then leads to expansion. It's more of a cyclical bang theory than a "big bang' theory because nothing ever contracts to a single point, and preexisting matter and antimatter predate the expansion process. In his cosmology model the matter and antimatter might interact electrically and "power" various things, but Juergen's solar model is not the solar model that I personally favor. Birkeland's model was pretty much like the standard solar model with respect to power. Birkeland's model and Alfven's model are generating their own electrical power via fusion. Birkeland actually called it a transmutation of elements. Juergen's model would also produce fusion in the sun by way, but it would require external electrical current unlike the other two EU/PC solar models. Jeurgen's model has an "anode" outer surface with respect to the heliosphere/space.

The net "result" is a charged outer surface that electrically interacts with the surrounding plasma medium. It's conceivably possible that Birkeland's cathode surfaced sun does not have a 'net charge' with respect to itself, just a "net charge" with respect to the heliosphere and "space".

I wouldn't get too caught up in the charge repulsion thing. It's possible that suns could repulse one another, but I'd guess that it's a negligible effect at best case.

 

[Michael]

Is EU theory falsifiable?

Absolutely. There are three different EU/PC solar models to choose from for instance, and they cannot all be correct. We can however put at least two of them to the test in the lab and pick the one that best matches observations from space. To my knowledge, only Birkeland and his team ever did that with all the various models and they picked a cathode solar model, and it does work in the lab:

If it can be tested and verified in the lab, it can also be tested and falsified in the lab. I personally think that the SAFIRE experiments will ultimately falsify the anode solar model for instance, particularly if and when they ever get around to switching the polarity.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I don't think that any sun has an increasing net charge because any charge build up would just result in more solar wind and more current flow between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That tired light model by Paul Marmet is excellent by the way. That is another potential way to explain photon redshift in a static universe. It's also based on a distance/redshift relationship, and it's one example of a "tired light" alternative to photon redshift. Zwicky's personal favorite tired light theory (his own) was based on GR theory, but it achieves the same basic results. It is possible to explain photon redshift from distant galaxies as being a function of momentum loss/distance as photons interact with the medium and transfer some of their momentum to the medium.

FYI, Edwin Hubble did *not* reject the concept of tired light or the potential of a static universe model as the mainstream would imply in their videos.

I'll toss one more link at you that is directly related to falsifying the inflation hyopothesis. There's a notable and measurable "cold spot" (and a hemispheric variation problem too by the way) that defies the predictions of inflation theory. You could use that overly large cold spot as a falsification mechanism for the inflation hypothesis, but the mainstream has a bad habit of not allowing for falsification. Instead they "save the day" by injecting their theory with yet *another* ad hoc and supernatural construct to supposedly "explain"/fix the problem. The last time that happened we ended up with "dark energy" to save the day. The time before that we got "inflation". Since the mainstream refuses to allow their beliefs to ever be falsified, the next so called "fix" to the LCDM model is likely to include some reference to a "multiverse" that just so happens to "save the day" and keep the LCDM model and the inflation hypothesis from falsification.

As long as the mainstream is willing to just keep adding in more ad-hoc and supernatural elements into their model, there's absolutely no way to actually "falsify" their basic claims. They simply add in more ad-hoc constructs onto the four that they are already using and they think that's "rational" behavior. How then is falsification of the original inflation claim ever possible? Inflation theory has *failed* pretty much every "prediction" it's ever made, including it's failure to predict that cold spot, or those hemispheric variations seen by Planck.

Competing claims over cause of cosmic cold spot - physicsworld.com

LCMD isn't even "science" anymore because nothing about it can be falsified in any conceivable way, and certainly not in the conventional scientific way.

Actually Hubble held to the belief that redshift of distant galaxies was as then, an unexplained aspect of nature.

Is EU theory falsifiable?

Sure it is. But until they accept the data of their probes to comets it won't be proven either. All one needs do is prove the sun is a contained nuclear bomb with a 15 million degree interior, despite sunspots being cooler than the surface even if they allow us to see deeper.

But the Safire project will provide enough data to settle the issue.

 

[Halbhh]

...

2) Dark matter excuse me for being blunt is Fairie Dust. It is the application of the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter. In space plasma does not act like a fluid but a crystalline lattice. This causes a collective behavior and hence the rotation curves of galaxies are flat.
....

Rotation, that's one thing. Lensing is another of course. Now, my view is very neutral. I've got no theory I prefer, but we have something to explain --

I can offer you a distillation from many hundreds of articles up on the level of phys.org and scientific american and similar sites about 'dark matter' that may be informative.

"Dark natter" is really merely a name for what isn't yet understood -- what stuff/thing/force is causing 3 phenomena. Rotation as you've got a hypothesis for is only one -- (for other readers: Galaxies thought to be rotating in a more flat than expected curve, areas far from the centers orbiting *much faster* than they should just from ordinary gravitation from ordinary matter that was estimated to be there.)

I don't think we should presume the 'flat' rotation curves are precisely flat though! The one I saw yesterday wasn't exactly flat, only vaguely close to flatish over a stretch, with some curves also. That they are flatter than expected was the thing to motivate seeking out why.

Of course, one can make a variety of hypotheses for the unknown mass/gravitation causing the rotation curves, and examine a number of them.

But, next is gravitational lensing by a galaxy of more distant background objects -- where the galaxies doing the lensing are bending light more than they were expected to from the estimated ordinary matter they have in them.

The 3rd is in grouping of galaxies -- it's thought they are grouping together more/sooner than they should from mutual gravitation just from ordinary matter. What is causing them to fall together into groups so quickly vs just gravitation based on the normal matter they are thought to have.

That doesn't mean the unknown gravitation source has to be an exotic new form of matter. Maybe. Maybe not.

Michael is pointing out a guess that the various increased amounts of normal matter found might be able to add up a lot. That's an unknown to me. How much do they add up? Good question.

So, see, you can't say it's 'fairy dust' -- the gravitation is evident, just observed.

Of course there could be fairy dust like hypotheses among the various that will end up in the trash bin.

It's normal to have a lot of hypotheses fall into the trash bin. That's only business as usual.

 

[Halbhh]

The standard solar model *assumed* that light elements like hydrogen and helium stay "mixed together" with heavy elements like iron, nickel all the way up to the surface of the photosphere due to "fast" (jet speed) convection.

Unfortunately for that model, convection speeds as measured by SDO show that the mainstream botched those convection speed predictions by two entire orders of magnitude.

I have no evidence to suggest that the standard model is correct in that respect.

https://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html

Definitely what all we know about the fantastically complex interiors of stars is....much like climate forecasting on Earth -- it's trying to study a complex system, and therefore, physically, it is necessarily the case that the complexity is never going to be easy to reduce to any simple modeling. It's great progress in my view just to understand merely basic processes at all, like the fusion processes, and get those broad simplifications that are going to be possible (only a few), like core pressure/temperature. I've personally never had an expectation that a simulation model can use a bunch of simplified representations (like large block units of matter) to represent a huge complex system with any reliable accuracy. There are too many forces not accounted for typically also. We'd need vastly faster computing power to refine such a simulation.

Here's some fun -- the fantasticlaly complex behaviour of a star running out of fuel, which occurs over timespans short enough for us to see the changes before the end --

FG Sagittae
FG Sagittae - Revisited | aavso.org

 

[Michael]

Of course, one can make a variety of hypotheses for the unknown mass/gravitation causing the rotation curves, and examine a number of them.

Sure, but there is *far* more evidence to suggest that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates are *incorrect*, than there is evidence to support exotic, supernatural forms of matter, including faerie dust.

But, next is gravitational lensing by a galaxy of more distant background objects -- where the galaxies doing the lensing are bending light more than they were expected to from the estimated ordinary matter they have in them.

Sure but there is also the possibility that their baryonic mass "estimates" which are based on light are messed up in some major ways, *or* there is another reason for the discrepancy. Don't you think we should start by looking at the "assumption" that the baryonic mass estimates might be wrong and that's the real problem?

In 20/20 hindsight, we can find at *least* six different ways that the mainstream grossly (not just a little bit) underestimated the mass that was present in those galaxies based on their brightness technique in 2006. Why not start by *fixing* what's obviously broken rather than pretending that there weren't serious problems in those estimates?

That doesn't mean the unknown gravitation source has to be an exotic new form of matter. Maybe. Maybe not.

