The great void in the heart of the 'dark energy' hypothesis.

[Michael]

Aside from the obvious fact that space hasn't ever been shown to "expand", let alone "accelerate, it would appear that there is a great void in the heart of dark energy theory. A few years back some authors wrote a paper that suggested that the concept of acceleration (and dark energy) could be an optical illusion based on our unique location in the universe. It used GR theory to discuss the curvature and geometry of a spacetime environment that we might observe if we were living inside of a low density region of space (a void) rather than an area of average mass density.

The Cosmic Void: Could we be in the Middle of it? - Universe Today
[0807.1443] Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae

Later papers tried to refute this idea by suggesting that we didn't really live in a void, but more recent studies tend to counter those arguments:

Does the Milky Way Live in a Void? - Sky & Telescope

If indeed our galaxy sits in a void, the whole concept of 'dark energy" become geometrically irrelevant. The concept of acceleration and dark energy could simply be an optical illusion that is caused by our unique location in the universe.

I personally do not believe that the cause of photon redshift is "space expansion" or "space acceleration" in the first place, but even based on their own LCDM model, dark energy theory could be on very shaky footing depending on our location and our local density conditions. It's an interesting dilemma for the mainstream, particularly since that metaphysical bad boy makes up the vast majority of LCDM theory.

Stay tuned.....

 

[morse86]

The universe is expanding? What utter hokus pokus garbage research.

All you have to detect this "expansion" is the doppler effect. Guess what? It only works when you have a starting relative point (think about it). If you measure some planet is moving away from earth, that doesn't mean the universe expanding. Think about it. All you discovered was a planet moving away, that is all.

The other research is just so rubbish it belongs in a tabloid magazine instead of a science article. Dark Matter....I mean this is religion, not science.

 

[lesliedellow]

The universe is expanding? What utter hokus pokus garbage research.

All you have to detect this "expansion" is the doppler effect. Guess what? It only works when you have a starting relative point (think about it). If you measure some planet is moving away from earth, that doesn't mean the universe expanding. Think about it. All you discovered was a planet moving away, that is all.

The other research is just so rubbish it belongs in a tabloid magazine instead of a science article. Dark Matter....I mean this is religion, not science.

Unfortunately everything which isn't gravitationally bound to us is moving away from us, no matter which direction you look in. So either we occupy a very special place in the universe, or space is expanding.

 

[Michael]

Unfortunately everything which isn't gravitationally bound to us is moving away from us, no matter which direction you look in. So either we occupy a very special place in the universe, or space is expanding.

Everything that is distant from us gets redshifted due to inelastic scattering in a plasma medium, and expansion is an optical illusion.

 

[lesliedellow]

Everything that is distant from us gets redshifted due to inelastic scattering in a plasma medium, and expansion is an optical illusion.

Sure. And how did all the matter in the universe come to be so precisely located that it is in a steady state?

 

[Michael]

Sure. And how did all the matter in the universe come to be so precisely located that it is in a steady state?

It's actually a moving, electrically active place, and not as "steady state" as one might imagine, even though it's basic structure is pretty "fixed". The universe probably changes over time like we do, albeit on much longer timelines. Gravity and motion keep the basic structures in place, just as they do inside of our own solar system, and electricity and magnetism prevent the whole system from "collapsing". There's nothing all that unusual or unique about any of it.

Keep in mind that prior to Hubble's discovery of a redshift/distance relationship, the steady state universe was the "mainstream" theory of the day. That's why Einstein tried to introduce an external element into GR as a non-zero constant which would help to explain how the universe was prevented from collapsing. He wasn't trying to cause "space" to either 'expand' nor to 'accelerate' with that non-zero constant. He was simply adding a small stabilizing influence to the whole system, which easily could be something like ordinary EM fields. That's also why Hubble at least *entertained* the concept of "tired light' too. Hubble accepted that there were two different ways to interpret redshift, including a way which supported a steady state universe.

GR theory and photon redshift distance relationships are entirely consistent with a steady state universe as long as you accept that other factors also come into play, specifically electric fields, magnetic fields and inelastic scattering.

When we shine light through a plasma medium in a lab, that light typically loses some of it's momentum to the plasma medium, as it traverses the plasma. Chen even found a relationship between the amount of photon redshift and the amount of current (and excess charged particles) that are present in the plasma. Some forms of photon/particle interaction do not even require a "direct hit" of any particles. Photons simply have to experience a temperature gradient, or EM field gradient, and they can be influenced by those changes and experience small amounts of scattering, thereby losing momentum the the medium over time.

Photon redshift is easily associated with inelastic scattering processes in plasma, and we live inside of a mostly plasma universe. It should not at all be surprising to discover a redshift/distance relationship in a static plasma universe.

It is entirely possible to describe everything that we observe from space in purely empirical terms as long as we are willing to let go of the superstition of the past, and embrace the future of empirical (lab tested) physics as it applies to cosmology theory.

It even allows for a moving object (expanding) universe if that really floats your personal boat.

Even the two different plasma and gas "halos' that we've recently (last five years) found around our own Milky Way galaxy allow us to replace another placeholder term with real plasma and real gas.

The changes that are coming to cosmology theory are going to happen sooner or later, if not now, someday. It's really only a matter of time. Cosmology theories come and go, and they'll change again too, but empirical physics has consistently replaced placeholder terms for human ignorance over time.

I know I've personally made it harder for you to see the merits of PC/EU theory by introducing theistic overtones into the cosmology discourse. I'm sorry if that's been a barrier for you in terms of considering some of the other positive aspects of Alfven's work, particularly since Alfven was an atheist.

 

[Michael]

One more historical cosmology irony:

Fritz Zwicky is often cited as a hero of LCDM theory by coining the term "dark matter" after noticing a major problem with our baryonic mass estimates of galaxies in clusters, yet Zwicky did not embrace big bang theory at all. Zwicky personally preferred a tired light solution to the Hubble's redshift/distance relationships, and he preferred a steady state universe. His "tired light" solution was based on GR theory by the way, not inelastic scattering.

While Zwicky's solution to cosmological redshift might still have *some* merit, it's only logical to believe that photons in space interact with plasma in space in the same ways they interact with plasma in the lab. There *must* be some amount of inelastic scattering taking place in space, even if GR theory somehow has an additional influence on the overall amount of redshift as Zwicky imagined.

It's just an interesting historical irony IMO.

 

[lesliedellow]

So one galaxy cluster is going to be carrying a huge electric charge. Another galaxy cluster is going to be carrying another huge electric charge, of the same polarity, and the repulsive force between them is very conveniently exactly cancels out the gravitational attraction.

Not only that, but the above piece of nonsense has got to work for the very complicated interactions between every galaxy in the universe.

Me, I will believe anything.

 

[Michael]

So one galaxy cluster is going to be carrying a huge electric charge. Another galaxy cluster is going to be carrying another huge electric charge, of the same polarity, and the repulsive force between them is very conveniently exactly cancels out the gravitational attraction.

Not only that, but the above piece of nonsense has got to work for the very complicated interactions between every galaxy in the universe.

Me, I will believe anything.

I don't know why you seem to think that any of that is necessary to start with. You seem just find with accepting that even clusters and superclusters of galaxies can be "held in motion" via nothing but kinetic energy and gravity. Why do you make any automatic assumption that groups of superclusters have to automatically slam into each other and somehow kinetic energy and gravity no longer work to keeps things in organized motion.

All you *might* need is a *tiny* bit of additional 'repulsion' to make sure that the whole thing stays in organized motion.

Birkeland's cathode solar model *might* produce a little charge repulsion between stars and maybe galaxies, bit I really don't see how or why that would be necessary at any scale. If charge repulsion is not required in our own solar system, why would you *assume* it has to apply anywhere else just for objects in motion to stay in motion?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't know why you seem to think that any of that is necessary to start with. You seem just find with accepting that even clusters and superclusters of galaxies can be "held in motion" via nothing but kinetic energy and gravity. Why do you make any automatic assumption that groups of superclusters have to automatically slam into each other and somehow kinetic energy and gravity no longer work to keeps things in organized motion.

All you *might* need is a *tiny* bit of additional 'repulsion' to make sure that the whole thing stays in organized motion.

Birkeland's cathode solar model *might* produce a little charge repulsion between stars and maybe galaxies, bit I really don't see how or why that would be necessary at any scale. If charge repulsion is not required in our own solar system, why would you *assume* it has to apply anywhere else just for objects in motion to stay in motion?

Galaxy clusters are either:

a.) Moving away from each other, which is what observation suggests, or
b.) Collapsing in a big crunch, under the force of gravity, or
c.) They are doing neither, and are motionless relative to one another.

And under what piece of magic do you imagine c.) might be possible?

 

[Michael]

Galaxy clusters are either:

a.) Moving away from each other, which is what observation suggests, or

Observations do not suggest that. The redshift observations themselves only suggest that there is a redshift/distance relationship in space. Your subjective "suggestion" that this relationship implies that objects must be moving away from each other is a *personal choice* that you personally made which has nothing to do with the redshift/ distance data itself.

