In no other field of physics would the introduction of three hypothetical entities, each unconfirmed by experimental evidence, be allowed to save a theory.
First of all: this is epistemologically nonsense. To begin with ,it is how physics works.
Technically it's *four* not three, including "space expansion", "inflation", "dark energy", and "cold dark matter", none of which enjoy any empirical support in laboratory cause/effect demonstrations of claim.
Apparently your attitude toward empirical physical explanations is nonsense. In every other *empirical* branch of physics, the intent is to use empirical physics as much as possible, as creatively as possible, to explain whatever we observe, in the *simplest* way possible, with the *least* number of "new" entities possible. We like to use "control mechanisms" in real lab tests too in an effort to verify *cause/effect* claims. That's how every other empirical branch of physics works. Even "standard" particle physics theory is based upon a now complete "standard model" of particles. It has no particular need for exotic forms of matter/energy. Any 'desire' you might have to find new particles should not be based upon some other need you have to prop up *a different* scientific theory.
You don't see the medical profession running around claiming that "voodoo energy" causes people to get sick, and simply ignore any inability they might have to "test" that claim in controlled empirical experiments.
Nature is out there using some complete set (call it Z) of laws of physics. A priori, we don't know what Z is. We construct hypotheses of the form "if the laws were X, the data would be Y". If X does not predict Y, then X != Z and we have to say "we don't know the laws of Nature Z" and we are supposed to keep guessing. All such guesses are extensions of X beyond what you guessed first.
It's one thing to posit *one* new hypothetical entity to explain an "unknown" observation. In my medical example, it would be "bad enough" to insert "voodoo energy" into the discussion about human sickness without any empirical cause/effect justification. If the the same folks however claimed that "voodoo energy" is the primary cause of sickness, but "voodoo matter" sometimes hits human cells and destroys them and makes people sick too, *and* it's all caused by the voodoo deity called "inflation", do you really think anyone would take that claim seriously in the halls of medicine today?
Using *ordinary* inelastic scattering processes in plasma, and the *known* process of pulse spreading, we can explain *ordinary* photon redshift, and *ordinary* increases in signal duration over distance. There's no need to resort to anything other than empirical forms of physics to explain what we observe from space. As both papers (including the one I cited in this thread) demonstrate, tired light/static universe theory easily explains every observation we might mathematically model.
All Eric is doing is proposing an *average* energy loss over distance based upon "observation". LCDM does exactly the same postdiction from observation, but in order to get a fit, LCDM must introduce *four* cause/effect claims that defy empirical validation, and in most cases could never be demonstrated in labs on Earth (space expansion/acceleration").
Why do we even need *one* voodoo/hypothesis to explain human sickness? Why must we "assume" that some hypothetical form of energy *must* exist, from simple photon redshift and pulse broadening observations from space?
Eric thinks that he knows Z already:
Everyone seems to think that they have Z figured out now. You do it too, so quit whining. The hypocrisy factor is simply off scale.
the actual laws of Nature have to be (he thinks) the ones observed directly in pre-2016 labs.
In the field of medicine, they typically do not "assume" that additional forms of matter or energy are required to explain the human condition. Electrical engineers don't usually spend their days "hoping" to find additional forms of matter or energy in an effort to apply their trade to real life problems. Why would astronomers be the *single exception*? Even particle physicists would be 'ok' with the standard particle physics model if LHC sees nothing new in the upper energy ranges. Even if particle physicists do see some additional 'transitory' particle(s) in those upper energy range experiments, that still wouldn't validate *your* claims about the existence of "cold dark matter'.
He thinks astronomers are only allowed to rearrange the "known" ingredients into different sorts of clouds and clusters and streams.
He thinks, just like Hubble before him that we should start by suggesting a clever arrangement of *ordinary* matter/energy ingredients *before* jumping to the conclusion that additional matter/energy must exist in nature.
This is bizarre.
Nope, it's ordinary 'science', including the procedures of "medicine". Nobody in the medical profession *requires* there to be additional forms of matter or energy in order for them to heal human beings.
Every physicist since Fermi and Rabi has known that Nature might have huge catalogues of new particles up her sleeve, and that some such particles might be hard or impossible to detect.
You mean 100 years ago or more?
Everyone except you! You seem to have some inside information telling you that protons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos are the whole story. What information is that?
Well, for starters it's based upon about 100 years of experiments with particle physics. The "standard" particle physics model is now "complete" in the lab Ben. It works very well to explain pretty much every particle collision we've ever seen to date in any lab on Earth. They even found the Higgs Boson at LHC, the *last* remaining "required" particle of the standard particle physics model.
Compare and contrast that with your mythical menagerie of SUSY "sparticles", none of which have been seen to date at LHC or anywhere else.
Secondly: Eric remains (as of 2003 anyway) confused about whether dark matter and dark energy are overconstrained or not.
I don't know what Eric thinks, but apparently your industry is starting to *panic* with respect to how "overconstrained" CDM is at this point.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 213454.htm
As experiments place ever more stringent constraints on the strength of dark matter interactions, there are some current theories that end up overestimating the quantity of dark matter in the universe. To bring theory into alignment with observations, Davoudiasl and his colleagues suggest that another inflationary period took place, powered by interactions in a "hidden sector" of physics.
CDM has gotten so "constrained" now, you need a "double virgin inflation birth", lest your whole theory bite the dust this time, not just BICEP2 claims. Holy Cow. If you can't get inflation to work right the first time, just give it a second miracle expansion cycle, and fudge the numbers some more! Come on. You've constrained CDM to the point of absurdity and you refuse to let it die an ordinary scientific death.
Your entire *justification* for CDM in *your* industry comes from *botched mass estimates* in decades old lensing studies. Many studies since 2006 demonstrate that your industry was incapable of even correctly predicting the correct number of *whole stars* in various galaxies. You missed the number by a huge factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy! You not only "constrained" your mythical matter to the point that you now need a "double inflation miracle" just to get a good "fit" again, you folks also demonstrated that your whole justification for claiming that exotic matter was "out there" in the first place was based upon your *botched* galaxy estimates from 2006. Oy Vey.
He thinks we threw four crazy ideas into a Cosmic Microwave Background fit, saw a good chi^2, and started collecting Nobel prizes based on unusually little confirmation. Nonsense.
Actually, that's pretty much how it's worked for the past several decades. You took *one specific* wavelength of light from suns in various galaxies, and you tried to build a federal case about that one range of low energy wavelengths. As I explained earlier in this thread, your entire case fell apart in Planck and further galaxy mass estimate revelations. The light that we observe in microwave wavelengths comes from *suns* and *galaxies* and *ordinary scattering*, just like every other wavelength. It's not coming from some mythical surface of a snow globe universe.
It's terrifically overconstrained. Multiple independent cosmology observables provide cross-predictions for each other. I have said this five times and Eric seems deaf to it.
We aren't deaf to it ben, we realize how "constrained" you really are, and some of us even feel a bit sorry for you too. You're so 'constrained', you can't deal with those revelations of stellar miscounts. You have to simply bury your collective heads in the sand and pretend that it doesn't matter that you *grossly* botched the baryonic mass estimates in 2006. You're so constrained that you are simply powerless to make any changes to your model, because the whole nucleosynthesis claim falls apart when you try to swap "exotic" matter with ordinary matter. All your pretty nice little nucleosynthesis claims go flying right out the window!
You're so "constrained" in terms of 'dark energy', you can't handle budging those percentages even though you've since discovered that SN1A events come in *at least* two different "candles", not one "standard" candle as you first claimed. You can't handle that information either, because of your *constraints*. The moment you budge from the mythical matter/energy claims, your whole hydrogen/helium abundance claims go flying out the window.
We all know what the problem is ben. You're *too* constrained by your own supernatural monstrosity to budge significantly on any part of your 4 supernatural claims.
EU/PC theory however doesn't *care* how many "candles" that might exist in SN1A events. It doesn't *require* any specific number in fact. The only thing it requires is a *logical* addition to your *overly simplistic* concepts related to photon redshift and signal broadening feature that are *observed* in the lab in ordinary plasma. EU/PC isn't so "constrained" that it cannot be changed based upon new evidence. On the other hand, your so "constrained", you're forced to embrace pure denial on every one of the four hypothetical foundational parts of LCDM.
Thirdly: In this thread, Eric seems willing look at one isolated cosmological data fit and invent new physics to make sense of it---
That's usually how all papers work Ben. I have however handed you *other* studies, using *other* isolated cosmological data, and it also demonstrates the viability of tired light and static universe theory. Deal with it, and quit claiming that EU/PC theory doesn't enjoy mathematical support. That is utter nonsense.
even at the cost of that "new physics" being apparently Lorentz-violating nonlocal craziness in which otherwise-indistinguishable photons need to remember how far they've traveled so far in order to decide how much they need to stretch in wavelength.
That's just a silly strawman. Eric isn't inventing any "new physics". Pulse spreading and inelastic scattering have been know about and observed in the lab for a very long, long, long time ben. The fact you have *failed* to address or account for these *known and demonstrated* processes in plasma, is the whole reason that you need at least three of your four hypothetical constructs!
(Presumably he holds out some hope that this will turn out to be a plasma-physics phenomenon. I don't know why he expects anyone else to hold out such a hope.)
Why would anyone hold out hope that the physics of photons passing through space plasma is the same as the physics of photons passing through plasma on Earth? Who would hold out hope that pulse broadening happens in *matter/medium* in space, simply because it happens in *matter/medium" in labs here on Earth ben?
Sheesh. This conversation is surreal. LCDM requires that photons magically weave and dodge their way around every EM field gradient, every temperature gradient, and every particle for billions of light years to magically arrive at Earth completely unaffected by the medium through which it traveled. Give it rest Ben.
Eric is simply introducing constants that are related to *known physics* in plasma on Earth. You should have added those constants long ago, but others are having to do your work for you. Your plasma physics models are way *too primitive*, and too simplistic. They don't correctly account for pulse spreading and ordinary photon redshift in plasma as we see in happen in plasma in labs on Earth.
In fact, most of your plasma physics claims are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory and based upon a claim that Alfven personally made 'obsolete' with his double layer paper.
The moment you folks wake up and start modeling plasma *correctly*, your entire metaphysical show is busted. Circuit theory and ordinary plasma physics processes can easily account for photon redshift and pulse broadening features from high energy events in space.