The thing is, we now have plenty of published evidence to suggest that their baryonic mass estimates from 2006 were the real problem, and there's no need to introduce anything like magical forms of matter to fix what is broken in their model.

Michael is pointing out a guess that the various increased amounts of normal matter found might be able to add up a lot. That's an unknown to me. How much do they add up? Good question.

All we can do is speculate because the mainstream hasn't budged even a single percent from their exotic matter figures from 2006 in spite of all those revelations of stellar miscounts by whopping amounts of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. What's up with that?

So, see, you can't say it's 'fairy dust' -- the gravitation is evident, just observed.

What makes "WIMPS" any more credible of a "solution" to their mass estimation problem than faerie dust? Adding plasma makes sense. Adding something that isn't shown to exist doesn't make any sense.

It's normal to have a lot of big hypotheses fall into the trash bin. That's only the natural process. A particular hypothesis could be like fairy dust, but the lensing is just measured observation.

The lensing data is just another "technique" to measure the amount of mass that is present, but it doesn't tell us that the original light based technique is accurate. In fact, that lensing technique would suggest that their light technique is seriously flawed, and the various papers that have been published since 2006 demonstrate that those baryonic mass estimates were way off for numerous reasons.

I'd also point out that in astronomy at least, it's not all that "normal" for any hypothesis to actually fall into the "trash bin". Some ideas in astronomy fall out of favor or they become less "popular" over time, like static universe theory, but they aren't ever actually "falsified" by evidence. Tired light theories still make the static universe theory a viable alternative to BB theory, but tired light theories haven't made static universe theory more "popular", at least not yet.

BB theory wasn't "trashed" only because it predicted a universe that gradually slowed down over time when they studied those SN1A events. They simply "added to" the current theory that they had, and they added yet *another* ad-hoc construct to the BB paradigm to make it "work".

Likewise that 'cold spot' could logically be used to exclude inflation or falsify inflation, but instead the mainstream is now trying to sweep that observational problem under the rug by inventing yet *another* faerie dust concept in the form of a "multiverse" to "fix" that problem. They aren't going to let inflation theory fall into the trash bin under any circumstances.

It's actually impossible to "falsify" mainstream cosmology beliefs because they were never "verified" to start with, and there was never any observation to support any of their claims which could not be explained in another way, including simply falsifying the BB theory outright. They could have looked at the SN1A data and decided that their "interpretation" of the cause of photon redshift must be wrong, but they didn't do that. Instead they "assumed" that they were right about the cause of photon redshift, and they added an ad-hoc element to their model in the form of 'dark energy'.

Cosmology theories in particular tend to change at a snails pace, and theories aren't typically falsified, not ever. It typically takes decades for change to occur, and sometimes lifetimes before any changes take place based on observation. The last serious change that took place in cosmology theory was when static universe theory became less popular, and gave way to expansion theories which became more popular over time. Even that wasn't an instant change, and it could change back again.

 

[Michael]

I'd like to point out that it doesn't appear as though any of the four hypothetical claims of LCMD are falsifiable individually, and certainly not collectively, particularly if it's "anything goes" with respect to adding in more supernatural constructs to "solve" any observational problems. That's particularly true as it relates to the inflation hypothesis.

When inflation was first proposed, Guth claimed that three basic observations supported inflation. Guth claimed that inflation explained why the universe was "flat", however Penrose later demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a flat universe will occur *with* inflation than without it, so that isn't a valid "prediction" nor is it a benefit in the first place. In fact it's become a *serious handicap* as it relates to explaining a flat universe.

Guth also claimed that inflation "explained" why monopoles do not exist, but something which does not exist in nature does not require an explanation as to why it doesn't exist. It's like claiming to "explain" the absence of unicorns based upon your brand new Bigfoot theory because you "predict" that Bigfoot ate all the unicorns, and therefore your Bigfoot theory is "supported" by the evidence of missing unicorns. Hoy Vey. There's not even a valid basis for that argument in the first place!

His last, and really his *only* remaining useful "prediction" was his claim that inflation explains why the universe is homogeneously distributed, but that claim fails the Planck data sets in two different ways. First inflation fails to match observation due to the cold spot which we've now verified with Planck. It also failed to predict the hemispheric variations in the background temperature (CMB) which is observed in Planck data sets.

Since the homogeneous claim is the only remaining claim to fame of the inflation hypothesis which is even remotely left standing in terms of Guth's justification of inflation, it's also the only remaining way to falsify inflation theory.

Instead of the mainstream using that cold spot as a falsification mechanism for the inflation hypothesis, the *only* remaining mechanism I might add, they now seem intent on 'fixing' their inflation prediction problems by inserting yet *another* ad-hoc construct and claiming that "the multiverse did it". We've literally reached the point where another supernatural outside (ad-hoc) agent is now responsible for the only potential method of falsifying the original inflation claim, so inflation theory is *definitely not* falsifiable by any logical method. It's not 'science' at all.

Monopoles don't need "explaining", inflation doesn't only not explain a flat universe, it literally make it *less* likely by 100 orders of magnitude, and the universe isn't homogeneous as inflation "predicted". What's left standing?

 

[Halbhh]

...

The lensing data is just another "technique" to measure the amount of mass that is present, but it doesn't tell us that the original light based technique is accurate. In fact, that lensing technique would suggest that their light technique is seriously flawed, and the various papers that have been published since 2006 demonstrate that those baryonic mass estimates were way off for numerous reasons.

Trying to understand -- are you saying the techniques of measuring how much the light was bent are having papers published about recently? Or just again about the need to have more complete accountings of baryonic mass (which we agree on)?

 

[Halbhh]

I think the concept of "net charge" is going to become unnecessarily confusing. It might be more accurate to say that every sun ends up being an electrical generator (Alfven called it a homopolar generator) that's driven by local fusion processes in Birkeland's model and in Alfven's solar model. There's a third EU/PC solar model (Jeurgen's model) that relies upon external electrical current to help generate the pinches that generate fusion in the sun. That's the only model that requires an external energy source.

Alfven's "expansion" cosmology model is based upon the concept of a preexisting field of "ambiplasma" (matter and antimatter) that contracts due to gravity to the point that the matter and antimatter begin to interact with each other which then leads to expansion. It's more of a cyclical bang theory than a "big bang' theory because nothing ever contracts to a single point, and preexisting matter and antimatter predate the expansion process. In his cosmology model the matter and antimatter might interact electrically and "power" various things, but Juergen's solar model is not the solar model that I personally favor. Birkeland's model was pretty much like the standard solar model with respect to power. Birkeland's model and Alfven's model are generating their own electrical power via fusion. Birkeland actually called it a transmutation of elements. Juergen's model would also produce fusion in the sun by way, but it would require external electrical current unlike the other two EU/PC solar models. Jeurgen's model has an "anode" outer surface with respect to the heliosphere/space.

The net "result" is a charged outer surface that electrically interacts with the surrounding plasma medium. It's conceivably possible that Birkeland's cathode surfaced sun does not have a 'net charge' with respect to itself, just a "net charge" with respect to the heliosphere and "space".

I wouldn't get too caught up in the charge repulsion thing. It's possible that suns could repulse one another, but I'd guess that it's a negligible effect at best case.

Just thinking about it in a very big picture hand waving way, unless there is a net charge buildup, how could the overall effect in the Universe as a whole (totally unlike just any more local effect) counter gravity and allow a static or near static Universe over time? e.g. if the total charge nets to zero, it won't matter much that in some places there is repulsion, because in other places there will be attraction, and it will not constitute an overall repulsion on net in the Universe, right? Gravity wouldn't be countered.

 

[Michael]

Trying to understand -- are you saying the techniques of measuring how much the light was bent are having papers published about recently? Or just again about the need to have more complete accountings of baryonic mass (which we agree on)?

I'm suggesting that the lensing data never "proved" the existence of dark matter as the miainstream boastfully claimed in 2006, it only 'proved' that their baryonic mass estimation techniques using light were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006. Numerous different errors have since been revealed in those 'techniques'.

I personally embrace GR theory, and I'm confident that the lensing data numbers are correct in terms of the total mass present, but I have zero confidence that the mainstream's galaxy mass estimates based on light were ever valid to start with.

Whatever "missing mass" that we have to explain based on lensing or rotation patterns is likely to be found in ordinary plasma, not in some exotic form of matter.

 

[Michael]

Just thinking about it in a very big picture hand waving way, unless there is a net charge buildup, how could the overall effect in the Universe as a whole (totally unlike just any more local effect) counter gravity and allow a static or near static Universe over time? e.g. if the total charge nets to zero, it won't matter much that in some places there is repulsion, because in other places there will be attraction, and it will not constitute an overall repulsion on net in the Universe, right? Gravity wouldn't be countered.

Gravity is "countered" mostly by kinetic energy, and the fact that things tend to orbit other things in the presence of kinetic energy. Assuming that our sun survives another few billion years, the Earth will still be in orbit around the sun due to it's kinetic energy, not due to anything related to "charge". To keep things 'stable' we only need to add enough *additional* energy to counter any sort of 'friction' that might happen over time, but that only needs to be a *tiny fraction* of the energy that already exists in kinetic energy.

I'm not even convinced that even we need additional charge repulsion energy since things are blowing up in space all the time, and that also adds more kinetic energy to the system.

It's a mistake IMO to "assume" that only gravity counts in terms of the movement of a mostly plasma universe. The current flow patterns alone might be enough to counter any long term effects of friction. I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill as it relates to stability over time. In an infinite universe, everything could be perfectly balanced just by gravity and kinetic energy.

 

[Halbhh]

Gravity is "countered" mostly by kinetic energy, and the fact that things tend to orbit other things in the presence of kinetic energy. Assuming that our sun survives another few billion years, the Earth will still be in orbit around the sun due to it's kinetic energy, not due to anything related to "charge". To keep things 'stable' we only need to add enough *additional* energy to counter any sort of 'friction' that might happen over time, but that only needs to be a *tiny fraction* of the energy that already exists in kinetic energy.

I'm not even convinced that even we need additional charge repulsion energy since things are blowing up in space all the time, and that also adds more kinetic energy to the system.

It's a mistake IMO to "assume" that only gravity counts in terms of the movement of a mostly plasma universe. The current flow patterns alone might be enough to counter any long term effects of friction. I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill as it relates to stability over time. In an infinite universe, everything could be perfectly balanced just by gravity and kinetic energy.

Yes of course motion prevents collapse in a system about the center of gravity so long as the object is outside of the event horizon. That works obviously for any portion, *sub*part of the Universe, as distinct from the Universe as a whole. It doesn't work (not so far as I understand) for the Universe as a whole, except in the obvious way of expansion that continues, or attenuates to asymptotic, or eventually becomes contraction.

I'm still thinking on whether current flows can over long time allow some equilibrium, countering gravity, in your notion of a static Universe. Not so sure that can work, actually, but still thinking over it, and don't know if it will take hours or days or months, lol. One early question that happens right off is how are the currents just the right amount. More likely they'd be a different amount -- either too much, causing accelerating expansion, or too little, merely participating with gravity as a jr. partner.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

One more connection point -- cosmology is merely physics in action, and that means fundamental physics in action, i.e. 'high energy physics' or 'particle physics'. In other words all the thinking around particle physics is about the same essential questions as these big questions in cosmology you are pointing out, and the Universe as we observe it is a big particle physics machine. Cosmology is more fun to read about of course.

The problem with cosmology and astrophysics is that many of the environments are not reproducible in the lab - and the cosmos is dynamic.

That poses a problem for theory and axiom if you are a scientific/philosophical purist - demanding that any theory or discovery be tested and reproducible in a laboratory so we that a layperson can come along and do everything you did, confirming the results.

Instead, we just have credibility based on grant money, the word of a scientist and status, more than laboratory reproductikn.

 

[Halbhh]

The problem with cosmology and astrophysics is that many of the environments are not reproducible in the lab - and the cosmos is dynamic.

That poses a problem for theory and axiom if you are a scientific/philosophical purist - demanding that any theory or discovery be tested and reproducible in a laboratory so we that a layperson can come along and do everything you did, confirming the results.

Instead, we just have credibility based on grant money, the word of a scientist and status, more than laboratory reproductikn.

Yeah, it's a good point. I personally don't have any 'faith' in the multiverse theories as a way to explain the truly "fine-tuned" and "unnatural" (quoting physicists) situation with the Higgs Boson, which is a sort of lynch pin for this physics we have, and thus this Universe as it is.