[serious];60713621 said:
There is a reason plasma cosmology stopped getting much attention.
Ya, empirical physics is too "boring" for the mainstream. That isn't what actually surprises me, it's the 'hatred' one sees at astronomy oriented websites toward the idea that I find absolutely disgusting.
You see, when there are multiple models for the same phenomina, scientists try to find some way of testing the predictions of the two theories.
Penrose figured out a way to "test" inflation mathematically. A simple Occum's razor argument blows it out of the water based on pure statistical odds. Does that matter to the mainstream? Of course not! Their inflation dogma lives on and they CONTINUE to claim that a "flat universe" is a key and highly relevant and highly important "prediction" of "inflation". What bogus nonsense. If that were true, inflation loses that bet HANDS DOWN in terms of the odds.
For example, both theories suggested different things about the fine structure of the CMB. We can then maybe send some sort of space craft to the L2 earth-sun lagrange point. From there it could collect highly accurate data about the CMB to see if it agrees with the standard modle or plasma cosmology.
How about that gamma ray background? Why aren't you using THAT wavelength to calculate the TEMPERATURE of a whole universe too? Even picking a SINGLE wavelength was dubious IMO. The fact that early predictions of the temperature of space based upon the effect of starlight on matter were MUCH closer than early BB models still doesn't matter to the mainstream. They still insist that only a BANG could be responsible for that wavelength, even thought is damn clear that every star in our own galaxy emits them, and "scattering happens" in space.
Exactly what they wanted it to find because they SUBTRACTED OUT everything related to emissions from OUR GALAXY and any other close "point sources". What's left other than "scattering over a long distance"?
So we've got one model that requires 1 new particle. We've got another model that needs some kind of explanation of CMB observations. Personally, I prefer the theory that explains current observations rather than the one that disregards the possibility of an as of yet undiscovered particle.
I don't care if you want to have faith in some magic sky particle. What I care about is that PC/EU theory isn't taught along side "standard" faith based dogma in the classroom. It's the completele DISREGARD for empirical physics that I find unacceptable. If nobody can stuff "faith' down my children's throat in the classroom, why are "astronomers" given a "free pass"? What's wrong with teaching MULTIPLE ideas anyway, particularly when one of them is based upon PURE EMPIRICAL PHYSICS?
We assume it exists in an exotic form because we do not see baryonic EM interactions.
But how about those studies that show that the mainstream underestimates that mass of larger stars in a galaxy and GROSSLY underestimates the amount of smaller stars we cannot see compared to the larger ones we can observe? Why haven't the percentages of magical matter changed even a 1/2 a percentage point in over 5 years? Talk about foot dragging. From out the outside looking in, it appears that the mainstream is EMOTIONALLY and FINANCIALLY invested in "magic matter' so deeply that it's incapable of acknowledging ERRORS in their models and it's incapable of updating them.
You are confusing the Higgs boson with dark matter. They are two different things.
Neither one has been seen in the lab, but the Higgs is part of standard particle theory, whereas "dark matter" is not. Mainstream cosmology theory is actually predicated upon a THEORETICAL set of extensions to standard particle physics theory, or a NON STANDARD brand of particle physics theory. FYI, the simplest SUSY theories have already all but been eliminated at LHC.
We see the effects of gravity. We don't see baryonic matter to explain it.
So what? Our technology is PRIMITIVE in terms of even picking out SMALL STARS in distant galaxies. Why would you ASSUME that our models are even up to the challenge of finding all the mass when we can't actually see WHOLE (small) STARS in distant galaxies yet?
Thus, there appears to be non baryonic matter responsible for it which does not interact with EM. 1. We aren't talking about the Higgs boson. Stay on topic.
You still have not demonstrated that mainstream galaxy rotation models are worth the paper they are printed on. In fact, you actually FALSIFY them and then resurrected them from the empirical dead by INVENTING magic matter. The mainstream quite literally pulled a magic matter rabbit out of it's hat. That's how it appears to a "skeptic" at least.
2. fusion happens and gravity happens. Stellar fusion hasn't been observed on earth.
So what? 'Black holes" haven't been observed on Earth either, but there is plenty of evidence that SOMETHING exists at the core of our galaxy that contains a LOT of gravitational attraction to other stars in the vicinity. I can and do allow for "scaling" as must ALL cosmology theories.
Whatever massive stuff is out there not interacting with EM waves has also not been observed on earth.
Again, all of this is PREDICATED on your FAITH in mainstream galaxy rotation models, including star layouts, etc. None of it is based upon empirical physics. It's essentially a "magic matter of the gaps" argument and the gaps are getting smaller every year. The problem is that the mainstream isn't really responding to those gap changes. It's actually ignoring them at the moment, and PRAYING LHC finds SOME evidence of SOMETHING they can latch on to. The first thing they'll need that gap filler to do is LAST long enough to be useful to them. Good luck with that one.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
