I'm saying that your answers are gross complications
The mainstream has consistently tried to oversimplify the conditions of spacetime since the dawn of "astronomy". First they began by assuming a "vacuum" was all that existed between objects in space. We now know that plasma and plasma threads connect all the dots.
When the mainstream first tried to "model" plasma, it treated plasma like a "gas", and assumed it pretty much acted like a "gas". They also "ignored/dumbed down", the whole electrical aspect, and they only consider the *magnetic* aspects to this very day, to the nearly complete exclusion of all of the electrical aspects.
I'm afraid that mainstream astronomers have a long history of grossly oversimplifying conditions in space, and it's just as prevalent today as it's ever been with respect to electric fields in spacetime, and the oversimplified ways they treat plasma. Alfven called their models "pseudoscience" till the day he died.
Astronomers oversimplify everything which is why they require so much metaphysical nonsense as "gap filler" in their understanding of the universe. LCDM hypothesis is a full 95 percent gap filler now, and 5 percent "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory.
A lot of the concepts you are talking about were first proposed when "space" was believed to contain an "ether".
Spacetime does contain an electromagnetic aether of sorts. When photons traverse a changing magnetic field, it produces a process known as "Brillouin scattering" by the way. There are lots of possibilities as it relates to inelastic scattering in space, including the effect of EM field gradients and temperature gradients in spacetime, not just *just* Compton scattering. FYI, Holushko did a pretty nice job describing a "tired light" model that is related to that "bumpy road" concept with respect to photon emissions. It was even "put to the test" in that other study that I cited for you, and it's one of only two cosmology models that does pass that particular test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_scattering
Yes, the estimates of interstellar and intergalactic material have changed, but the observational effects of these are well known.
Er no, your collective beliefs on this topic are well entrenched in "dogma" at the moment, nothing more. Astronomers have been underestimating mass continuously since the dawn of time.
Just look at all those "missing baryons" that showed up in 2012. That "missing mass" (in 2006) makes up *more* baryonic mass than all the previous mass they had ever found in human history prior to 2012.
"Space", on average, is still pretty much a vacuum. About 1 molecule per cm^3, mostly ionized gas with a tiny fraction of dust.
That is again a gross oversimplification. The universe is *threaded* because of the currents that generate those threads. The threads are more dense, and clouds of all kinds are more dense than that 'average' you're describing.
Indeed, Eddington calculated the energy density, and thus the "average temperature" of interstaller space, but the spectrum of this energy in his model does not fit observation.
It does well enough for a basic calculation, and there isn't any *published* material that supports your claim, just some lame unpublished rant by Ned Wright. Please cite me a *published* paper to support your claim.
It is also irrelevant to the Big Bang, as the interstellar radiation field is not the same as the CMB, and the two are observationally different.
No they are not. What we observe is exactly what Eddington expected to observe, namely a "background radiation" that was directly related to dust being heated by starlight. There is a "background" temperature of spacetime related to that dust/light interaction in spacetime. So what? It took "big bangers" more several tries to get *closer than Eddington", and their first "prediction" was off by an entire order of magnitude! Some "prediction". That was about the *worst* prediction of "big bang" theory, except for the "prediction" the expansion slowed down over time.
That botched prediction required 70 percent metaphysical gap filler to patch BB "theory?" back together again.
It also doesn't help answer either paradox - you might call this interstellar field "thermal equilibrium", but the universe is certainly not in thermal equilibrium, as the presence of stars and the ability to perform useful work shows.
Neither "paradox" is applicable. If the suns stopped producing heat, the heat would *dissipate* over time. If anything you'd have a "cold death" scenario related to such a complete mass/energy dissipation process. The only thing that continues to emit heat is the stars, otherwise "spacetime" is cold. Eddington explained that whole aspect of energy distribution.
"Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18degK it is much richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature."
He was right about that point too due to the nature of stars, and their *electrical* components. That's why suns emit more x-ray and gamma-rays than would be "predicted" by a "black body" calculation.
Interestingly, Eddington also proved that a static model of the universe (based on fine-tuning the Cosmological Constant in Einstein's GR) is unstable.
I'm afraid Eddington got overruled by Alfven's inclusion of circuit theory.
Dust doesn't get you out of this one, and even if it did, it certainly doesn't help you with the fact that an eternal infinite universe would continue to approach thermal equilibrium, leading to the Heat Death Paradox.
No. First of all there would be no "heat death" going on if all mass/energy of the universe was evenly distributed throughout spacetime. In fact it would be rather cold. The "heat sources" for the "dust" of spactime that Eddington describes are *stars*, and starlight. Gravity and momentum ensures the fact that the universe will remain "lumpy", and that it never will be in perfect thermal equilibrium, or achieve a perfect mass/energy distribution over time. Your whole "heat death" argument is *moot point* in the *real* universe, and it technically would be a "cool death", not a hot one.
Eddington's "background temperature" of dust explains your Obler's paradox too. *Dust* converts energy into lower states of energy, ultimately the ones we observe in CMB images.
He proposed a redshifting due to "the difference of the static gravitational potential at different distances from the center of a galaxy", but also himself notes that this would produce redshifts unrelated to the distance to that galaxy, which contradicted measurements available at the time.
Well, either way, he didn't "assume" that it was a "Doppler" shift related phenomenon. I think he remained open minded toward Zwicky's "tired light" ideas as I recall.
He also very kindly provided a falsifiable prediction from this - that the absorption lines would also be widened. Since then, observation has again caught up to theory and falsified it.
I'm not sure why he expected absorption lines to be "widened", but there are plenty of newer options on the table since that time.
Holushko's model was even put to the mathematical test for you in that Alcock-Paczyński test and it passed.
Not sure how this is relevant - this "twice as bright" result is due to observing that the interstellar dust (not intergalactic!) builds up along the plane of a galaxy, and not towards the center.
Either way, it's just *one* of at least *ten* different observations/falsification related to the flawed baryonic mass estimates used in that 2006 paper, and/or lab tests of "dark matter" theory in the past decade. How many "fails" does it take to kill a bad idea that was born of basic ignorance related to mass/energy concentrations in various galaxies? They even botched the stellar mass estimates in those lensing studies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.
The paper by Lerner re-works existing surface brightness data into a Static Euclidean Universe with "a linear Hubble Relation at all z". It also very specifically refuses to comment on what might cause this (such as a tired-light mechanism).
The other paper I cited selected one such tired light mechanism.
I suppose that this shows the current data can be re-worked into another consistent model,
Ya, one that doesn't require 95 percent metaphysics. That fact alone piques my interest.
but the authors seem aware that tired-light has a number of other issues (which it does) that preclude it from consideration.
Where did that occur? Which authors? Which sentence?
The Alcock-Paczyński paper concludes that:
"Only two of the six models above fit the data of the Alcock-Paczyński test: concordance ΛCDM and static universe with tired-light redshift"
Which doesn't help you much either.
Actually it helps me a great deal.
I long ago presented Holushko's "tired light" paper for consideration. It's no surprise to me that it "passes" such tests, in fact I assumed it would pass all such tests, and it does.
I would be, it has been theoretically and observationally falsified.
When? By which exhaustive and published study of inelastic scattering was it falsified? I've shown you two observational tests that it passes with flying colors. How was it "observationally falsified" in your mind?
I'll read that a bit more carefully, but I don't see how it helps here. It appears to swap expansion of space in a Friedman Model to some kind of time dilation, using an observer "moving with the speed of light".
It helps in the sense that real movement of real objects and simple time dilation (from GR) would explain these observations without any need of 'space expansion' or the other metaphysical aspects of "space acceleration", etc. Now it's also possible its a "combo deal" where inelastic scattering is "partially" the cause, and movement of objects/time dilation might explain the rest.
I wasn't really here to discuss EU theory, as we started with Static Eternal Universes and "tired light". What is the link between EU theory and SEU's/tired light? Is it because EU theory needs some kind of explanation for redshift, and the only other explanation offered is Alfven's "time dilation is object movement"? I would be curious to see a link to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Alfv.C3.A9n-Klein_cosmology
Alfven (unlike Holushko) was inclined to believe that the universe was expanding. EU/PC theory allows for both possibilities, and in fact *all* possibilities related to matter/energy movement patterns.
While we're on the subject of exiting the realm of empirical physics, one of us certainly is doing so ;-)
Well, it's not me. I don't need 95 percent metaphysical gap filler to explain events in spacetime.