Furthermore while *objects* can move away from each other, nobody has ever demonstrated that "space" does any magical expansion tricks, so that's yet *another* personal subjective choice that you made, and that one is *devoid* of empirical support.

Meanwhile the 'tired light' theories which Hubble discussed as an explanation of this observations do not require expansion at all. That option would also be a "personal choice" in terms of data interpretation, but it is *consistent with the results from the lab*, whereas your personal choice is not.

b.) Collapsing in a big crunch, under the force of gravity, or

That could only happen if the barycenters of mass of the superclusters are not in orbit around the barycenter of mass of other superclusters. Everything up to superclusters is in orbit around something, so I see no logical reason to "assume" that collapse is either necessary or likely as long as superclusters remain in motion.

c.) They are doing neither, and are motionless relative to one another.

All objects are in motion, so that's really not an option. A tired light/inelastic scattering interpretation of redshift does tend to favor a organized non expanding/contracting alternative, but that wouldn't mean that anything is "motionless".

Unless the photons of space behave differently than the photons in the lab, they must be losing *some* amount of momentum to the plasma medium of spacetime.

Everything is in motion, but that motion is organized in a way that simply creates an organized structure that isn't expanding or collapsing, just like the kinetic energy of our solar system works. Everything in the solar system is moving, and nothing in the solar system is "motionless". The notion of 'motionless' seems to be confusing your beliefs on this topic.

Think in terms of barycenters of superclusters remaining in motion, just like the barycenters of solar systems remain in motion around the barycenter of our galaxy. The moment you embrace the motion of barycenters of superclusters, your argument falls apart.

And under what piece of magic do you imagine c.) might be possible?

Since when was motion and kinetic energy ever a form of "magic"? It's not "magic" which prevents the solar system from collapsing in upon itself. It's not 'magic' that prevents our Milky Way galaxy from collapsing in upon itself. It's not magic that prevents our galaxy cluster or supercluster from collapsing in upon itself, so where does any form of "magic" come into the discussion?

All that's necessary to prevent the collapse of superclusters in upon themselves is the same motion and kinetic energy that applies to everything up to and including supercluster motion. You'd literally need to *stop the direction of motion* of every supercluster in the universe to have a 'motionless' organization of superclusters. Nobody is suggesting such a thing but you.

IMO this is the key weakness of your belief and the error that prevents you from seeing things properly. You seem to believe that supercluster barycenters do not have any motion motion relative to other superclusters, when in reality they all *must* have kinetic energy and remain in motion just like every other barycenter of every other "grouping" of mass objects up to superclusters.

As long as the superclusters themselves also have momentum, there can be no "motionless" organization of superclusters. *That* setup would in fact require a collapse in GR, but nobody is suggesting such a thing in the first place!

You'd really only need some amount of energy to keep the motions going over time, otherwise friction might play a role. The amount of 'friction' going on in our own solar system however is *minuscule* compared the the kinetic energy of the objects in motion. All we need is some current and some influence from magnetic and electric fields, and the arrangement of a *moving* but stable galaxy or universe is something which can be sustained indefinitely.

 

[lesliedellow]

That could only happen if the barycenters of mass of the superclusters are not in orbit around the barycenter of mass of other superclusters. Everything up to superclusters is in orbit around something, so I see no logical reason to "assume" that collapse is either necessary or likely as long as superclusters remain in motion.

If two or more masses orbit anything, it is a common centre of mass, and that would not prevent the gravitational collapse of the entire universe.

In case you think the entire universe is orbiting a common centre of mass:

Is Time Travel Possible? -- Part II

 

[Michael]

If two or more masses orbit anything, it is a common centre of mass, and that would not prevent the gravitational collapse of the entire universe.

In case you think the entire universe is orbiting a common centre of mass:

Is Time Travel Possible? -- Part II

You still have the wrong idea IMO. I'm not suggesting that the entire universe is orbiting a common center of mass. I'm suggesting that galaxies, clusters and superclusters are embedded in large scale Birkeland currents that are moving material (galaxy clusters) in organized patterns up and down various plasma threads that are spread reasonably evenly throughout the universe. You're still trying to oversimplify the argument. I think of the universe more like a collection of various nerve cells in the body with everything in motion. As long as you oversimplify the concepts of motion involved, it's not going to make a lot of sense to you.

You're going to have to embrace EU/PC theory as it's likely to work in the real universe, and the way it works in the lab. Those large scale "threads" that we observe in lensing patterns of the large scale universe that you folks call "dark matter" are actually massive 'Birkeland currents" which galaxy superclusters are embedded inside of. The current that flows through the thread is important in terms of keeping the thread 'pinched' together into organized, more dense structures.

