Is inflation theory falsifiable?

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

Many of us who are physicist, mathematicians or philosophers categorically disagree with Higgs in general. And, the disconnection of prediction and emperical result further that suspicion.

 

[Michael]

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.

The term 'event horizon' typically refers to a black hole scenario which wouldn't apply to our solar system example. It would be more correct to say that motion (kinetic energy) prevents collapse in a system that is devoid of friction or other outside forces.

In a pure vacuum universe with just two mass objects in motion, they might orbit a common center of mass indefinitely. If we add plasma in there or generate friction in some way, they may *eventually* merge, but that could take eons depending on the circumstances.

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,

I think we better talk about your assumption that the universe is somehow different as a whole compared to it's parts. In an infinite and eternal universe, how and why would it be different? Even in a finite universe that rotates around a common center of mass, why would it be different? It's not different when we go from a solar system to a galaxy, nor when we go from a single galaxy to a galaxy cluster or size things up to a supercluster, so why would it not apply to *any and all* systems in motion?

except in the obvious way of expansion that continues, or attenuates to asymptotic, or eventually becomes contraction.

I'll grant you that without any other possible influences that a static universe (in motion of course) might *eventually* (eons) tend to collapse due to friction. If however you add even a *tiny* amount of current and light and neutrino kinetic energy from suns and such, how can you be sure it would *ever* collapse?

Admittedly an expanding or contracting universe would be inclined to continue to expand or contract, but I have no evidence to suggest that it *must* collapse, or *must* expand based strictly on GR theory. Einstein's entire point of adding a non-zero constant to GR is so that it *is* compatible with a static universe scenario.

His non zero constant might be caused by just about anything, from light emissions from stars adding kinetic energy to the system, to neutrino emissions from stars, to EM fields, to just about anything. GR theory is not incompatible with a static universe, and objects in motion will continue to be in motion indefinitely without any external influences.

I'm still thinking on whether current flows can over long time allow some equilibrium, countering gravity, in your notion of a static Universe.

I would say that it adds filaments and "structure' to a universe in motion, and it has an influence on pinching things together, and it influences the motion of plasma.

I'm inclined to believe that we live inside of an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed and which has a 'structure', just like our bodies have "structure'. Gravity and motion could easily be the two things that mostly keep it "in balance", but EM fields have a very definite influence on the movement and behaviors of plasma.

Inside our solar system that takes the form of auroras, electrical discharges in planetary atmospheres, the sun's corona, the discharges in the solar atmosphere, the solar wind, polar jets, etc, etc, etc. We can *see* it's influence on plasma in the lab. It must also influence the behaviors of plasma in space too.

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.

Take your time. I've been mulling over various cosmology theories for many decades. It's a fun lifetime hobby. Don't rush it.

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.

I'd say it depends on the circumstances and the conditions of the plasma. For instance gravity seems to be the dominant player in terms of planetary motion in our solar system, but EM fields seem to dominate in the areas I mentioned earlier, in terms of the solar corona, solar wind, CME's, aurora, etc. Some events in plasma are heavily influenced by the circuit energy of the whole circuit, and gravity has only a minor influence on the motion of that particular plasma. A solar flare for instance can release particles that strike the Earth at 1/3rd of the speed of light. Gravity certainly had little or no effect on those particles in the flare event. It might have slowed them down a tiny bit, but the EM kinetic energy of the flare event had a much larger effect.

I'd say that's true throughout spacetime. Some types of motions are dictated mostly by gravity, whereas the motion of some plasma is virtually unrelated to gravity. It depends on the specific conditions of the plasma.

 

[Halbhh]

ah, but I know my newtonian mechanics, lol You won't ever need to spend a second typing this kind of thing: "In a pure vacuum universe with just two mass objects in motion, they might orbit a common center of mass indefinitely. If we add plasma in there or generate friction in some way, they may *eventually* merge, but that could take eons depending on the circumstances."

(Please forgive me for the thing a couple of days ago comparing to a certain infamous old idea)

I used to program my computer back in the 1980s to simulate orbits. Speaking for which, for a more fun moment, have you ever tried the awesome orbital simulation software "Universe Sandbox 2"? You can model the solar system accurately, and with as small a time scale increment as you like, and then send in a rouge planet, etc., and it's just some serious fun.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

But that laboratory cathode model also requires an external power supply , just saying.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.)

Only one thing in the lab has ever been proven to cause rotation. Magnetism. So you have plasma in which electric currents are causing magnetic fields.....

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.

But unexplainable by gravity alone unless you add what, 27% Fairie Dust? Again, only one thing causes rotation in the laboratory, magnetic fields.

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

Why, only magnetism causes it in the laboratory.

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.

And yet we have plasma halos surrounding those galaxies with up to twice the mass of the galaxy themselves. What gravitational lensing? Ahh, you mean refraction of light in those plasma halos that surround every galaxy confused to be gravitational lensing before they knew those plasma halos existed.

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.

I am sure Micheal has already shown you the falsity of their mass models. As long as you keep ignoring the attraction between electric current pairs and keep only thinking of gravity there will be no answer.

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

Just electric currents. Look up the Lorentz force, the force E based his equations of gravity on.u

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.

Won't matter as long as the electrical interactions are ignored by mainstream.

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

No, what is evident is as you pointed out, ""Dark natter" is really merely a name for what isn't yet understood" to which I agree since cosmologists don't understand the first thing about plasma, even if it is 99.9% of the universe. Nor do they understand the first thing about electromagnetism. They still call those Birkeland Currents we have known about for over 200 years magnetic ropes. They spent over 40 years ridiculing Birkeland because they thought electric currents couldn't exist in space. One and all were proved wrong, but they still refuse to use the correct terminology. They call plasma "gas" and once in awhile call it plasma. Which shows how they think about it, as being merely "gas". Now they finally admit to those electric currents in space they are observing everywhere, they just don't do anything is all.

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

Agreed, 96% of them.

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

Because business as usual is ignore the plasma and electric currents and promote Fairie Dust in their "gravity only" heliocentric viewpoint of epicycles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

And yet the EU/PC has reproduced almost everything we see in space in the laboratory. Not saying we have produced planets etc, but the features found on them, to the aurora, to the corona of the sun, to model galaxies, to galactic jets, to solar flares, to -gasp here- black holes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Many of us who are physicist, mathematicians or philosophers categorically disagree with Higgs in general. And, the disconnection of prediction and emperical result further that suspicion.

Thi Higgs was conveniently created by smashing things together and lo and behold, a higher mass particle, cough, something appeared for a millionth of a microsecond, before dissolving back into the original particles constituent components.

I could smash bubblegum together at that velocity and get a higher mass mess for a microsecond before it disintegrated into little parts. Doesn't mean I've discovered anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ah, but I know my newtonian mechanics, lol You won't ever need to spend a second typing this kind of thing: "In a pure vacuum universe with just two mass objects in motion, they might orbit a common center of mass indefinitely. If we add plasma in there or generate friction in some way, they may *eventually* merge, but that could take eons depending on the circumstances."

(Please forgive me for the thing a couple of days ago comparing to a certain infamous old idea)

I used to program my computer back in the 1980s to simulate orbits. Speaking for which, for a more fun moment, have you ever tried the awesome orbital simulation software "Universe Sandbox 2"? You can model the solar system accurately, and with as small a time scale increment as you like, and then send in a rouge planet, etc., and it's just some serious fun.

I have that program too, but you know the orbits are not realistic don't you? Going to attach a video, mind you I do not agree it is a vortex, it's a spiral or helix, nor his viewpoints. I include it only because it is a true representation of our planetary motions.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Thi Higgs was conveniently created by smashing things together and lo and behold, a higher mass particle, cough, something appeared for a millionth of a microsecond, before dissolving back into the original particles constituent components.

I could smash bubblegum together at that velocity and get a higher mass mess for a microsecond before it disintegrated into little parts. Doesn't mean I've discovered anything.

It is interesting what passes for physics these days. Maxwell and Tesla would be sad.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Safire Project – Testing the Electric Sun – The Thunderbolts Project ™

Testing the hypothesis is indeed in the works. Already it isn't looking good for mainstream.

EU results, DOE, design of experiments | SAFIRE project

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is mainstreams unwillingness to embrace the empirical evidence of the space age that is hindering cosmology. They remain still in the gas light era, unable to envision charge separation despite it being part of everything known to exist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Also new evidence shows that since plasma in space acts like a crystalline lattice instead of a fluid in the physical sense, the bending of light by electric and magnetic fields is no longer an unfeasible situation.

Stanford researchers control light using synthetic magnetism

So I suggest that those plasma haloes around those galaxies acting like a crystalline lattice with its corresponding electric and magnetic fields combined with simple refraction is producing the effect known as gravitational lensing.