A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Unread postby Keith Ness » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:41 am

Their theory says, “we can’t tell you exactly how dark energy works, because we can’t see it,” but they reject our simpler theory because it says, “we can’t tell you exactly how the non-Doppler redshift works, because we can’t see it.”

Also, is there any correlation between distance and galaxy rotation rates? I expect that we would see one, barring yet another mysterious mechanism to offset the correlation between velocity and light-train stretching.
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

Re: A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Unread postby Keith Ness » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:23 pm

Well, I tried but couldn't edit/delete my post in under an hour after posting it for some reason, so I am replying to it. Nevermind the question, I confused the light-train stretching effect of direct observation with what happens in observations of redshift. We can't directly observe any galactic rotation, meaning we can not make out any light-train. Sorry about that, it's been a while since I thought about the differences between the two.

But the point about the two theories still seems valid to me. It seems non-Doppler redshift is already currently the better theory. Both have an unknown, but, in what we do know in both theories, non-Doppler is simpler overall.
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

Re: A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Unread postby Keith Ness » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:55 pm

As I recover from about a week of insufficient sleep and food and too much leftover Halloween candy and election/post-election coverage/discussion, I realize that this thread has so far not added much to this forum. So I will attempt here to give this thread some more depth.

First of all, I put IGM redshift in the title because some kind of tired light is my current favorite explanation for the redshift-distance correlation, but the point of this thread was really much more general than that. Believe it or not, the posts above in this thread were inspired by this quote:

While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation. Until that one arrives, well, there's not much there to push as a replacement is there.


…from this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16356

My response to that quote is that we should not accept a theory merely because it has had the most (including the only) work done on it. I like how our ancestors, generally hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of years before we first circumnavigated the globe, assumed the Earth was round instead of assuming optical distortion (perhaps based on what they saw in water, glass, and metallic reflection) in the air over long distances when they noticed ships and mountains rising up out of and sinking down into the horizon on travels. I propose that part of the reason our ancestors did this was because line-of-sight issues were so much more common in our experience than so much proposed optical distortion, and therefore, there was less to take on faith overall in the former than in the latter; just like how literally the only reason we consider the Sun rising tomorrow to be simpler/more likely than it not rising tomorrow is because of past performance records (I propose that that’s even how we develop natural laws).

So, when the mainstream has such a strong pattern of overcomplicating things as I’ve seen in the areas I have significantly studied, I strongly expect that they are making the same mistake in the area of dark matter, even though I have studied dark matter very little, and it is perhaps their least suspicious theory to me. When it comes to the mainstream, I prefer to say that there always has been a better theory, the simplest which has not yet been irreparably falsified. That is, a Euclidean, Newtonian universe, with a non-Doppler redshift explaining the distance-redshift correlation, and extending in all directions of time and space forever (when a lack of infinity results in a logical contradiction, I propose that you can bet science can incorporate infinity), with the same distributions of mass we see on average, and evolving over time only at the rates and in the ways we’ve seen it evolve so far on average; and one in which normal matter which we haven’t detected and/or correctly measured yet accounts for all apparent exceptions. It’s the minimum change across time and space model. If you want to demonstrate that the universe HAS to be more complicated than that, then the burden of evidence is on you, not me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, in the absence of sufficient evidence, science prefers the simpler of two possible explanations.

Not surprisingly, given the illogic, unscientific conceit, and trajectory of complexity of their claims from the beginning, all attempts by the mainstream to falsify/complicate this simpler theory have failed. For example, all their attempts to rule out all non-Doppler redshift have turned out to be empty. “Time-dilation” of supernovae turns out to be pulse-curve broadening; Tolman surface brightness tests turn out to rule out only non-Euclidean static models. Even a static, Euclidean universe with infinite galaxies over infinite space turns out to best Olbers’ paradox, because amplitude would increase logarithmically towards an asymptote.

All the mainstream has provided are ever more complex phantom phenomena with little to no expectation of directly observing them, let alone any direct evidence, or even just acceptable indirect evidence. There is no compelling evidence of wibbly-wobbly time-space, phantom geometric systems, universal expansion, dark matter, dark energy, or dark chickens, yet they are all more complicated than the as-yet unfalsified, “normal matter which we haven’t detected and/or correctly measured yet.” Therefore they don’t exist, they are exercises in science fiction, before we even consider discovering the proposed normal matter and/or correctly measuring exactly what it is doing, just like we were right (not necessarily about the ultimate nature of the Earth, but in our methodology) to assume that the Earth was round so long before we completed our first circumnavigation of the globe.

Indeed, their devotion to the more complex theory is so strong that they keep to it even despite evidence such as that of quasars having proper motion! I suspect that the reason they are so strongly devoted as such is because they have a phobia of oversimplification. If this is the case, then their application of that phobia to science is in error, because proper science has no inclination against any given increase in complexity, except that it asks for evidence to back any such increase up. And the reason it has such an inclination is because that is the most effective way to balance the need to be open-minded with the need to not waste time pondering the literally endless number of things which are merely possible! Proper science never assumes, “It CAN’T be more complicated than what we already know,” and always factors the fact that things CAN be more complicated as such into its behavior. I propose that knowledge is more important than imagination, NOT vice-versa (though they both have greater-than-zero importance).

However, regardless of why the mainstream is so strongly devoted as such, its behavior over the last ~100 years has been no less absurd than a homicide detective commencing the investigation of a murder in the U.S. by immediately heading to the North Pole to hunt for a cloaked extraterrestrial alien base hiding an extraterrestrial alien who committed the murder based on no evidence whatsoever except the fact that the detective doesn’t know exactly who committed the murder yet. The only reason the mainstream is not so widely criticized as we would expect a homicide detective who would do that would be criticized is the fact that exotic physics is neither as accessible nor as immediately pressing as a homicide, and that there is some value in the freedom of exploring possibilities regardless of probability which science fiction, and more generally, art and religion, provide. People may benefit from such exploration in much the same way they benefit from taking breaks, sleeping and dreaming; but such exploration should always be clearly distinguished from, and considered less important than, strict science, so the mainstream has failed spectacularly in this regard.
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

Re: A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Unread postby orrery » Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:57 pm

A lot of people lean towards the Plasma Redshift Theory of Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson. He passed away and his website is no longer up but you can search his papers.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: A simple point and question about IGM redshift theory

Unread postby Keith Ness » Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:59 pm

Thanks for the info. I intend to look him up at some point.
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am


Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest