by Michael Mozina » Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:52 pm
Higgsy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:58 pm
I understand that you prefer one interpretation of qunatum mechanics over another. That doesn't mean that either of them is "falling apart".
If it's possible to replace multiple "worlds" with multiple agents (people), only the multiple agent model is well supported by the physical evidence. There are indeed lots of different individuals with lots of different beliefs. There is no evidence however for "other worlds", so a simple Occam's razor argument shows us a *very clear* winner in terms of which model has better core postulates. To me at least, that *completely* undermines the other worlds model entirely. It's unnecessary to postulate the existence of other worlds, and it's unsupported by the physical evidence.
Indeed, density variations are one of several different approaches to address the tension between different measurements of the Hubble constant; and indeed, in time, it might turn out to be the explanation that removes the tension. In doing so, it might also eliminate the need for dark energy, and if so, then that's what will happen. However, we have seen other claims for density variations come and go, and a lot more water will have to flow under the bridge, including supporting evidence that we are indeed in a void. Also that explanation will have to be compatible with a shedload of other observations, so don't expect it to be accepted overnight. The debate in cosmology is vigorous, but since it's cosmologists who are providing all of the observations that you latch onto so greedily, and since you have so little respect for them, I wonder that you take anything that they say seriously.
In the final analysis I *do not* take them seriously since I lack belief in "space expansion" as an empirical cause of redshift, and I presume that we live in a static electric (plasma cosmology) universe.
I can however see for myself that the LCDM model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant and there's a relatively simple way to fix it, namely by modifying the local density and doing away with around 70 percent of the metaphysical entities associated with the LCDM model while they're at it. Even to a skeptic of the LCDM model, that seems like a logical step in the right empirical direction.
Such an about face with respect to dark energy does however present a *major* problem for astronomers because they'd have to admit their model has been wrong for at least a couple of decades and those Nobel's they handed out were worthless. All the 'experts" on 'dark energy" would have a cow too. A CDM bang model still has no real explanation for "dark matter", nor any way to demonstrate a cause/effect link between redshift and "space expansion" in a lab. It's forever destined to be a belief system which begins with a pure act of faith in a metaphysical construct.
From my perspective this would be an *excellent* time for astronomers to reconsider the whole "bang" concept because it's been utterly horrific in terms of actually "predicting' anything correctly at higher redshifs.
I'm quite certain that the JWST is going to see "mature' and 'massive" galaxies at the highest redshift that it can observe, just like Hubble, because galaxy evolution is a myth IMO. All the evidence to date is that galaxies in the distant universe look just like the ones closest to us. It's not as though a modified "bang" model is likely to last another 5 years anyway, so if there's no need for dark energy, and 68 percent of the LCDM model is toast, it's a logical time to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for redshift (tired light) rather than to continue to base cosmology models on faith in metaphysical constructs which can never be demonstrated in controlled experimentation.
The way I see it Higgsy, you're *eventually* going to be forced to embrace a Plasma Cosmology model sooner or later, so it only makes sense to do it now rather than modify the BB model again. Just look at what we're already seeing at the highest redshifts. Quasars are way more massive than predicted. Those distant galaxies are as massive, or more massive than our own galaxy. They're as mature too. The concept of galaxy evolution simply isn't supported by the high redshift evidence that we already have, and the JWST is likely to blow away that prediction entirely. Then what?
If astronomers admit they were wrong with respect to DE, who's going to believe them with respect to DM? If they try to abandon almost 70 percent of the BB model now, and then JWST destroys the whole galaxy evolution claim, they'll just have to admit they were wrong about expansion entirely anyway in a few years.
A plasma cosmology model *could* include expansion (of objects, and it could work very will with a static solution to redshift as well. It's a better long term empirical bet in that respect. The BB models has *never* been particularly accurate at predicting new observations at higher redshifts, so what makes you think it's going to be successful at predicting observations at higher redshifts in the future?
[quote=Higgsy post_id=1636 time=1586026717 user_id=30122]
I understand that you prefer one interpretation of qunatum mechanics over another. That doesn't mean that either of them is "falling apart".[/quote]
If it's possible to replace multiple "worlds" with multiple agents (people), only the multiple agent model is well supported by the physical evidence. There are indeed lots of different individuals with lots of different beliefs. There is no evidence however for "other worlds", so a simple Occam's razor argument shows us a *very clear* winner in terms of which model has better core postulates. To me at least, that *completely* undermines the other worlds model entirely. It's unnecessary to postulate the existence of other worlds, and it's unsupported by the physical evidence.
[quote]Indeed, density variations are one of several different approaches to address the tension between different measurements of the Hubble constant; and indeed, in time, it might turn out to be the explanation that removes the tension. In doing so, it might also eliminate the need for dark energy, and if so, then that's what will happen. However, we have seen other claims for density variations come and go, and a lot more water will have to flow under the bridge, including supporting evidence that we are indeed in a void. Also that explanation will have to be compatible with a shedload of other observations, so don't expect it to be accepted overnight. The debate in cosmology is vigorous, but since it's cosmologists who are providing all of the observations that you latch onto so greedily, and since you have so little respect for them, I wonder that you take anything that they say seriously.
[/quote]
In the final analysis I *do not* take them seriously since I lack belief in "space expansion" as an empirical cause of redshift, and I presume that we live in a static electric (plasma cosmology) universe.
I can however see for myself that the LCDM model is self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant and there's a relatively simple way to fix it, namely by modifying the local density and doing away with around 70 percent of the metaphysical entities associated with the LCDM model while they're at it. Even to a skeptic of the LCDM model, that seems like a logical step in the right empirical direction.
Such an about face with respect to dark energy does however present a *major* problem for astronomers because they'd have to admit their model has been wrong for at least a couple of decades and those Nobel's they handed out were worthless. All the 'experts" on 'dark energy" would have a cow too. A CDM bang model still has no real explanation for "dark matter", nor any way to demonstrate a cause/effect link between redshift and "space expansion" in a lab. It's forever destined to be a belief system which begins with a pure act of faith in a metaphysical construct.
From my perspective this would be an *excellent* time for astronomers to reconsider the whole "bang" concept because it's been utterly horrific in terms of actually "predicting' anything correctly at higher redshifs.
I'm quite certain that the JWST is going to see "mature' and 'massive" galaxies at the highest redshift that it can observe, just like Hubble, because galaxy evolution is a myth IMO. All the evidence to date is that galaxies in the distant universe look just like the ones closest to us. It's not as though a modified "bang" model is likely to last another 5 years anyway, so if there's no need for dark energy, and 68 percent of the LCDM model is toast, it's a logical time to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate Edwin Hubble's *preferred* explanation for redshift (tired light) rather than to continue to base cosmology models on faith in metaphysical constructs which can never be demonstrated in controlled experimentation.
The way I see it Higgsy, you're *eventually* going to be forced to embrace a Plasma Cosmology model sooner or later, so it only makes sense to do it now rather than modify the BB model again. Just look at what we're already seeing at the highest redshifts. Quasars are way more massive than predicted. Those distant galaxies are as massive, or more massive than our own galaxy. They're as mature too. The concept of galaxy evolution simply isn't supported by the high redshift evidence that we already have, and the JWST is likely to blow away that prediction entirely. Then what?
If astronomers admit they were wrong with respect to DE, who's going to believe them with respect to DM? If they try to abandon almost 70 percent of the BB model now, and then JWST destroys the whole galaxy evolution claim, they'll just have to admit they were wrong about expansion entirely anyway in a few years.
A plasma cosmology model *could* include expansion (of objects, and it could work very will with a static solution to redshift as well. It's a better long term empirical bet in that respect. The BB models has *never* been particularly accurate at predicting new observations at higher redshifts, so what makes you think it's going to be successful at predicting observations at higher redshifts in the future?