You're also going to have to embrace the possibility that if the universe is infinite in scale, it's evenly distributed in mass and therefor balanced in every direction from the standpoint of gravity.

 

[Michael]

As if on cue.....

Does This Light Experiment Disprove The Big Bang Theory?

 

[lesliedellow]

As if on cue.....

Does This Light Experiment Disprove The Big Bang Theory?

Only if it turns out to be the first time a tired light hypothesis has been verified experimentally.

 

[Michael]

Huh? A number of different inelastic scattering methods have all ready been verified to result in loss of photon momentum in the lab. This would simply be a slightly different type of redshift, and a *new* form of redshift that hasn't *already* been verified in the lab.

Inelastic scattering - Wikipedia

 

[Michael]

Keep in mind that it would be possible to replace three different forms of 'conjecture' in LCDM (inflation, space expansion and dark energy) with just one tired light 'conjecture' that happened to lack empirical lab support.

Whipping up math formulas hasn't ever been the problem. Overcoming the *dogma* and the resistance to change has always been the real problem.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hun? A number of different inelastic scattering methods have all ready been verified to result in loss of photon momentum in the lab. This would simply be a slightly different type of redshift, and a *new* form of redshift that hasn't *already* been verified in the lab.

Inelastic scattering - Wikipedia

Tired light - Wikipedia

 

[Michael]

Tired light - Wikipedia

Lot's of EU/PC proponents have tried to modify this particular WIKI page, but the mainstream keeps tight control over it. I will however be *happy* to pick it apart for you and show you where it's simply *wrong*.

Tired light
Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the models that require metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones.

This part is all true. In fact I already pointed out the irony of Zwicky being held out as a hero of big bang theory when Zwicky rejected the concept in favor of tired light explanations for redshift.

Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen.

This statement is patently *false*. The only type of scattering that Zwicky even discussed in his own "tired light" paper was Compton scattering, yet there are *many* other types to consider. All he did was throw out some simple calculations on Compton scattering and claimed that it would create "blurry' images of galaxies. Of course nobody can show that more distant galaxies are *not* blurry.

Keep in mind that Zwicky was simply making up a 'reason' to introduce his *own* GR based tired light theory. He however only ever discussed *one* type of inelastic scattering so he could not have possibly ruled out every single type that we know about. Furthermore, the more distant the galaxy, the *blurrier* it becomes.

Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time,

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Published studies by EU/PC proponents have demonstrated that BB theory doesn't predict the right surface brightness of more distant galaxies unlike static universe models. In fact astronomers are *constantly* being surprised by both the brightness and maturity of the most distant galaxies.

Most distant galaxy: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record

However, the discovery also raises many new questions as the existence of such a bright and large galaxy is not predicted by theory. “It’s amazing that a galaxy so massive existed only 200 million to 300 million years after the very first stars started to form. It takes really fast growth, producing stars at a huge rate, to have formed a galaxy that is a billion solar masses so soon,” said Garth Illingworth of the University of California in Santa Cruz.

Marijn Franx, a member of the team from the University of Leiden said, “The discovery of GN-z11 was a great surprise to us as our earlier work had suggested that such bright galaxies should not exist so early in the universe.” His colleague Ivo Labbe added: “The discovery of GN-z11 showed us that our knowledge about the early universe is still restricted. How GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now. Probably
we are seeing the first generations of stars forming around black holes?”

time dilation of cosmological sources,

What the mainstream interprets as "time dilation" is interpreted as "signal broadening' in tired light theories. We actually observe signal broadening in the lab too.

and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed —

The CMB is nothing more than the background temperature of spacetime which is within 1/2 of one degree of Eddington's calculation based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of space. It took big bangers *four tries* to come up with a better 'estimate' than Eddington got on his very first attempt.

these effects should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism.[1][2][3]

All false. Holushko's tired light model predicts both signal broadening and the same basic redshift distance relationships. None of this nonsense is even true to begin with, but since the mainstream controls the page, the nonsense remains on the page. Not even one other published paper since Zwicky even *tried* to rule out anything other than the Compton scattering as the sole cause of photon redshift. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Items 1 and 2 are not even published references, and the third one is nearly 20 years old now and *rife* with it's own errors.

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests[4] and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.[5]

The forth reference on that page doesn't seem to even be directly related to tired light models, and the last one is *old news* compared to models by Holushko, and doesn't deal with Lerner's observation of a major brightness problem at higher redshift in LCDM.

Not only is that page almost 20 years old, or 80 years old in the case of Zwicky, it's in pure denial of every other study that been done on Tired light models. Only two cosmology models passed this test, specifically Holusko's tired light model and LCDM.

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience