Professional incompetence in cosmology theory in 2020

[Michael Mozina]

A number of recent post over at CF has really solidified my suspicion that the primary problem in astronomy today is related to pure physical and professional incompetence.

sjastro's recent installment of "huge problems in PC theory" revolves around his insistence that mythical unicorns, er "hypothetical monopoles", are somehow a "major weakness" of the PC model.

Here's the key statement/assumption" of the argument: "Here is another example where Plasma cosmology is contradicted by particle physics involving magnetic monopoles."

Now "assuming" that any such things are ever shown to exist in a real laboratory experiment, Maxwell's equations would need to undergo a mathematical adjustment, but of course PC theory could and would be modified to adjust itself to such an actual 'particle', regardless of whether it tried to "explain" their existence. Newton's and Einstein's equations well describe gravity without necessarily "explaining" where the original energy/mass came from. Note however that there current is no "particle physics involving monopoles", there is only "hypothetical physics" in such areas.

The crux of sjastro's argument is that somehow PC theory *disallows* for very high "original temperatures" to exist, therefore no "explanation" of the existence of monopoles is immediately available. Apparently the physical possibility that no such particle even actually has exist never seems to cross his mind. He also seems to "assume" that discharges could never account for such high temperatures.

He goes on to try to tie the inflat(i)on field together with the the Higg's field, and somehow 'pretends' that inflation (which supposedly explains why there are no monoples today) is still 100 percent compatible with inflation. Of course when talking about math which is based on entirely "metaphysical" concepts, anything and everything is possible. Never mind the fact that Penrose mathematically demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe will form *with* inflation rather than without it!

Hoy Vey.

Now this in itself would be a fine example of incompetence when it comes to solid physics arguments, but when you combine it with their whole Olber's paradox fiasco of a physics argument, their complete inability to "explain" anything about their own actual physical models, including explaining where dark energy, comes from, it's exact energy state, etc, their entire problem comes back to pure professional incompetence. That's also true as it relates to their truly *pitiful* grasp of electric universe models, including "no neutrinos", etc.

Another fine example revolves around the concept of "magnetic reconnection" which is technically *only* possible in the presence of monoples.

In the *real* world of physics in the lab, "magnetic fields" form as a full 3D "topology" which might be "mapped" by imaginary "lines" for purposes of a visual representation on a 2D map, but they form a full 3D topology which can and typically does change over a period of time.

When such a magnetic field topology change over time is introduced inside of a "conductor" (like metals and plasma), that topology change can "induce" charged particle movement inside the of the conductor and generate electric fields. Inside of a "plasma", unlike a "solid", positively charged ions to also "move" and flow as a result of those changes, not just electrons. It's still a form of "induction" however.

Astronomers try to "dumb down" all EM oriented processes in space to magnetism alone, which simply isn't physically accurate. Alfven therefore used "circuit theory" in plasma to explain all sustained high energy events in plasma, and he used induction to explain "bursts" of moving charged particles through a "double layer" discharge event, including the aurora and including solar flares, and any and all high energy events in plasma.

When you sit and look at this issue from the standpoint of pure empirical laboratory physics, nothing about the mainstream model is particularly useful, including "magnetic reconnection" which is incapable of "sustaining" high energy plasma over time, and which has never been physically differentiated from "induction" in the first place. They can't even show a single paper citing any series of experiments where such a differentiation takes place at the level of actual physics.

The original reconnection "models" were so slow they were physically and mathematically too slow to "explain" a solar flare, and the new ones are physically incapable of being shown in a real lab to produce *sustained* high temperatures over long periods of time, like hours and days in the case of coronal loops.

The LCMD model is based on 95 percent of what can only be described as placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's tenets defy the known laws of physics, including energy conservation laws, and and they are incompatible with standard particle physics model.

sjastro sees all this deviation from the laws of known physics as some sort of "strength" of their model, but alas, in the light of day, they are all truly *horrific* flaws in their model.

Even with 95 percent metaphysical mathematical fudge factors to work with, the LCMD model is *still* internally self conflicted with respect to the speed of the Hubble expansion concept. In fact there is now a five sigma conflict between the two approaches. They've essentially "discovered" that their model is mathematically and physically broken, and they cannot even decide yet how to "fix' it.

Mainstream astronomy has literally become almost entirely detached from physical reality as we know it to exist in the lab.

That's why a full century after circuit theory was used to reproduce a sustained full sphere corona in a lab, and a sustained planetary aurora in a lab, that same effect has not, and never will be replicated with "magnetic reconnection" in a real laboratory experiment.

When it comes right down to it, the real problem in astronomy today is just professional and physical incompetence, and it suffers from a bad case of "wishful thinking" when it comes to violating known laws of physics.

Astronomers simply cannot peacefully coexist with physics in the lab, therefore astronomers are almost entirely detached from physical reality, right down to violating known laws of physics.

[Michael Mozina]

After publicly debating astronomy theory for a decade and a half, I realize now that I've been incredibly naive when it comes to giving astronomers the benefit of the doubt with respect to their actual scientific abilities. I originally "assumed" that their math skills provided them with some insight into physics and physical processes that the average person may not easily comprehend. What I realize now however is that their math skills are more akin to a metaphysical noose around their neck which prevents them from even beginning to understand simple *empirical* concepts, like induction in plasma as result of magnetic field topology changes over time, circuit theory as it applies to plasma, the inverse square laws of light, etc.

It seems like their math skills are actually quite limited and useless, and mostly relate to esoteric and metaphysical nonsense like "dark energy" and "dark matter" and inflation genies that create universes by pure "magic". Their math skills have virtually no useful or practical application outside of perhaps a tiny bit of math that is used to navigate inside of our solar system, most of which is still done with Newton's formulas for gravity. Not much else of their mathematical toolkit has any practical application to the physics of space, or empirical physics.

This is why we see astronomers intentionally ignoring the role of electricity in space. They don't even understand the most rudimentary aspects of circuit theory and how it's applied to plasma. They don't "understand" the physics of electricity and magnetism at all in fact. That's why astronomers continue to promote a "magnetic reconnection" concept that Alfven called 'pseudoscience' until the day he died, and they fail to be able to simulate something as simple as a hot full sphere corona or a planetary aurora in a real lab experiment based on MRx, over a *century* after it was done with circuit theory.

The actual "physics" of the universe is a complete mystery to astronomers. They cannot explain where "dark energy" comes from. They can't explain how to use such a mythical concept in an actual lab experiment. Even after spending billions of dollars on lab tests, they still can't explain 'dark matter', or demonstrate that it's not a figment of their overactive imagination. They literally have no clue how to explain 95 percent of their own model!

The mathematics of the LCDM model is almost (not entirely) completely inapplicable to anything one might try to demonstrate in a real lab experiment. Instead of their math skills actually being "useful", they've become a type of personal prison of sorts, that acts as a framework of conceptualization which they cannot think outside of.

It really doesn't seem to matter one iota to them that the LCDM model *violates known laws of physics*, multiple times in fact. As long as the math works out on paper, they simply don't care about it's obvious physical flaws. Every type of energy known to science *decreases* with exponential increases in volume, and their metaphysical "dark energy" is the ultimate violation of conservation of energy laws.

We also see this blatant physical incompetence play itself out on their blogs when they try to "debunk" alternative concepts, like Lyin' Brian Koberlein falsely claiming that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos". They do not even begin to attempt to properly "understand" alternatives to their model because that would require them to "think outside of their little dark invisible boxed in universe". The worst part is not that they make such bone head mistakes in conceptualizing alternative models, it's the fact that not a single actual astronomer ever once tried to *correct the mistakes*. Instead they just ignored the obvious problem with Koberlein's false claims, and pretended to "debunk" electric universe ideas based on a completely *false* concept.

I've finally come to realize that astronomers are incapable of thinking for themselves. It "scares" them to death because it requires them to fully evaluate the scientific merits of their own model, and they simply cannot do that without risking their professional careers and without alienating themselves from their peers. They're afraid to even look the core problems in their own model and afraid to even *attempt* to understand any alternatives.

Consider the *enormous* problems with the LCDM model for a moment. Not only does it violate conservation of energy laws with "space expansion", it violates the conservation of energy laws a second time with 'dark energy". The LCDM model is completely incompatible with the standard particle physics model, the most successful physics theory in the history of a particle physics. The LCDM model is even *self conflicted* (over five sigma now) with respect to calculating the Hubble constant, the core feature of their expansion model. The cognitive dissonance required to hold the LCDM belief requires them to *ban* any and all public discussion of alternatives on their websites, and ban any and all public criticism of their model. It requires them to turn their back on empirical physics entirely. Their cognitive dissonance forces them to make blatantly false assertions about EU theory, like it predicts "no neutrinos" or "there is no math to support EU theory".

Astronomers are actually the least competent group of physicists on the planet, and their math skills are essentially useless at predicting or simulating anything in the lab.

[Michael Mozina]

A recent post by sjatro at CF illustrates this point about professional incompetence in astronomy in 2020.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75328973

In a previous post it was shown Plasma Cosmology is incompatible with nuclear physics....

Er, no. In a previous post sjastro "aledged' that PC theory was incompatible with unicorns and monopoles, neither of which have ever been shown to actually exist in nature.

as it cannot explain the existence of cosmic chronometers in an infinitely old universe.

This is also a patently untrue assertion since Dr. Oliver Manuel, with a PHD in nuclear physics, Hilton Ratcliffe and myself have written about that very topic. In an infinitely old universe the neutron, specifically neutron stars are the 'infinite' and ageless component of the universe. Everything else, from hydrogen atoms to electrons are created by a release of neutrons, and via fusion processes, various elements are transformed into heavier elements over time.

Any "chronometers" which might be available to us in such an eternal environment would relate to when *specific events* transformed various elements into their recent form. They would not necessarily need to be related to any *singular* recent event however (like a bang).

https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

Similarly it incompatible at the smaller time scales of particle physics such as being unable to explain how free neutrons which have a half life of 15 minutes have “enough time” to form nuclei.

A "neutron star" allows for stable neutrons to exist at much more massive scales than the atomic nuclei, and they can remain in such a configuration over billions of years.

Emissions of neutrons from such macroscopic structures might result in the release of free electrons and free protons, and free neutrinos. As long as one allows for fusion to occur, then hydrogen can fuse into heavier elements over time.

Theoretically neutron stars can become very massive due to mergers with other materials, but it wouldn't necessarily have to become *as* massive as mainstream models which attempt to estimate the object's mass based on x-ray emissions. In PC theory the x-ray emissions would relate more to amount of current flowing through the plasma atmosphere around the neutron star rather than induced currents generated by gravity alone.

As a result Plasma Cosmology offers no explanation for the evolution of elements in the universe.

That's obviously false. sjastro is ignoring the fact that all EU/PC solar models include fusion processes, typically fusion that is related to z-pinch and coronal loop activity. Both Alfven's solar model relies on internal solar fusion, as would a cathode model.

Stars might even form and explode themselves *back* into neutron stars if conditions are favorable.

Big Bang Cosmology has no such compatibility issues with particle physics

Absolutely false! BBC is *completely and totally *incompatible* with the *standard particle physics model*. Period, end of story. It cannot peacefully coexist with the standard particle physics model, whereas PC theory is *completely* compatible with the standard model of particle physics, and whatever "hypothetical changes" might eventually occur, should they actually ever occur at all.

Since Plasma Cosmology is a static model there is no temperature scaling with expansion and as demonstrated in post #107 the temperature is too low for the interaction to occur.

It really doesn't matter if there is temperature scaling in EU/PC models. Temperatures in space aren't limited to the effects of gravity *alone* in EU/PC models, and effectively the *amount of current*, the density of that current, and the density of the plasma conducting that current, along with it's physical properties will determine the highest energy concentrations in the universe, and they will vary over time.

There's still *plenty* of enough energy to explain how fusion occurs, and how even very high energy and temperatures can exist in a PC model.

Essentially sjastro is "making it up" as he goes with respect to strawman arguments about PC theory.

I should point out that PC theory is compatible with both a static/eternal universe (which I personally favor), and also an expanding universe, and even a universe which expands and contracts locally in various places. There's nothing inherently limiting about PC theory with respect to particle physics, or electromagnetism.

On the other hand, the LCDM model violates conservation of energy laws *twice*, it's internally self conflicted with respect to estimating the expansion constant which it is based upon, and it's incompatible with virtually every high redshift observation in space. Distant galaxies and quasars are far to 'massive" and "mature" to fit nicely into the expansion model.

The LCDM model is completely at odds with *standard particle physics*! Think about that for a moment. It's physically incompatible with the most successful particle physics model in the history of particle physics and which allows for technologies like our computers to even exist.

When you really look at the 'pros' and the 'cons' of various cosmology models, you really have to compare the relative 'problems' and seriousness of those problems to each other. Any cosmology model that requires us to toss out laws of physics, and which is *inherently* incompatible with the standard particle physics model is far less plausible than any cosmology model which neither violates any laws of physics, and which *is* compatible with the standard particle physics model, circuit theory, etc.

When you really look at and analyze the arguments against PC theory which are put forth by "professional astronomers" and "scientists", they are simply irrational, and highly ironic arguments. sjastro really needs to pull the metaphysical logs out of the eyes of his own cosmology model before he starts discussing the hypothetical problems with other models.

He obviously doesn't understand his *own* model very well, and he clearly doesn't understand any of the proposed "solutions" to any of the problems he seems to imagine in PC theory.

The part that blows me away is the fact that when we look at the highest redshift part of the universe, it shows no signs at all of "evolution over time". The galaxies at the highest redshifts are as massive and as mature as the ones in our local neighborhood. The quasars as absolutely *massive*, far more massive than the mainstream model allows for, and there's no sign of evolution over time.

The LCDM model is incompatible with the standard particle physics model, it violates known laws of physics multiple times, and it is internally self conflicted with respect to the estimation of the Hubble constant which it is based upon. Its at odds with virtually every high redshift observation of space made over the past two decades as well.

One would expect that a "professional" could and would attempt to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of various cosmology models in a fair and honest manner. In this case however, I see no signs of any such internal self reflection.

https://www.christianforums.com/proxy.p ... edf32419d7

Even the graphic he's using in the post is rather ironic. It begins with an assumption about a "theory of everything", which requires a quantum description of gravity that does everything that GR theory does with respect to gravity, though no such thing exists, and the LCDM model is based on a *spacetime curvature* definition of gravity.

The GUT involved only apparently attempts to explain the *standard* model of particle physics, though the LCDM model is incompatible with that particular particle physics model. I'm guessing it's a GUT slide from 30 years ago before the invention (out of whole cloth) of 'dark energy' and the transformation of 'dark matter' in the LCDM model into "exotic forms of matter which are incompatible with the standard particle physics model". Funny stuff.

[Michael Mozina]

With respect to concept of a universe that experiences "evolution over time", the mainstream has been continuously moving the goalposts. First we were told that the distant universe would only have some hydrogen gas which would take time to 'clump" themselves into masses which became large enough to form stars and galaxies. These "first generation' stars then supposedly ionized the surrounding material and eventually went 'supernova" forming "black holes", "neutron stars", and producing the first various heavy elements. Galaxies were said to have merged with other galaxies and took a long time to form "mature" features like spirals and such. According to their "dark matter" models the satellite galaxies should have aligned themselves randomly around the entire halo of the galaxy, whereas in reality they are aligned mostly along the disk of the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 21437b2971

More importantly, when we look at the highest redshift images for the past two decades, they don't show any signs of evolution over time:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -in-young/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 010919.php

"Our theoretical study predicts that we might be missing a substantial fraction of the population of these 'phantom quasars.' If they are indeed numerous, it would revolutionize our idea of what happened right after the Big Bang, and even change our view of how these cosmic monsters grew up in mass," said Pacucci.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... -universe/

Bhatawdekar and her team probed the early universe from about 500 million to 1 billion years after the big bang by studying the cluster MACS J0416 and its parallel field with the Hubble Space Telescope (with supporting data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and the ground-based Very Large Telescope of the European Southern Observatory). "We found no evidence of these first-generation Population III stars in this cosmic time interval," said Bhatawdekar of the new results.

Essentially there is a serious and significant problem with the whole mainstream concept of evolution over time, particularly stellar, quasar and galaxy evolution. The distant universe looks pretty much identical to our local universe. Not that much seems to have changed. Galaxies then were "massive" and "mature" with respect to their structure, just as they are here in our local region of space. The stellar composition in the early universe looks pretty much just like it does in our own galaxy. There's no sign of any "first generation" stars in the distant universe.

The mainstream must therefore "make it up as they go" and make up excuses as to why their 'predictions' were all wrong. They need to "postdict" a whole new "evolutionary process" that "explains" why no evolution seems to have taken place at all.

There's nothing useful about the LCDM expansion model. It's a metaphysical mess which is internally self conflicted and which is at odds with the laws of physics, and direct high redshift observation.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75342293

sjastro's recent 'complaint' about EU/PC models (plural) is another great example of incompetence in action, particularly when you include his last Olber's paradox argument about "surface brightness" of suns. For a brief explanation of the "CMB", you might peruse this thread:

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=3&t=261

The problems Plasma cosmology has with the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) have been covered in earlier posts.
The Alfven-Klein model doesn’t predict it, the Eddington version is not a blackbody,

sjastro is wrong on all counts. *All* cosmology models which presume that starlight is absorbed and scattered by dust in space predicts an 'average temperature" of space, including both an expanding PC model and a static PC model. Eddington nailed the correct temperature to within 1/2 of one degree based on that model, whereas it took "big banger" several tries to get any closer.

Robitaille’s version is pure nonsense

No, his arguments are pretty solid actually, although I wish he'd spend more time on the fact that *every* sun in *every* galaxy is a prolific emitter of microwaves.

and Lerner’s model predicts circular polarization of CMB photons which is not observed.

Actually the currents of space time are in fact 'observed" in terms of polarization patterns from the dust and particles in the currents.

The CMB is an almost perfect blackbody but exhibits very slight anisotropy due to temperature fluctuations of around ΔT = 18 μK.

It's not a "prefect" anything until it's "made" to become "smooth" by removing all the stuff that isn't smooth, mostly the effects of our own galaxy and the closest galaxies to us.

These temperature fluctuations are due to regions of over and under density of the CMB.
Lerner’s model is the nearest to something that resembles a CMB but fails to predict these small scale temperature variations which are shown as mottled regions in the Planck satellite image.

Those mottled regions are simply areas where galaxy clusters are located closer to us, whereas the bluer and cooler areas are regions where there are few galaxy clusters which are close to us in those areas.

The red central region is our galaxy.

Suffice to say that a "raw" solar and sjastro's raw Planck microwave images tell the full story, like the first image sjastro cites in his post. Any raw microwave satellite image shows *very clearly* that our galaxy (and every other galaxy in the universe) are prolific emitters of microwaves and radio waves along with the dust between stars. Period. That's all that the raw images could easily demonstrate because our galaxy sticks out like a sore thumb in virtually *every* wavelength, including the microwave background.

The amusing part is when you combine this mythical surface of last scattering nonsense sjastro's previous Olber's paradox prattle. First he claimed that everywhere that we look in the universe should terminate in the "surface of a sun", yet he came up about 250 billion stars, and 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument. On the other hand, we can see from the raw images of our own sun, and from the raw microwave background that the most prolific emitter of microwaves are suns and the dust sitting in between those suns, and everywhere we look we should see such things.

In order to be able to see photons from a mythical surface of last scattering you'd first have to filter out every single microwave emission from every single sun and every single dust particle in every galaxy, not to mention all the dust and other material between galaxies.

There is simply no logical way to process out and filter out all of the other obvious emitters of microwaves in the universe. The "processed" images simply remove all the foreground microwaves from our own galaxy and other local objects and then what's left is more or less an 'average density" image of area with a higher and closer density of galaxies, along with 'cooler' areas where less galaxies are present in the local universe.

Assuming that our sun is in motion with respect to distant background galaxy clusters will result in a dipole so that argument is moot regardless of whether it's a static or expanding cosmology model.

All of sjastro's arguments which are related to a mathematical need for exotic forms of 'dark matter' are simply laughable and quite sad considering all the various different problems in the LCDM model, including it's internal inconsistencies with respect to the Hubble constant and it's violation of laws of physics. Their use of metaphysical fudge factors is not an "accomplishment" when it comes to actually 'explaining' anything, but in light of the fact that several recent studies suggest that dark matter doesn't behave like it's supposed to, it's simply a ridiculous argument. Dark matter has effectively become a metaphysical noose around their neck which prohibits them from 'explaining" anything without it, including a simple microwave background.

His entire argument about "acoustic peaks" based on exotic forms of matter is absurd. One would only come to that "conclusion" if one "assumes" that everything came to a "point", that they really could filter out every dust particle and every galaxy in space to see some mythical surface of last scattering, and "assumes" there was also a mythical surface of last scattering, none of which can be shown to exist in any raw microwave image.

What we have here is a completely "contrived" set of assumptions, which also comes in direct mathematical conflict to all the SN1A and other types of studies which show a *different* Hubble constant.

So his great "accomplishment" with those acoustic peaks turns out to fail miserably when it comes to predicting the SN1A data sets from closer galaxies.

First of all, it's *physically impossible* to demonstrate that any microwaves from space ever originated from a hypothetical surface of last scattering without first filtering out the microwave output of countless stars and all the dust in the universe. That in itself is a completely *impossible* task.

[crawler]

If there was no BB then all radiation is from stars & planets & dust & atoms & possibly plasma.
In which case it is easy to filter out.

[Michael Mozina]

If there was no BB then all radiation is from stars & planets & dust & atoms & possibly plasma.
In which case it is easy to filter out.

The problem with the whole "the universe began with a bang from area smaller than an atom" concept is that it's not a 'given' condition to begin with, it's just an "assumed" postulate of the concept. Alfven's "bang" (expansion model) didn't require the entire physical universe to collapse itself into an object that was once smaller than a breadbox. It didn't require inflation or "dark" anything either. Its therefore possible to 'rewind time' and not require the physical universe to have started at a single "point".

So winding back time doesn't automatically result in all matter being condensed to a single point in spacetime. That's an assumption which is made by BBer's. It's a dogmatic assumption of the model which creates *massive* problems for the model.

You end up with a "flatness" problem immediately in a BB model, which Guth claimed to "solve" with inflation, only to have Roger Penrose point out that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a flat universe occurs *with* inflation rather than without it. True story. It's a mathematical disaster of a 'solution' to explaining a flat universe.

The various physical problems encountered by the original "assumption" of BB theory put's it at odds with the standard model of particle physics, the *laws* of physics, and requires nearly a complete departure from empirical laboratory physics.

Even sjastro's "need" to be able to see a mythical surface of last scattering is at odds with common sense. If every sun is emitting microwaves, and we know that our sun is *definitely* emitting them, and dust between stars emits these microwave wavelengths as well, then clearly there is a "foreground" solar/dust signal which is likely to be far more important than any hypothetical surface of last scattering. As even Eddington surmised, the universe has a "background temperature" related to the scattering and absorption, and emission of starlight. Every cosmology model since Eddington would necessarily "predict" a background temperature of the universe which Eddington predicted to within one half of one degree on his first attempt, whereas first "bang" estimates were off by more than a whole order of magnitude.

So much for the "predictive value" of BB models.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75376768

sjastro's recent installment of "grasping at straws", and improperly asserting that anything contradicts PC theory, is another fine example of professional incompetence at every level, both in terms of his lack of understanding of PC theory, and in terms of his inability to correctly describe the current state of affairs with respect to "multimessenger astronomy" in late 2020, and with respect to it's scientific effect on PC theory.

First I should point out that while I personally do favor a "static" universe "plasma cosmology" model and inelastic scattering of photons in spacetime, Hannes Alfven's "plasma cosmology" model was in fact an expansion oriented 'plasma cosmology' model, fully capable of explaining redshifted gravitational waves. So sjastro's basic argument, presuming it's actually a sound scientific argument, would only serve to "constrain" the number of possible "plasma cosmology" models, it certainly wouldn't be a death sentence to plasma cosmology theory in general.

Redshifting of gravitational waves is another issue that contradicts Plasma Cosmology.

That is simply a false statement by sjastro. PC theory is *fully* capable of explaining any actual redshifting of gravitational waves, assuming that is *ever* actually physically possible to demonstrate that statement scientifically. sjastro shows a complete lack of understanding of PC theory in his very first sentence. How scientifically and professionally incompetent can he be with respect to incorrectly describing PC theory?

Secondly, sjastro's assertion that we've somehow already demonstrated 'gravitational wave redshift" is absolutely positively *preposterous* as of this moment in time, late 2020, throughout the entire time after LIGO's 03 run, including the year(s) prior to any data collected during the 04 run.

In order to demonstrate that gravitational waves are "redshifted', you'd need to have a *lot* of sets of data that all suggested a "scientific pattern" in the data sets (plural).

In this moment in time however, we have exactly *one*, and only one supposed example of "multimessenger" astronomy to work with. *One* such set of data could never suggest a "scientific pattern" of any sort. In fact the complete *lack* of LIGO's ability to produce a second example of multimessenger astronomy in all of their 03 run was quite sad actually, if not somewhat predictable.

So, aside from this obvious lack of a "pattern" to be found in single GW data set, is there any actual "evidence" that we could confidently describe a noticeable pattern in that one data set with our current state of technology in 02? Certainly not, at least not yet, assuming any such "pattern" ever emerges.

First of all it's worth noting that all of these models are based on "assumptions", which may or may not be accurate, not so much with respect to GR theory, but with respect to any ability to be "certain'' to any level of confidence.

So what are the 'facts' related to this one example of multimessenger astronomy. First of all there is a several second delay between the GW wave and the gamma ray signature. Only one of the two LIGO detectors wasn't in 'glitch' mode at the time of the event, and Virgo didn't see it.

Those facts alone are enough to be careful about trying to draw any serious scientific conclusions from the single event in question.

It's also worth nothing that all these 'mathematical models' are "infinitely tweakable" with respect to various spin angles, masses of objects, orientation towards Earth, conditions around the merging objects, etc.

Unfortunately the discovery came during the O2 run before the gravitational wave detectors were upgraded for improved sensitivity.

So essentially any "conclusions" one might try to draw from the one event in question amounts to "wishful thinking" on the person trying to make such a scientific case.

Assuming sjastro's numbers are correct, they're off (different) by around 15 percent, hardly a "match" by any stretch of the imagination with *countless* assumptions made along the way, and completely "model dependent".

So is this "actually" a scientific death sentence to PC theory as whole as sjastro falsely asserts? Of course not. Expansion oriented PC models such as the one proposed by Alfven would work fine. "Tired light" models might *eventually* be threatened were any actual noticeable pattern to emerge but as of today and prior to 04, there is simply no logical way to draw any scientific conclusions from a single set of data.

Talk about whining about 'possible' sliver in the eye of another theory while ignoring the metaphysical and scientific logs in the eye of his own model! Sheesh. It's almost comical were in it not so sad that he devotes his time to *misrepresenting* the effects on PC theory rather than solving any of the *massive* problems in his own model.

sjastro cannot "explain" dark energy, it's source(s), it's ability to remain at a constant density throughout expansion. He can't explain how it defies the conservation of energy laws.

sjastro cannot explain 'dark matter', nor pinpoint it's specific mass, or show how the standard particle physics model is wrong. His cosmological model for it isn't particularly accurate either.

Now instead of pulling the metaphysical logs out of his own model, he's "making up" splinters to try to inappropriately stick in the eyes of another model. Wow. That's fascinating. Talk about grasping at straws.

It will be interesting to see how the 04 run goes for LIGO/Virgo. The "pressure is on" to deliver on "multimessenger astronomy" after that absolutely *disastrous* 03 fiasco. Not *once* did 03 produce another (second) example of multimessenger astronomy in the whole 03 run, so unfortunately no "pattern" exists to say anything much at all about "redshifted gravitational waves".

This pattern of 'manipulating the data' as one sees fit lies at the heart of the LIGO mindset, both in terms of misrepresenting the VETO state of the original GW signal in the published paper, to "by hand" manipulating the now infamous overlay image of GW waves, to making endless excuses for nothing but mergers between naked uncharged black holes in space. I'm wondering how long it's going to be before the whole "cry black hole wolf" thing gets old.