More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:03 am

MotionTheory wrote:Sorry about being a bit unclear. LCDM failed because of given reason, i.e. their reason is incoherent. World need to come up with a logical coherent reason where 5th grader would understand easily.

neilwilkes wrote:Surely "LCDM ppl" - smart or otherwise - fail your criteria that the "Actual mechanism must physically be coherent and consistence. Of course, easy enough for a fifth grader to understand."
Or am I misreading/not understanding your point?


This quasar study is a *major* fail for the expansion interpretation of photon redshift.

An average fifth grader can understand that photons simply transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium as they pass through that medium as Chen has verified in the lab. Such an explanation for photon redshift is pretty simple, it violates no conservation of energy laws, and it's internally consistent.

An expansion interpretation of redshift however requires LCDM proponents to use 'bait and switch' devices like Doppler shift to try to support 'space expansion" claims, but that simply causes the average person to think that objects are moving in and through space because Doppler shift only applies to moving objects. The misuse of the Doppler shift concept by the mainstream simply confuses the average person. The expansion interpretation of redshift also violates the conservation of energy laws which requires a gigantic rationalization and it's confusing as hell. The expansion interpretation of redshift is also internally inconsistent. Astronomers claim that "space" cannot expand in our solar system, our galaxy, or galaxy supercluster because of the concentration of mass/energy makes it impossible for "space" to do it's magic expansion trick. However, they also inconsistently claim that if you concentrate all the mass/energy of the whole universe into something smaller than a breadbox in terms of volume, space expansion miraculously causes the whole thing to expand. It's self conflicted nonsense and even a fifth grader is likely to ask them about it. They're also likely to ask them what dark energy is and the mainstream can't explain it. They can't easily explain inflation either. No fifth grader could ever really understand the LCMD model because even the 'professionals" don't actually understand it, which is why they're using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it.

This quasar study is a big deal. It's a serious blow to the expansion interpretation of photon redshift. The first BB model failed to correctly predict the SN1A data, so it was modified dramatically by adding 'magic' energy, and a hell of a lot of it as well. Now the expansion model failed another quasar test at larger redshifts and dark energy can no longer simply be a constant as the current LCDM model 'predicted'. The properties of dark energy would have to be modified again to become a *variable* that actually becomes more dense as the volume continues to increase, which again defies the laws of physics even worse than claiming it retains a constant density as volume increases.

The mainstream will undoubtedly try to salvage their expansion interpretation of redshift by modifying the metaphysical properties of dark energy, but that's going to be tough to do, and take some time. That is because it has a direct effect on their baryonic acoustical oscillation claims related to the CMB, and it may also have some significant influence on their nucleosynthesis predictions as well. They have no clue at the moment how to begin to handle that data.

The "logical' and "rational' approach would be to go back to square one and revisit Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for photon redshift, specifically the tired light concept. Hubble's preferred explanation for photon redshift is congruent with Chen's lab results. It's congruent with conservation laws of energy. It's capable of replacing three different forms of metaphysics found in the LCDM model, specifically inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy. It's also entirely internally consistent, unlike the space expansion claim.

The mainstream is too proud however to do the "right" thing or the logical thing because for decades now they've been lying to everyone by claiming that Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding even though Hubble himself didn't believe them. :)

They'd have to "come clean" and admit that Hubble didn't claim to "prove" any such thing, and they've been lying their asses off for decades.

We'll therefore eventually see a modified big bang model that simply modifies the metaphysical properties of dark energy and they'll simply ignore the internal inconsistency of claiming that space expansion did it as well as the fact that the whole concept of space expansion is a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws of physics.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby neilwilkes » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:11 pm

@ both Michael & MotionTheory.

Believe me, I understand why LCDM is nonsense - but I have to congratulate Michael here on a beautifully succinct summarization of the facts that are generally swept under the carpet - you hit the point right away in the first paragraph and I cannot but be reminded yet again of Alfven's words in his "Cosmic Plasmas" where he points out that current theories have absolutely no foundation in empirical science and their proponents have simply ignored every falsification on the grounds that it may still be true "somewhere out there".
Dogma.

And Dogma is the province of religion - not science.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Sithri » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:08 pm

I don't think that the BB is not easy for a five-grader to understand. It's as simple as this: "Space is expanding because of redshift. Therefore, rewind time and we will have a singularity. Somehow, things had to expand from a singularity to form the universe we know now." Then they show a balloon to a fifth grader with dots on it. Then they expand the balloon. This explains how the universe expands with no center to it.

Although the fifth grader, not being daft, the questions may be raised: "What about the center of the balloon?"; "If space expands around mass, wouldn't it expand too much to push apart things?"; "What is space and time, then?"; "How does dark energy work? Would that require negative or positive energy?"; "How would a mass the size of a singularity expand if a black hole doesn't expand with its mass?" And, for a good final question: "Why does the expansion of space only work with light? Why don't we see the doppler shift of electrons and protons at high speeds?"

These questions themselves that the 5th grader may raise, while philosophical, tear the BB apart rather easily.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: More evidence that redshift is not related to expansion

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:35 pm

Sithri wrote:I don't think that the BB is not easy for a five-grader to understand. It's as simple as this: "Space is expanding because of redshift. Therefore, rewind time and we will have a singularity. Somehow, things had to expand from a singularity to form the universe we know now." Then they show a balloon to a fifth grader with dots on it. Then they expand the balloon. This explains how the universe expands with no center to it.

Although the fifth grader, not being daft, the questions may be raised: "What about the center of the balloon?"; "If space expands around mass, wouldn't it expand too much to push apart things?"; "What is space and time, then?"; "How does dark energy work? Would that require negative or positive energy?"; "How would a mass the size of a singularity expand if a black hole doesn't expand with its mass?" And, for a good final question: "Why does the expansion of space only work with light? Why don't we see the doppler shift of electrons and protons at high speeds?"

These questions themselves that the 5th grader may raise, while philosophical, tear the BB apart rather easily.


You're probably right about the *basic* concept of an expansion model being easy enough grasp, and easy enough to rip apart.

Besides the fact that the LCDM model is a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws, the crowning blow to the model is it's internally inconsistent use of "space expansion". In one breath they claim that space expansion is simply too weak to overcome the mass energy concentration of our solar system, our galaxy, our galaxy cluster and galaxy supercluster, but in the next breath they claim that all the mass/energy of the entire physical universe was stuffed into something smaller than the size of a shoebox, and "space expansion" spread it apart. It's the ultimate internally inconsistent use of space expansion imaginable. Even pure energy warps spacetime in GR theory so regardless of what state it might have been in to start with, the whole thing should have imploded instantly. Instead they evoke an internally inconsistent claim and they hope like hell that nobody catches it. I think some intelligent fifth graders would even catch the fact that their space expansion claim is internally inconsistent.

It's frankly hard to imagine how it's even possible to ever falsify the LCDM model if the fact that it violates the conservation of energy laws doesn't convince them, it's internal inconsistency doesn't convince them, their epic lab failures won't convince them, and their constant string of predictive failures at higher redshift won't convince them. Individually each one of those flaws should do the trick, but collectively the evidence is simply overwhelming that the BB model is wrong.

Being a proponent of EU/PC theory today is like being Aristarchus of Samos and noticing that there's a simpler and better explanation to explain observable events in space, but having to deal with and watch the Ptolemy faithful clinging to their ridiculously erroneous model for the next 1500 years because astronomer are just to proud and too arrogant to admit their obvious mistakes. Some guy eventually comes along 1500+ years later and *finally* convinces the mainstream to wake up and smell the empirical coffee, and suddenly he's the big hero. I can only imagine the complete and utter frustration that Bireland and Alfven must have dealt with.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests