/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15218850]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2zcwerPgk4

These guys have me reeling. It was easy to buy stuff like an easily parseable cosmology that doesn't rely on magic dark matter and dark energy. They totally explode assumptions like Doppler redshift and its subsequent use as a measure of distance. The Sun as a plasma discharge light was harder to swallow but the more I saw the more I could accept. And now I find myself acknowledging that weather events on Earth used to be catastrophically more violent than today at some point with supersonic wind carving mountain ranges. And maybe even within the memory of homo sapiens.
Haven't gotten to the Velikovsky shit about Saturn yet. Feel like I'm at the crest of a madman's roller coaster about to spin me at 5G.

[Anonymous No.15218862]

s o y e n c e !

[Anonymous No.15218922]

>>15218850
OP starts reasonable then goes into coocoo shit. Classic wellpoisioning tactics to discredit cosmology sceptics.

[Anonymous No.15219222]

>>15218922
Except I'm serious. I was quickly sold on plasma cosmology. Then each new piece of information stepping down in scale, in this case to stars and to geological features on Earth has been fitting in perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle. It still seems improbable that the Velikovsky stuff will fit just as well when I get around to it but again, I have an uncanny feeling it might.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjc5iZx6dIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR_gqBiVmBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuiBf8TCt0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt6NscQ2qS8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdfBGqWpW5w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOhvVRjt3Ec

[Anonymous No.15219278]

>>15218850
Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

[Anonymous No.15219283]

>>15219278
the best part about it is it makes astrophysicists SEETHE

[Anonymous No.15219293]

>>15219278
Mathematical "rigor" in astrophysics has merely led to false assumptions being derived to absurd conclusions with no physical basis, and when the astrophysicists attempt to paramaterize these equations and produce models they merely make spectacularly wrong predictions. When future observations invalidate their models, they react by adding overfitting and adding magic coefficients like dark matter and dark energy, which also demands endlessly complexifying the underlying maths. This feedback loop has been the dominant mode since Einstein.
The existence of plasma superstructures connecting planets within solar systems, stars and other energetic phenomena within galaxies, and all galaxies with each other have been separately observed. There is no hard vacuum. If you want to call the absence of hard vacuum "aether" then sure, whatever.

[Anonymous No.15219328]

>>15219283
Nope. Most real astrophysicists have never heard of it. EUers don't publish papers, so they make no attempt to convince researchers or lay out their claims rigorously. It's almost like they're more interested in making money off YouTube videos than their claimed scientific revolution.

[Anonymous No.15219353]

>>15219328
but they do publish articles, write books, host conferences, and develop systems of equations
many equations describing features of plasma structures are found in plasma physics, others like the concentric structure of birkeland currents and cosmological filaments were developed by EU theorists
https://etherealmatters.org/atomizer/birkeland
counter-rotating electric fields of this sort have been observed at earth's, jupiter's, and saturn's poles

[Anonymous No.15219354]

>>15219293
> the astrophysicists attempt to paramaterize these equations and produce models they merely make spectacularly wrong predictions
Which means these models are testable, verifiable, falsifiable. If, for example, the redshifting of light was found to depend on wavelength then the expanding universe would be finished. Neatly disproven. But how can we disprove these plasma idea? We can't because the EU do not even agree on the most basic concepts, like what redshift is. Some point to Alfven's model but most of them don't realise his cosmology was an expanding one, which they all agree isn't real. Because the model is undefined it is untestable, unfalsifiable and unscientific. Mathematical rigour is the only way to objectively study the physics of the universe. It also forces one to build a model which is at least internally self consistent.

[Anonymous No.15219360]

>>15219354
there doesn't need to be precise agreement on what redshift is, at this point it's speculative and producing complex models on speculative assumptions shoehorned to sort of match data would be stupid.
but we certainly know it isn't doppler shift from a hypothetical expansion of space over time or a measure of distance, unless you want to disbelieve your lying eyes that stephan's quintet is a physically proximate, interlinked set of galaxies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwW8HKBuDNc

[Anonymous No.15219371]

>>15219353
They don't publish in astronomical journals, they make little attempt to actually be heard. The same goes for holding their special conferences and writing books.
>many equations describing features of plasma structures are found in plasma physics
Ah, this is a familiar trope. Pretend like everything they claim is just pure standard plasma physics, so they don't need any equations themselves. Well if that was the case then writing down their model of cosmology (for example) would be simple. But they haven't, despite claiming to know how the universe works regularly in their videos.

[Anonymous No.15219372]

>>15218850
view order?

[Anonymous No.15219380]

>>15219354
and virtually any model of sufficient complexity can be overfitted to match whatever set of data, which is the standard practice of astrophysics today. this model makes stupid physically baseless predictions that get blown up entirely by observations, and the model gets shoehorned back into overfitted conformity. rinse and repeat.

>>15219372
i honestly don't have a view order. their most recent stuff surrounding James Webb images is the easiest to follow with the most decisive dunks on standard model assumptions like redshift.

[Anonymous No.15219382]

>>15219354
dark matter isn't falsifiable

[Anonymous No.15219395]

>>15219360
>>15219360
>there doesn't need to be precise agreement on what redshift is, at this point it's speculative and producing complex models on speculative assumptions shoehorned to sort of match data would be stupid.
A model of redshift is not complicated. Just writing down the terms does not require "shoehorning". For comparison the Friedmann equations are very simply derived by undergraduate students. The only reason it is speculative is because they've never bothered to do the work, so they instead make baseless claims while pretending to know how it all works.
>unless you want to disbelieve your lying eyes that stephan's quintet is a physically proximate, interlinked set of galaxies
They're no evidence they're linked. You can even they're not the same in pic related, with your own "lying eyes". Look carefully at the three main galaxies, the one on the left is clearly very different to the others. The disk is lumpy, this is because you are resolving more stars in the disk rather than them all being smeared together as a smooth shape. But if all these galaxies were the same distance this wouldn't happen. It only happens because the blue one is significantly closer. It is beautifully clear in this wonderful new image.

>>15219380
And who determines what overfitting is objectively?

[Anonymous No.15219408]

>>15219382
Specific models are, such as Cold Dark Matter. CDM makes a variety of predictions for large scale structure and how it evolves. If for example the power spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background was consistent with only normal matter, that would have been the end of CDM. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15219424]

>>15219408
our observations about cosmic microwave background also happen to be fatally poisoned, where poor SNR signals with high variance are statistically tortured into submission.

[Anonymous No.15219434]

>>15219424
That's complete crap, just an empty handwave. The SNR of the first peak in the power spectrum is something like 1000.

[bodhi No.15219491]

>>15218850
it do be like that

[bodhi No.15219494]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQ844H_WyY

[Anonymous No.15219497]

>>15219395
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

[Anonymous No.15219515]

>>15219497
Said by a guy who couldn't accept the existence of electrons. His vision of the world departed from experimental physics and he simply rejected reality.

[bodhi No.15219545]

>>15219278
lol @ hacks hanging on for dear life dancing around a corpse with no clothes on. No one cares about your journals saying gamers are mentally ill, whiteness is toxic and being a tranny is the peak of masculinity. get fukt retard you are on borrowed time already, you are a joke. Go publish some more Marxist bullshit for the purple haired feminists in the humanities department

[Anonymous No.15220196]

>>15219371
>writing down their model of cosmology (for example) would be simple
What evidence do you have that a written approximation of a modeled approximation of all of cosmology MUST be simple - especially when treating matter as electrically neutral is ALREADY a vast simplification of cosmological modeling compared to the math required to account for electromagnetic interactions?

Consider the equivalent mathematical structures in current standard cosmology. They contain parameters for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, without a robust explanation for their causes outside the model's own assumptions. Does that not make the mathematical model incomplete?

Of all the criticisms of EU cosmology (there are plenty, even between proponents - which is probably what a science should look like, but I digress), "they don't have a mathematical model" is among the weakest. The math is fluid dynamics - which itself does not have a complete mathematical model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness)) - combined with plasma phenomena.

All standard cosmology would need to do to falsify EU is to demonstrate that the majority of matter in the universe is electrically neutral. There is a great deal of observational evidence to the contrary, which in a healthy science would mean doubt of the assumption of an electrically neutral large-scale universe - but healthy sciences don't toss arbitrary coefficients into the model so that its assumptions now yield the observed results, and proceed to call the necessity of those coefficients "proof of their existence" and not, y'know... "evidence the assumptions going into the model were wrong".

I'm absolutely fucking ecstatic about JWST, because it's challenging those assumptions even without engaging with EU theories, and its results can't be dismissed - though there is quite a cottage industry of twisting the model mathematically to fit the observations that contradict its predictions.

[Anonymous No.15220244]

Did EU make any predictions that standard model could not?

[Anonymous No.15220265]

>>15220244
>Did EU make any predictions
You can just stop there.

[Anonymous No.15220272]

>>15220244
Yes. It predicted the electrical charge of comets detected by recent NASA missions as well as the auroral heating effect of electromagnetic coupling with the Sun, which was long dismissed by mainstream cosmologists but was proven to exist by a recent NASA study on Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.15220279]

>>15220244
Yes. It predicted the electrical charge of comets detected by recent NASA missions (and their rocky exterior) as well as the auroral heating effect of electromagnetic coupling with the Sun, which was long dismissed by mainstream cosmologists but was proven to exist by the study of Jupiter's auroral heating in multiple spectra.

[Anonymous No.15220313]

>>15220244
That's what makes the EU rabbit whole so wild to fall down.
Yes, and repeatedly (assuming you mean predictions the standard model didn't make until they were observed and then modifications to its parameters retroactively "confirmed its robustness").
Probably the most well known would be the cosmic web - it's exactly like the intergalactic Birkeland currents EU/Plasma cosmology suggested. A more recent one would be the electrical explanation of Jupiter's heat budget problem (through auroral heating), and the spots in Jupiter's aurorae that align with the Jovian moons. Additionally, that space is full of charged particles (Voyager probes hitting a bunch of interstellar plasma is something EU theorists expected long before it happened). Additional predictions are the survival of some stars after nebulae-producing supernovae AND the X or hourglass shapes of the resulting nebulae (i.e. stars as Z-pinches on astronomical scales) that thermonuclear collapse supernovae have immense difficulty explaining the formation of.

I suspect there are numerous flaws in the model that would need to be worked out, or perhaps unifications with and correction of flaws in other "standard" models (namely solar structure - though that's more of a sub-model of LambdaCDM nowadays - and particle physics) that provide insight into both - but acting like it's "pseudoscience" and not clearly onto at least SOMETHING correct about our observations (or at least more correct than LambdaCDM) is something that greatly disheartens me and disillusions me with astronomical academia. The dismissal and hostility, the ostracizing, the tribalism - none of these contribute to science, and ultimately, I believe, distract if not outright hamper its progress.

[Anonymous No.15220315]

>>15220313
*rabbit hole
You know what I mean. (No, not the rabbussy!)

[Anonymous No.15220369]

>>15220196
>What evidence do you have that a written approximation of a modeled approximation of all of cosmology MUST be simple
Because they tell us this, regularly. They decry the "complexity" of the standard model. So where is their simple model?
And if something as basic and fundamental as redshift is too complicated to calculate then the rest of their claims about galaxies and the universe are completely baseless.
>Consider the equivalent mathematical structures in current standard cosmology. They contain parameters for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, without a robust explanation for their causes outside the model's own assumptions.
None of those things are required to derive the Friedman equations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
>The math is fluid dynamics
This nonsense again. There is no redshift in fluid dynamics. You cannot derive a cosmology just from basic physics, additional assumptions are needed. For example to derive the Friedman equations from GR one assumes homogeneity and isotropy. If the equations for an EU cosmology exist then please link directly to them.
>All standard cosmology would need to do to falsify EU is to demonstrate that the majority of matter in the universe is electrically neutral.
You cannot prove a negative like this. At best you can measure some upper limit on the charge density. You can only falsify a model if there is a specific prediction of the charge imbalance, no real experiment can ever prove it's exactly zero. They need a model.
>I'm absolutely fucking ecstatic about JWST, because it's challenging those assumptions
Lener's claims that the results conflict with the expanding universe are baseless, that's why he wrote a blog and not a paper.

[Anonymous No.15220420]

>>15220369
the physical meaning of redshift is what's in dispute among EU cosmologists. while most parties agree it's an indicator of a galaxy's age, where red galaxies are younger, how precise that measure is, what the range of likely values is, or how it may differ for individual phenomena like a quasar within a galaxy are not indicated by the data once you rule out the silly notion of doppler shift. just giving it an arbitrary formula for an arbitrary curve and fitting parameters that somewhat converge on observations would be an exercise in bullshit

[Anonymous No.15220438]

>>15220420
or another way, the EU theorists are not willing so far as i know to assign any sort of cardinal age value to redshift, at best it's demonstrated to be an ordinal comparator whose precision is not understood.

[Anonymous No.15220468]

>>15220244
Not quantitative ones no. One unique "prediction" was that EUers claimed victory with the solar neutrino problem, where only about a 1/3rd of the neutrino count predicted by the standard solar model were detected. They said this was compatible with the EU. A decade or two later it was shown that the missing neutrinos were in other flavors, not predicted by the EU. But they still claimed they could explain the number, and their "model" didn't require them to be only electron neutrinos and they could "explain" it without neutrino osculations. Years later again, and neutrino oscillations have been measured in labs on Earth. When you have no quantitative model you can claim to explain anything, but it has no predictive value.

>>15220420
Redshift is very fundamental. It was literally the beginning of observational cosmology. Without that pretty much every result about galaxies that the EUers quote is meaningless. Even the existence of the cosmic web, it was seen in redshift surveys which uncover the 3D distribution of galaxies. If you believe redshift has nothing to do with distance and is actually about age then there is no cosmic web.
>. just giving it an arbitrary formula
Would allow others to actually test the model, rather than just repeating over and over that it works. One doesn't need to fit anything for equations to have value. For example, from the metric expansion it's obvious why there would be a linear relation between distance and redshift, Hubble's law. Words are imprecise, equations are not "arbitrary".

[Anonymous No.15220473]

>>15220468
>Not quantitative ones no.
Starting out with an outright lie is a bad look here, anon.

[Anonymous No.15220479]

>>15220473
Let's see some calculations then.

[Anonymous No.15220489]

>They decry the "complexity" of the standard model.
I've only seen this in specific reference to its contrivances. Innate complexity of a true model wouldn't draw that criticism.

>Friedman equations.
Then perhaps the primary simplifying assumptions they use (namely, homogeneity and isotropy) are incorrect. They certainly seem to be stressed by large scale structures that are perfectly compatible with EU predictions (where scale in both space and time of plasma interaction is ultimately a result of plasma density).

>You cannot derive a cosmology just from basic physics
I'd like to see that proof.

>There is no redshift in fluid dynamics
That's why the sentence I wrote didn't stop there - even if we assume redshift is a result of distance (many EU proponents do not), spatial expansion is not mathematically required to explain photon wavelength increase over distance. There are multiple ways, mathematically, that you can achieve the same thing - namely, by providing an additional mechanism for photon energy loss (this is what dark energy ultimately does in the standard model), or by considering the redshift to be a result of some non-distance-defined property of the emitting object. In short, something about the source or the space between us and it - all of which is compatible mathematically, and the standard model's selection of one particular explanation does not prove (or predict - "Hubble expansion" was a surprise) it.

>equations for an EU cosmology
I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with what can be expressed in mathematical jargon about a universe that is not confined to said vocabulary, but I'll look around - or hell, work on it myself.

>Lener's claims
I do not care who is speaking, only what is said. Science isn't a cult with saints and witches to idolize or excommunicate. Be skeptical of the EU model (or any other) wherever it is incompatible with observations - credentialism and consensus approval is not science, it's lazy administration.

[Anonymous No.15220491]

>>15220468
redshift implying distance is an assumption which has led to all sorts of errors, in this very thread the eyes wide shut insanity of denying stephan's quintet as physically proximate and interactive. we're left with parallax as our most powerful means of estimating distance in cardinal terms, and its precision falls off a cliff after mere hundreds of ly. from there, any assertion of universal expansion, contraction, volume, or age might as well be randomly generated from yesterday to ackermann(10,10) days
the types of structure we observe in the universe are simply not possible with gravitation as the dominant factor.

[Anonymous No.15220511]

>>15220491
>the types of structure we observe in the universe are simply not possible with gravitation as the dominant factor.
And in fact the standard model admits this. They just think that magic is the missing link.

[Anonymous No.15220514]

>>15220468
>Would allow others to actually test the model
You mean theorists. The only people unable to test a model without a mathematical framework to represent it are theorists, and the scientific output of theorists of late has been... string theory, SUSY, proton decay, etc. Empirically the record so far isn't very good - I won't dismiss them or their models because that's not scientific, but we can't be scientific by allowing the limitations of the frameworks in which theorists work to define the whole of science. We'll end up stuck with a mathematical model of phlogiston, replete with dark phlogiston to explain why its contrivances to stay within the math that the tenured professors know are actually robust, retroactive predictions, and a dismissive decree from the consensus that proponents of the "electrostatic bond energy between atoms" model are pseudoscientific fools who just can't do phlogiston math.

[Anonymous No.15220525]

>>15220489
>I've only seen this in specific reference to its contrivances. Innate complexity of a true model wouldn't draw that criticism.
And who gets to decide what the true model is? The very nature of empirical science is that you don't know. Complexity can therefore only be judged relative to competing models.

>I'd like to see that proof.
There is no single cosmology one could derive from a given area of physics. Additional assumptions are necessary, many cosmologies can be derived from GR for example.

>There are multiple ways, mathematically, that you can achieve the same thing - namely, by providing an additional mechanism for photon energy loss (this is what dark energy ultimately does in the standard model), or by considering the redshift to be a result of some non-distance-defined property of the emitting object.
Yes, tired light isn't a new idea. It was one of the main hypotheses when redshift was originally detected, but the devil is in the detail. 100 years later there is still no known interaction which could cause energy loss without having other issues (scattering in angle, wavelength dependence). And then there is the issue that tired light has been tested, to death. The fact that there is cosmological time dilation and there is a CMB which scales with redshift is inconsolable with a tired light, both are predictions of tired light. There is also the issue of galaxy evolution, the highest redshift galaxies are not like the Milky Way. Galaxy evolution is a prediction of a finite age universe evolving. But in a static tired light model it shouldn't exist at all.
And no, that is not what dark energy does.

>I do not care who is speaking, only what is said.
Funny then that you obese about this point rather than discussing the actual substance.

[Anonymous No.15220555]

>>15220491
>redshift implying distance is an assumption
No, it was discovered observationally by Hubble.
> the eyes wide shut insanity of denying stephan's quintet as physically proximate and interactive
Why didn't you respond to my post(>>15219395)? And no it's not interacting, the other galaxies are heavily disturbed by the interaction but , but NGC 7320 is just a nice symmetric spiral.
Do you really believe that close things on the sky must be the same distance?

>>15220514
Observer, theorists, everyone. How can you test if a model matches reality if you have no idea what the model suggests? Words and youtube videos don't cut it.

[Anonymous No.15220586]

>>15220555
the fact that you're not even bothering to watch the linked commentary and the complete position, which is obviously more than just "thing close in picture!" means you're not worth many more characters. and i believe these posts >>15220420 >>15220438 address the concerns in your linked post, namely that "modeling" a map of redshift to some other unit like distance when the cardinal values have no cognizable scale or curve would be charlatan.

[Anonymous No.15220589]

>>15220525
>And who gets to decide what the true model is?
Consistency with observation without the requirement of adjustment after observation. Adding the latter is an assumption of truth that isn't grounded and is in fact falsified by incompatible observation, but if the assumptions and parameters are sufficiently mutable, the model can be expanded to encompass any result, thereby losing its predictive value.

As I said before, EU is relatively easy to falsify - simply demonstrate that matter in the universe is electrically neutral. The prevalence of ionized matter and density of the interstellar medium are consistent with an EU prediction of an electrically charged universe and local falsifications of an electrically neutral one, but if that locality is unique, then the neutral matter model is fine. Unfortunately, that would break the neutral model's Copernican principle, but that can be recovered by a homogenous distribution of isotropic local violations of matter neutrality, albeit once effects of that charge on observations outside the local violation are accounted for.

>There is no single cosmology one could derive from a given area of physics.
This isn't a proof. Retake your basic logic classes.

>inconsolable with a tired light
Only if you assume the source of redshift has no effect on duration of emitted light and the CMB isn't just further redshifted emission or incorrectly assumed to be an imprint of the last scattering surface.

>the highest redshift galaxies are not like the Milky Way
Have you even been looking through the JWST data? Astonishingly massive, astonishingly spirally galaxies - which is, by the way, exactly what EU theories predicted it would see.

>the actual substance
Of the claims? That'd be because all you did was whine that they were baseless because Lener used a blog. Can you point me to the "blog cosmology exclusion" parameter in the Friedman equations?

[Anonymous No.15220615]

>>15220586
I did look at the video, they don't present any substantial arguments on the Quintet specifically. Instead they mostly go on to talk about Arp's other claims, particularly those about quasars. But these are different claims.
Arp's ideas about quasars being coalesced to low redshift galaxies has been extensively tested. Picking examples one by one where you think you see a connection is not objective. Arp claimed in several cases there was a huge over-abundances of quasars near some galaxies. This was tested objectively in the largest galaxy survey, SDSS. By comparing many thousands of galaxy-quasar pairs they can abjectly determine if there is an excess correlation. The result is consistent with random chance. There is no correlation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

So you're back to "thing close in picture!".

[Anonymous No.15220640]

>>15220615
so 7320 and 7319 having tails that sweep in the same arc, and that trails from the quintet as a whole sweep into 7331 and oppositely to a string of quasars, and a region of x-ray emissions between 7320 and the rest are explainable as... what exactly?
and there's apparently a z=2.11 quasar in front of 7320, where the redshift value would peg it billions of lightyears behind, requiring leaps of logic like there's a narrow window in 7320 only along the vector from the quasar to us... and the energetic region reaching from 7320 to the quasar's position in the picture is also just coincidence.

[Anonymous No.15220655]

>>15220589

>Only if you assume the source of redshift has no effect on duration
Then you have a serious logical problem where light piles up in-between galaxies. That cannot happen, for the same reason the frequency doesn't change in refraction.
> the CMB isn't just further redshifted emission or incorrectly assumed to be an imprint of the last scattering surface.
But the CMB is observed to change temperature with redshift. In tired light that would not be the case if it was just some constant background. This is a prediction of the expanding universe.

>Have you even been looking through the JWST data?
Yes actually, clearly more than you. Just in the past few days there has been a beautify NIRSpec spectrum of a known z=10.6 galaxy. Let's see how like the Milky Way it is.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07256
According to the data it has about 1/10th of the abundance of heavy elements that the stars have. If there is no evolution there should be no difference. And this isn't just one object, the lower metallicity has been widely seen. This decreased metallicity matches some simulations, and the overall trend is a prediction of the expanding universe with galaxy evolution.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08255
>Astonishingly massive
Gnz11 has a mass of 5x10^8 solar masses. For reference the Milky Way has a mass of 6x10^10. This galaxy is a monster for it's age, but it would be a tiny little dwarf by today's standards. It has about the same mass in stars as the Small Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milky Way.
>astonishingly spirally galaxies
None of the very early galaxies have measured morphological, they're blobs. You're confusing an unrelated story.
So this galxy is not like the Milky Way.

>which is, by the way, exactly what EU theories predicted it would see.
And where are their predicted luminosity functions?

[Anonymous No.15220678]

>>15220589
>Consistency with observation without the requirement of adjustment after observation.
And what makes you think that solution will be unique?

>As I said before, EU is relatively easy to falsify - simply demonstrate that matter in the universe is electrically neutral
And as I explained, that is unfalsifiable.

>This isn't a proof.
I never said it was, you're the one who brought up proofs. If you'd care to post a contradiction then feel free. Still waiting to see this fluid dynamics EU cosmology you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.15220688]

>>15220640
>>15220640
>so 7320 and 7319 having tails that sweep in the same arc,
What tail of 7320?
>and that trails from the quintet as a whole sweep into 7331 and oppositely to a string of quasars,
Again, the quasars have been shown to have uncorrelated with low redshift galaxies.
>and a region of x-ray emissions between 7320 and the rest are explainable as... what exactly?
But it one actually looks at the x-ray data it also extends to the north, where there is no other galaxy. This northern emission is very symmetric with the emission coinciding with 7320. So they're claiming 7320 is part of this huge merger, but it has no significant effect on the x-ray shock?

[Anonymous No.15221002]

>>15218850
>Wings of a Butterfly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUUSz54G6jc

[Anonymous No.15221027]

>>15220615
>https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366
An analysis that REALLY needs to be redone after nearly 20 years of additional quasar discovery - especially since, in Arp's theory, the most redshifted quasars and therefore the youngest and most likely to appear proximal to a parent galaxy would be excluded from Sloan due to both the resolution of the equipment and its redshift limit of z=5. Figures 7 and 8 in this paper also clearly demonstrates that higher ejection speed will yield a curve that asymptotically approaches a random distribution in their sample set. The biggest problem it has isn't with Arp's quasar ejection model - it's with the quantization of redshift. For more recent discourse on this, see:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5700.pdf

>>15220655
>the CMB is observed to change temperature with redshift
The CMB is not currently actively observed (looking forward to the Simons Observatory), and foreground removal has to be perfect or the CMB map will simply inherit the spectra of the "foreground" object being mistaken for emissions from the surface of last scattering.
Speaking of CMB and redshift:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00347

>if it was just some constant background
That's not really a contention anybody makes. EU rejects the Big Bang and inflation entirely, describing galaxy formation in electromagnetic terms (which, due to the dipole nature of the EM field, is not exclusively attractive like gravity, and doesn't preclude steady state universes)

>z=10.6
>Gnz11
We both know that's not a high redshift for what JWST can see, but that's beside the point - EU models treat galactic evolution as a function of formation age; they do not exclude it. However, they do invert it in intrinsic interpretations of redshift - ultra redshifted, low metallicity galaxies are younger in those models.
Speaking of Gnz11: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10142

>early galaxies ... morphological
Potentially: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07277
Still too early to say, IMO.

[Anonymous No.15221096]

>>15220678
>fluid dynamics EU cosmology
It'd be "EU cosmology is fluid dynamics combined with plasma physics", but that's really more specifically plasma cosmology - EU combines plasma cosmology further with solar system and planetary scale interactions mediated by the interaction of diffuse plasmas. Most people here should be aware of Navier-Stokes and its limitations, so here's some important plasma phenomena and relevant equations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma_physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_sheath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length
It's important to note that Debye length increases dramatically in diffuse plasmas... such as an interstellar or intergalactic medium.
And you only need partial ionization because of the formation of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusty_plasma

The effect this has on cosmological modeling is flow and density (the application of fluid dynamics to the theory) of stellar gas and dust that is driven by charge (and flow-related magnetic) interactions and presents as relevant-scale (both in time and space) plasma phenomena.

The real kicker here (apart from the fact that plasma physics is insanely mathematically difficult because electromagnetic interactions create a fluid with constantly changing parameters) is the fact Debye length has NO upper scale bound. If the material is charged, making it more diffuse simply extends the effect across space and time scales - Alfven time is dependent on scale; meaning larger, more diffuse plasma structures move and evolve more slowly, but still move and evolve as plasma. The dependence of Alfven time on Debye length and of Debye length on plasma density (not the total ionized mass) makes the Friedmann equations only valid if the matter in the universe is electrically neutral.

Which is, according to >>15220678, unfalsifiable.

Whoops.

[Anonymous No.15221768]

>>15221027
>An analysis that REALLY needs to be redone after nearly 20 years of additional quasar discovery
Sounds like a job for the crack team of EU analysts. The data is public. Note that Karlsson claimed to find these periodicities with just 574 quasars. If the effect disappears in SDSS's tens of thousands then it was never real, it was just bad statistics.
>Arp's theory, the most redshifted quasars and therefore the youngest and most likely to appear proximal to a parent galaxy would be excluded from Sloan due to both the resolution of the equipment and its redshift limit of z=5.
All of Arp's claimed systems were lower redshift than 5. If he claims he can see the correlation by eye then there should be some correlation with thousands of pairs.
> The biggest problem it has isn't with Arp's quasar ejection model - it's with the quantization of redshift.
Arp's ejection model was put forward to explain periodicity. If it doesn't exist and the correlation is consistent with random then the model is useless.


>The CMB is not currently actively observed
False and irrelevant. ACT, SPT, QUIET, QUIJOTE, Keck, POLARBEAR, CLASS... not to mention all the radio instruments that detect it regularly.
> foreground removal has to be perfect or the CMB map will simply inherit the spectra of the "foreground" object being mistaken for emissions from the surface of last scattering.
False. Because the CMB dominates over the foregrounds at the Galactic poles one can simply mask the contaminated regions and measure powerspectra in a single frequency with no subtraction.
>That's not really a contention anybody makes.
False. Alfven claimed it was Galactic, Lener then claimed it was local and Robitaille claims it doesn't exist at all. Many EUers repeat Robitaille's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15221780]

>We both know that's not a high redshift for what JWST can see
Redshift 11 is is certainly still high redshift. There are only 3 spectroscopically confirmed higher redshift galaxies. So you have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to look at those if you like, the conclusions are the same.
>Potentially: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07277
Their highest redshift bin is z=6. If you're saying 11 "is not high redshift" then 6 certainly isn't. And if you read the paper they conclude that the disk fraction estimated may be severely overestimated.
> they do invert it in intrinsic interpretations of redshift
Which is not how tired light works. So if they want a tired light model to reproduce Hubble's law then they would have two separate redshift terms, one for age and one for distance. That's two very large assumptions. This is the great benefit of not having a model actually written down anywhere, you can just make it up on the fly to suit the data.

>>15221096
>Which is, according to >>15220678, unfalsifiable.
Your specific test is unfalsifiable. It's a stupid test. It can only be falsifiable is someone actually bothers to write down the equations of a cosmology.

[Anonymous No.15222522]

>>15221780
General predictions about the category of structure observed given the category of theory are sufficient. These are logical arguments based on what is possible, or at least what is most generally coherent, with the known effects of the underlying forces. Theories based on gravitation have no known mechanisms that could, under any circumstance, produce the twisted filament structures of the cosmic web (demanding the introduction of undetectable dark matter), or the hourglass shape of many planetary nebulas. However these types of emergent structure are quite run of the mill under theory, experiment and application of plasma physics.

[Anonymous No.15222649]

>>15222522
>General predictions about the category of structure observed given the category of theory are sufficient.
Not really. This "model" cannot explain even the most basic cosmological observables from a century ago.
>Theories based on gravitation have no known mechanisms that could, under any circumstance, produce the twisted filament structures of the cosmic web
I'll wait for you to post your proof here.
> (demanding the introduction of undetectable dark matter)
Nope, that's literally retarded. In terms of gravitation, dark matter and normal matter behave the same way. The only difference is that one has a pressure from EM interactions.

[Anonymous No.15223196]

>>15221780
>the disk fraction estimated may be severely overestimated
Sorry, I wasn't clear (char limit) - I'm agreeing with you there. The z=6 sample limit is why I said it's too early, especially since JWST hasn't done deepfield measures at the same timescales as Hubble (one of the reasons it's such an exciting tool is that potential).
>It can only be falsifiable is someone actually bothers to write down the equations
Incorrect. It could be falsified by a lack of observational evidence of structures that cannot be explained by the pure gravitational model of the Friedman equations. We do not lack these observations, given observed helical structures and hourglass structures.

>>15221096
>ACT, SPT, QUIET, QUIJOTE, Keck, POLARBEAR, CLASS

All of these are ground telescopes subject to Earth's incredibly radio-loud environment. QUIET shut down over a decade ago, POLARBEAR hasn't published any CMB maps.

>QUIJOTE
https://www.iac.es/en/projects/quijote-q-u-i-joint-tenerife-cmb-experiment
Note the "Scientific activity" and "News" tab contents.

>CLASS
Still (commendably) mostly working on isolating Earth's atmospheric interference on CMB measurements from ground telescopes.

>Keck
Did you omit BICEP intentionally because they couldn't rule out foreground interference from dust in their results?

>the CMB dominates over the foregrounds
Cannot be established without perfect knowledge of the foreground intensity. That is what is required to create the mask. Ideally, a continuous mapping program would be employed to mask fluctuations (as the CMB shouldn't fluctuate) or correct for lensing effects, and extra ideally, it would be done from Earth L2 to avoid Earth, Moon, and Solar interference (hence the common reliance on the mask created by the Planck team from Planck satellite data). Even with that, such a map would be unable to truly exclude foreground sources that simply didn't change detectably during the observation period.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.15223221]

>>15223196
meant to reply to >>15221768, not >>15221096
(2/2)
>just bad statistics
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5700.pdf
>to explain periodicity
Well, no, it was put forward because >he claims he can see the correlation by eye
and he considered redshift to be intrinsic
I don't even agree that the QSO ejection model is necessary, but let's not mischaracterize it. If there are causes of redshift in intervening space, such as expansion or other interactions, it's not necessary to abandon redshift as a distance measure - but experimentally, if observation treats it as a distance measure, it will never be able to exclude an intrinsic source (because intrinsic redshift will always simply be interpreted as distance). That's fairly rudimentary epistemology.

>Alfven claimed it was Galactic, Lener then claimed it was local and Robitaille claims it doesn't exist at all
Notice how none of these are claims that >>15220655
>it was just some constant background.

[Anonymous No.15223245]

>>15222649
>cannot explain even the most basic cosmological observables from a century ago
Such as? This seems like a perfect way to falsify it.

>I'll wait for you to post your proof here.
Oh, so lack of explanation for observable structures can falsify an EU model but not a gravity dominated one? No wonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Challenges
is so fucking long.

>In terms of gravitation, dark matter and normal matter behave the same way.
Alright, this is just wrong even if we assume dark matter exists. The only way dark matter 'mass' can be estimated is by its gravitational impact, and the estimation ASSUMES that said impact is the same as an identical mass of (electrically neutral - remember, LambdaCDM cosmology has no terms able to consider electromagnetism and thus requires electomagnetic neutrality of interacting matter) regular matter.

Until dark matter is observed and characterized, this remains an assumption - and an assumption that exists solely to put dark matter in terms that can be compared with observable matter.

[Anonymous No.15223356]

>>15223196
>. It could be falsified by a lack of observational evidence of structures that cannot be explained by the pure gravitational model of the Friedman equations.
You cannot falsify a model by comparing it to another unrelated model. That's just shitty logic.

>All of these are ground telescopes subject to Earth's incredibly radio-loud environment
Oh look, more irrelevant nonsense. It is being observed.

>Cannot be established without perfect knowledge of the foreground intensity.
That is just nonsense. The foregrounds have different spectra, so it's just a matter of decomposing the terms to see what component is dominating.


>Notice how none of these are claims that >>15220655
Wrong. If it was Galactic, or local it should have no variation with redshift. None of these results make any sense with Robitiles absurd claims.

[Anonymous No.15223381]

>>15223356
>>15223196
>>just bad statistics
>See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5700.pdf
Which furthers my point. Those systematic effects around selection will have existed in other, less well studied datasets. Those datasets used to claim periodicity was real. As the prevous paper showed if you cut to a magnitude limited highly-complete sample there is no periodicity.

>but experimentally, if observation treats it as a distance measure, it will never be able to exclude an intrinsic source (because intrinsic redshift will always simply be interpreted as distance).
Only if you believe these objects with intrinsic redshifts don't cluster spatially with the objects at the same real distance. Which makes them unlike any other objects. And note that there are other distance measures which don't rely on redshift.


>Well, no, it was put forward because >he claims he can see the correlation by eye
Wrong, it was both:
There are three kinds of evidence for the existence of non-velocity redshifts:
1) Statistical association of objects having much different redshifts. (See e.g. analysis by C. Fulton
(Fulton & Arp 2009) of the 2dF deep field, and Burbidge & Napier (2009).)
2) Interaction between objects of different redshift (including high redshifts aligned across active galaxy nuclei).
3) Quasars occurring preferentially at certain specific redshifts
https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf

>>cannot explain even the most basic cosmological observables from a century ago
>Such as? This seems like a perfect way to falsify it.
Redshift, and Hubble's law. We've been over this.

[Anonymous No.15223419]

>>15223356
>>15223196
>>>Theories based on gravitation have no known mechanisms that could, under any circumstance, produce the twisted filament structures of the cosmic web
>>I'll wait for you to post your proof here.
>Oh, so lack of explanation for observable structures can falsify an EU model but not a gravity dominated one?
You seem to have skipped a step. Still waiting for your to prove this claim that there is no explanation. Filaments do form in gravity only simulations like Millennium and Uchuu, so your assumption is false.

>>In terms of gravitation, dark matter and normal matter behave the same way.
>Alright, this is just wrong even if we assume dark matter exists.
You say it's an assumption, but not once do you actually explain why this statement is wrong. It doesn't matter that it's an assumption, it is assumed in these simulations. And these simulations form the cosmic web, in extortionary detail. There is no difference in these gravity only N body simulations between normal matter and dark matter, so logical dark matter isn't necessary.

[Anonymous No.15223429]

>>15223419
Torturing a model to fit the observations doesn't prove the underlying theory. Gravity-only models never produced the kind of complex structure we see in the universe until it was observed and the people making them had to apply those forms retroactively.

[Anonymous No.15223459]

>>15223429

>Torturing a model to fit the observations doesn't prove the underlying theory.
Strawman. I never said this proved anything, I was responding to your false claims of falsification.

>Gravity-only models never produced the kind of complex structure we see in the universe until it was observed and the people making them had to apply those forms retroactively.
Not true. The filaments were seen in early simulations in the late 70's, and the analytic prescription goes back to Zeldovich 1970. Note these primitive models are already more sophisticated than anything produced for plasma cosmology or the EU. It has never been shown that they can actually produce a realistic cosmic web, even now.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.192..321D/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.204..891K
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...57..241E/abstract

[Anonymous No.15223460]

>>15223356
>You cannot falsify a model by comparing it to another unrelated model.
They aren't unrelated. They're both cosmological models. One has output consistent with helical and hourglass structures, one does not. These structures are observed.

>more irrelevant nonsense
Not according to CLASS. And literally every other ground radio telescope.

>The foregrounds have different spectra
Actually radio telescopes lack the spectral resolution to take these spectra. They rely on lower wavelength detectors to generate spectra for certain regions in their maps and correlate those to establish the "redshift" of the relevant radio source (this is why radio astronomy has never produced ultra-high redshift astronomical objects despite operating in frequencies that could see even higher redshift objects than JWST); ultimately, that correlation still requires knowledge of the foreground and it can't provide that knowledge.

>If it was Galactic, or local it should have no variation with redshift
Only if it was local to this galaxy. If it was produced by galaxies outside this one (which, remember, represent the foreground here - in LambdaCDM, they have to form after the CMB does), it should vary with their redshift.

Also, remember, its dependence on redshift requires extrapolation of non-radio astronomy results to radio astronomy ones based on assumptions of its dependence on redshift - radio astronomy cannot currently measure redshift, because its detectors are limited to intensity at specific wavelengths (it can't generate the continuous spectra required, especially since redshift of spectra compresses the relevant lines across fewer wavelengths, requiring even higher spectral resolution).

[Anonymous No.15223492]

>>15223459
> I was responding to your false claims of falsification.
NTA, but all I've claimed about falsification is an absence of those structures would directly falsify EU (because the abscence of structures observed in charged systems would demonstrate that the scaling of plasma phenomena - i.e. Debye length and Alfven time - that the EU requires would be absent).

>filaments
They should not be helical, and those simulations lack the resolution to explain filamentation OR helicity in planetary nebulae.

>not once do you actually explain why this statement is wrong
Because that's not a claim I'm making.

>It doesn't matter that it's an assumption
How theoretical of you.

>There is no difference in these gravity only N body simulations between normal matter and dark matter, so logical dark matter isn't necessary.
Someone let the observed galactic rotation curves know they don't need dark matter, then. Either it's there or it isn't. If it makes no difference to your N body simulations, then that empirically proves that their gravitation-only parameters can simply be adjusted to match an arbitrary distribution/prevalence of dark matter - including none at all. How predictive.

>already more sophisticated
Than what? Taking those models and applying plasma interactions and fluid dynamics to them? How would that simplify the models?
You're confusing the claim that the core problem in these simulations is "simply" the omission of charge interactions with a claim that including those interactions would yield a simpler model. To my knowledge, plasma physics doesn't currently have generalized mathematical models applicable to arbitrary systems (if it did, fusion wouldn't be nearly so difficult) - this isn't a mark against the existence of plasma physics, but may perhaps be a mark against an assumption that a model excluding the complications of plasma behaviors in an observably mostly ionized universe is "more sophisticated".

[Anonymous No.15223511]

>>15223460
>They aren't unrelated. They're both cosmological models.
Doesn't matter. A true falsification cannot depend on assumptions of another competing model, that's just total gibberish.

>Not according to CLASS.
I'm quite sure CLASS has no webpage explaining how any of this relevant to your argument.

>Actually radio telescopes lack the spectral resolution to take these spectra.
Oh look, another huge claim you haven't cited. The CMB is not a spectral line, it doesn't require fine resolution. Pic related shows the different components and the Planck bands. The components can be separated with imaging in different bands, actual spectroscopy is unnecessary,
>They rely on lower wavelength detectors to generate spectra for certain regions in their maps and correlate those to establish the "redshift" of the relevant radio source
This has nothing to do with the CMB. It's also false. Radio telescopes can reach much higher spectral resolutions than JWST.
>this is why radio astronomy has never produced ultra-high redshift astronomical objects despite operating in frequencies that could see even higher redshift objects than JWST
Because of low sensitivity, small instantaneous bandwidths and the lack of bright emission lines. Note that high frequency radio instruments like ALMA have produced a number of high redshift objects. There is a tentative detection of one of the highest redshift candidates from JWST GLASS.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220204080S/abstract

>If it was produced by galaxies outside this one, it should vary with their redshift.
Not in Lerner's static model. The redshift is just an distance effect, more distant galaxies from Earth would not see a hotter background.

>radio astronomy cannot currently measure redshif
Complete and utter horseshit. Please pull your head out ass and do your research before embarrassing yourself.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...49H/abstract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPASS

[Anonymous No.15223527]

>>15223492
>How theoretical of you.
Your claim is of a theoretical nature.
>and those simulations lack the resolution to explain filamentation OR helicity in planetary nebulae.
Well it's a good thing that they're not simulating planetary nebulae at all then.

>Someone let the observed galactic rotation curves know they don't need dark matter, then.
For forming filaments, try not being retarded for a second.
> that empirically proves that their gravitation-only parameters can simply be adjusted to match an arbitrary distribution/prevalence of dark matter
What parameters were adjusted? And how could they adjust these parameters to form filaments before it even clear that the cosmic web was real?

>Than what?
Than literally anything produced to support the claim that these "models" can reproduce the cosmic web. You assume it will match observations, but you have no idea.

[Anonymous No.15223565]

>>15223511
>Doesn't matter.
Then why did you call them unrelated?
>A true falsification cannot depend on assumptions of another competing model
It wouldn't - an absence of the relevant structures being observed would falsify their prediction by the EU model regardless of other models. You seem to be confusing the fact that I'm discussing falsification of the EU with falsification of LambdaCDM (I've not claimed that either falsifies the other, just that things the latter struggles to explain, the former does not, and if they were not present, the former would be invalid).

> CLASS has no webpage explaining
That'd be their isolation of atmospheric effects - if they were irrelevant, they'd not be present to remove.

>The CMB is not a spectral line
Not a claim or implication I've made. It is, however, a source of immense ambiguity in claims of CMB redshift. And supports CMB measures relying on other spectra to identify redshift (unless you just assume the model the CMB constrains correctly characterizes the CMB... retroactively).

>different components and the Planck bands
I suppose we just pretend "sum foregrounds" doesn't mean exactly what it says it does about knowledge of the foregrounds. The frequency distribution of the CMB there is entirely established by assuming the modeling is correct. An underestimation of the quantity of thermal dust alone would make it invisible. Sure is great that we can see thermal dust so well, right?

>Radio telescopes can reach much higher spectral resolutions than JWST
The problem isn't that the resolutions aren't higher, it's that the spectra in those wavelengths aren't sufficiently separated to allow for spectroscopy at those wavelengths with the spectral resolution of radio telescopes (which is generally just a few bands per telescope - higher spectral resolution than JWST just means they're comparatively closer in wavelength than JWST's spectroscopic instrumentation, not that they can do spectroscopy in CMB-relevant bands.
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.15223595]

>>15223511
>>15223565
(2/2)
>Not in Lerner's static model.
Which would be excluded by the statement that
>Only if it was local to this galaxy.
Meaning it's Lerner's model specifically that CMB redshift correlation would exclude - well, provided the correlation isn't a result of CMB redshift's reliance on correlating to higher wavelength spectroscopy or model extrapolation (i.e. twisting the model to fit the observations and labeling discrepancies as redshifts).

>Complete and utter horseshit.
Correct, but because I omitted the word "high", as we were discussing high redshift objects. Both your links are using the H I line and neither is recording redshifts that are very high.

[Anonymous No.15223654]

>>15223565
>>15223565
>Then why did you call them unrelated?
Because they are unrelated, being in the same category of model does not mean they depend on each other.

>an absence of the relevant structures being observed would falsify their prediction by the EU model regardless of other models.
But that isn't what you said:
>It could be falsified by a lack of observational evidence of structures that cannot be explained by the pure gravitational model of the Friedman equations.

>Not a claim or implication I've made
You claimed radio telescopes didn't have the spectral resolution needed. A baseless claim you have not bothered to try defending.
>The frequency distribution of the CMB there is entirely established by assuming the modeling is correct.
Wrong, it is was measured by FIRAS. The strong emission near the galactic plane means the spectra of the foregrounds is well measured, and can be subtracted at the galactic poles using bands the high and low ends of the bands which mostly trace the foreground.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473..576F/abstract

> not that they can do spectroscopy in CMB-relevant bands.
And yet they can and do. 100 GHz is ALMA band 3.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..154W/abstract

>>15223595
>Correct, but because I omitted the word "high"
How convenient, but still wrong. And you ignored the ALMA REBELS paper. There is also a tentative line detection of one of the z=13 JWST galaxies.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05966
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13642

[Anonymous No.15223682]

>>15223527
>Your claim is of a theoretical nature.
I'd like to see you write out exactly why "it doesn't matter if it's an assumption" made by the model, and why the presence of these assumptions similarly (provably - this is important to establish that they "don't matter") do not contribute to the length of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Challenges..

>a good thing that they're not simulating planetary nebulae
Why? Galaxies do in fact contain them, after all.

>For forming filaments
Then say that.

>What parameters were adjusted?
You're misunderstanding - if the dark matter is unnecessary for filamentation, then the N-body model is by definition incapable of falsifying dark matter via filamentation. Any observed filamentation structure would be independent of any prevalence of dark matter, making it irrelevant to dark matter; that said, recent research has, I believe, settled on dark matter as an explanation for the formation of the observed web structures - which, again, possesses no measure of mass of dark matter outside the divergence of N-body simulations from structure density in pure matter models (i.e. assuming pure gravity dominance) or from the divergence of the galactic rotation curves (again, assuming pure gravity dominance).

>these "models" can reproduce the cosmic web.
Interconnected Birkeland currents between galaxies reproduces the concentration of galaxies on filaments, while flux tube interactions generate the helicity. On smaller scales, they predict interactions at star system scales and individual stellar object/stellar system object scales (such as solar spicules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_spicule and electromagnetic interaction even through what should be electromagnetically neutral space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter#/media/File:Jupiter.Aurora.HST.mod.svg)) These are not arbitrary connections; they match experimentally observed electromagnetic structures at wide ranges of astrophysical scales.

[Anonymous No.15223738]

>>15223654
>being in the same category of model
Means they make predictions in the same category of observation (otherwise they wouldn't be in the same category of model. This is incompatible with both the claim that they are unrelated AND the claim that walked it back saying it didn't matter.

>But that isn't what you said:
What I said was a response to the claim that the EU can't be falsified because the cosmology lacks a mathematical model. Plasma physics and fluid dynamics still exist and remain unfalsified despite lacking complete mathematical models, thus your criteria are retarded.

>didn't have the spectral resolution needed
For spectroscopy. Which is correct - they can only tentatively identify specific emission lines while assuming a relevant redshift and emitting source at that redshift. The proximity of the lines due to redshift precludes all but the brightest from even being isolated.

ALL of the papers you linked did single-line analysis, which is not spectroscopy (it's spectroscopic filtering at best) and why z>11 aren't being immediately confirmed by JWST with just a detection - the standard for confirming redshifts is spectroscopy, not extrapolating single emission lines down to radio wavelengths and measuring the specific intensity at the extrapolated wavelength. Are you even reading these papers? FFS, the observation intensity of the only emitter they identified peaks on either side of the redshifted (potentially CO, assuming correct redshift) line the first paper is looking for (also note the SED modeling methodology's treatment of dust and dust absorption, assuming re-emission in far-infrared and treating its absorption EXPONENT as a free parameter they won't bother constraining).

[Anonymous No.15223743]

>>15223738
>I'd like to see you write out exactly why "it doesn't matter if it's an assumption"
We're talking about the predictions of a given model. All models make assumptions. The fact that a model is based on an assumption doesn't change the results of that model. In CDM all particles have the same gravitational interaction, hence filaments forming in N body simulations will happen with or without dark matter. And so the claim that dark matter was needed to produce the cosmic web is nonsense.

>Why? Galaxies do in fact contain them, after all.
Because it's a simulation of large scale structure, it is only gravity. You can't have infinite resolution. It also doesn't simulate horses and other mamals.

>>> that empirically proves that their gravitation-only parameters can simply be adjusted to match an arbitrary distribution/prevalence of dark matter
>>What parameters were adjusted? And how could they adjust these parameters to form filaments before it even clear that the cosmic web was real?
>You're misunderstanding - if the dark matter is unnecessary for filamentation, then the N-body model is by definition incapable of falsifying dark matter via filamentation....
I'm not misunderstanding anything. You said they tuned the parameters, I'm asking which ones.

>Interconnected Birkeland currents between galaxies reproduces the concentration of galaxies on filaments
Then link the paper showing this.

[Anonymous No.15223775]

>>15223738
Thanks for chopping my sentence in half and ignoring the bits you don't like.

>What I said was a response to the claim that the EU can't be falsified because the cosmology lacks a mathematical model.
Which I have explained is a) totally illogical as it draws on an unrelated model and b) unfalsifiable. What is is a "structure", the whole powespectrum being wrong, a single proton?

>For spectroscopy.
Which is not needed for the CMB
>ALL of the papers you linked did single-line analysis, which is not spectroscopy
Yes it is. And there are many papers with multiple lines. It doesn't magically only becomes spectroscopy if you detect lines.

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2021/08/aa39696-20/aa39696-20.html
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-spectroscopic-survey-of-Orion-KL-between-41.5-and-Rizzo-Tercero/0b7b9572c3aff9ae924d0fcc7c49a8b84f4d576d

>not extrapolating single emission lines down to radio wavelengths and measuring the specific intensity at the extrapolated wavelength
You have no idea what you're talking about. ALMA measures thousands of channels simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.15223849]

>>15223775
> ignoring the bits
Point them out, then.

>What is is a "structure"
A structure is is a collection of matter or energy operating under similar rules. The scale of the structure is dependent on the scale of the rules involved, hence the importance of Debye length scaling to the EU. Which you still haven't responded to, by the way - why would Debye length stop scaling to intergalactic distances?

>the whole powespectrum being wrong
Power spectrum of what? The CMB? Parts of it definitely are, even with multipole expansion's tendency to converge, from the Planck data https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2013/03/Planck_Power_Spectrum

> It doesn't magically only becomes spectroscopy if you detect lines.
That's the only way to separates it from blackbody spectra or other non-discrete modes of emission - the lines. Important for redshift measurement is the alteration in structure of the nearby spectroscopic lines in question, which is necessary to robustly establish that a given line detection at a given redshift corresponds to a redshifted emission of the same line in a non-redshifted emission spectrum.

>ALMA measures thousands of channels simultaneously
And reports on extrapolated redshifted lines in those specific channels. Did you think I mean't "construct a detector for that specific wavelength"? Because if I'd meant that, I'd have said that.

[Anonymous No.15223868]

>>15223743
>In CDM all particles have the same gravitational interaction
Wrong. Most of them have gravitational interaction dependent on mass, which is itself dependent on both rest mass and energy. Photons have a unique interaction as massless particles, not contributing to spacetime curvature but being influenced by it.

>the claim that dark matter was needed to produce the cosmic web
This wasn't a claim I made. You still haven't explained why the assumptions made by EU models are invalid, but you're likely still adamantly denying the existence of the model because you can't simplify it to something equivalent to the (often modified to fit observations) Friedman equations without first solving all of fluid dynamics and plasma physics.

God damn are LambdaCDM simplifications convenient for theorists. No wonder they love it so much.

>Because it's a simulation of large scale structure, it is only gravity.
The central contention of the EU is that large scale structure is not independent of electromagnetic interaction. The scalability of Debye length is consistent with plasmas of any scale, provided they are sufficiently diffuse.

>You said they tuned the parameters
No, I said dark matter parameters could be tuned to anything and still yield webs, which is implied by
>filaments forming in N body simulations will happen with or without dark matter
and thus demonstrates that N body simulations are able to simply be adjusted to any dark matter prevalence and thus filament structures have no predictive power in regards to dark matter. You misunderstood me to be making a claim that filaments either disproved LambdaCDM or required dark matter.

> link the paper
What difference does format make? This isn't engaging with the argument, it's like whining about tone. Publication isn't proof.

[Anonymous No.15224207]

>>15223743
>>15223565
>Point them out, then.
I did.

> The scale of the structure is dependent on the scale of the rules involved
The linear scale doesn't tell you how big a structure has to be to provide a falsification. You would also need at minimum some difference in density, or some other property.
>- why would Debye length stop scaling to intergalactic distances?
Because there is a minimum density. The Debye length in the IGM is only about 100 km.

>>the claim that dark matter was needed to produce the cosmic web
>This wasn't a claim I made.
That's a lie.
> Theories based on gravitation have no known mechanisms that could, under any circumstance, produce the twisted filament structures of the cosmic web (demanding the introduction of undetectable dark matter)

>That's the only way to separates it from blackbody spectra or other non-discrete modes of emission - the lines.
Hmmm. Blackbody spectra. So you agree it's a spectrum without lines. Spectroscopy does not require lines.

>And reports on extrapolated redshifted lines in those specific channels.
Which is false because in many cases ALMA measured the redshifted first.
>. Did you think I mean't "construct a detector for that specific wavelength"?
You already said that:
>measuring the specific intensity at the extrapolated wavelength

[Anonymous No.15224210]

>>15223868
>>15223868
>Wrong. Most of them have gravitational interaction dependent on mass
Which in an N body simulation is all the same.

>This wasn't a claim I made.
See above. You did.

>You still haven't explained why the assumptions made by EU models are invalid, but you're likely still adamantly denying the existence of the model because you can't simplify it to something equivalent to the (often modified to fit observations) Friedman equations without first solving all of fluid dynamics and plasma physics.
How can I judge the assumptions if a model if it's not even written down anywhere? There is no standard EU model, all you can get is endless hours of dilute opinions from different people. They don't even agree on the most basic issues, like whether the Sun is positively or negatively charged and what redshift is. It is pointless to criticise the assumptions when they vary person to person. So I asked you to post this model, but instead all you can do is post Wikipedia articles of basic physics, which naturally make no mention of the EU or this cosmological model. Your evasiveness doesn't hide the fact that your Emperor has no clothes.

>The central contention of the EU is that large scale structure is not independent of electromagnetic interaction.
Which is fucking irreverent in the context of CDM simulations.

>No, I said dark matter parameters could be tuned to anything and still yield webs...
I'll ask again, what parameters?

>>>Interconnected Birkeland currents between galaxies reproduces the concentration of galaxies on filaments
>>Then link the paper showing this.
>What difference does format make? This isn't engaging with the argument, it's like whining about tone. Publication isn't proof.
You talk about "engaging with the argument" while deliberately ignoring the point and going off on another irreverent tangent. Please link the evidence supporting this.

[Anonymous No.15224267]

>>15224207
>>15224210
>That's a lie.
>See above. You did.

I'm not the anon you're quoting there.

It's clear you're only concerned with mathematical approximations of the models and cannot operate outside the LambdaCDM paradigm because that is the theoretical background of your understanding.

I hope that understanding isn't a career, because the theoretical underpinnings of it are coming apart at the seams.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/universe-breakers-james-webb-telescope-detects-six-ancient-galaxies

[Anonymous No.15224279]

>>15224267
>I'm not the anon you're quoting there
Then why respond to a question which clearly doesn't concern you?

>It's clear you're only concerned with mathematical approximations of the models
There isn't a single qualitative description of the "model" either. Nice stawman. And yes, to be a serious cosmology one needs to actually do some mathematical physics. How can you prove your cosmology doesn't violate thermodynamics? You cannot test that with words.
The EUers who want to reject quantive physics are just luddites who want to lower the bar.

[Anonymous No.15224286]

Why is "thing close in picture!" bad when the picture is from the real world (i.e., the pattern is reproduced in a lab), but "thing close in picture!" is good when it comes out of a computer simulation (which could theoretically be as far from actual reality as it wants)?

[Anonymous No.15224300]

>>15224286
>Why is "thing close in picture!" bad when the picture is from the real world
I can take a picture of the Moon eclipsing the Sun, it's a real world picture. Does that mean they are at the same distance?
>"thing close in picture!" is good when it comes out of a computer simulation
Nobody said that anywhere.

[Anonymous No.15224323]

>>15224300
>I can take a picture of the Moon eclipsing the Sun, it's a real world picture. Does that mean they are at the same distance?
That's not a fair comparison.
If the shapes of the craters can be reproduced in laboratory from electric arcing, and they look nothing like impact craters, then on what basis do we keep calling them impact craters other than "but theory says..."?
A mathematical quantitative model is important, but how is it more important than direct observation of physical phenomena?

[Anonymous No.15224335]

>>15224300
>Nobody said that anywhere.
That's what a mathematical model is at the end of the day.
You want it to spit out a picture that looks the same as the object being studied, i.e. "predict" its shape.
You could do it by hand, or you could let a computer draw it if the calculation is infeasible for a person.
At the end of the day you're comparing pictures with pictures, because we're not there to inspect the constitution and distances between galaxies directly.
So why is a picture coming from a real lab experiment any worse than a picture coming from a proposed mathematical model simulated on a computer?

[Anonymous No.15224350]

>>15224323
>That's not a fair comparison.
That's exact what's going on with Stephan's Quintet.
>If the shapes of the craters can be reproduced in laboratory from electric arcing, and they look nothing like impact craters
That is subjective. If there is really an obvious difference then one can construct some quantive measurement to distinguish the two when compared to real measured craters.
>then on what basis do we keep calling them impact craters other than "but theory says..."?
>A mathematical quantitative model is important, but how is it more important than direct observation of physical phenomena?
And yet we have observed a giant impact in the solar system directly, with Shoemaker-Levy 9. We know it happens. The solar system is filled with dust and asteroids, you can hold a meteorite in your hand. But where are these giant lighting bolts making craters?

[Anonymous No.15224389]

>>15224350
>That's exact what's going on with Stephan's Quintet.
That seems more like pointing out the inherent contradiction of thinking that they are distant yet interacting. Not a fair comparison with an eclipse, unless you want to argue that the Moon looks like it is colliding with the Sun during one.

>That is subjective. If there is really an obvious difference then one can construct some quantive measurement to distinguish the two when compared to real measured craters.
No, it's qualitative. Qualitative is not the same as subjective. Qualitative is prior to quantitative.
How are you supposed to ever move science forward, if you require that every step outside the accepted paradigm to be presented with mathematics, even if observational evidence seems to point elsewhere?
When the quantitative model fails and fails badly, you should go back way back to the observational and qualitative stage, which is what EU and the likes seem to be doing.
A quantitative model should be the last step in undestanding a phenomenon.

>And yet we have observed a giant impact in the solar system directly, with Shoemaker-Levy 9. We know it happens.
This is another line of reasoning I don't get. Why would acknowledging electricity in space need to invalidate gravitational phenomena?

How does the impact crater look like anyway? If you bring it up in this discussion I expect that you have a picture to compare it against other craters.

[Anonymous No.15224430]

>>15224279
>There isn't a single qualitative description of the "model"
Electromagnetic interactions at any scale, including intergalactic, that scale the way plasma phenomena are observed to scale in the laboratory. That's the qualitative description. You can insist it isn't, and I expect you to, but you're clearly too invested in the existing paradigm to judge its validity objectively, especially relative to models outside it.

>The EUers who want to reject quantive physics are just luddites who want to lower the bar.

Now that doesn't sound like a defensive gatekeeping ad hominem at all.

I get it, the mathematical model is falling apart in the face of new observation outside and you built your whole worldview on top of the model - it's unpleasant, but try not to be a pet-keeping theorist for once and try being scientific. You don't want to end up like the string theorists.

[Anonymous No.15224447]

>>15224389
>That seems more like pointing out the inherent contradiction of thinking that they are distant yet interacting.
But the people who think they are distant don't think they are interacting. It's only one galaxy in question, the others which show clear interactions are at the same redshift.
>Qualitative is not the same as subjective.
"Which image do you think looks more alike" is subjective. One person may think matching the rays around craters is most critical, another the rim edges, another the size distribution. If there is a real objective difference then that is something that could be quantified.
>This is another line of reasoning I don't get. Why would acknowledging electricity in space need to invalidate gravitational phenomena?
You specifically asked about direct observations. But there is no direct evidence of these lightning bolts. There are however direct observations of impacts. To me it doesn't seem based on observations at all.
And as is usually the case you are moving the goalposts. Saying giant lightning bolts formed the lunar craters is quite different to "acknowledging electricity in space".

[Anonymous No.15224461]

>>15224430
>That's the qualitative description.
It's also completely vague. You need a lot more to build an actual model of cosmology. Keeping it as vague as possible is an old strategy favoured by clairvoyants, fortune tellers and other schysters.
>the mathematical model is falling apart
Lol. Quantitative physics is the foundation of the modern world. Semiconductors, circuits, radio communications, satellites, GPS. They're not just attacking one mathematical model, they're attacking all of quantitative physics. This is not just rejecting 21st century physics but all the way back to Newton. If you want to live in the dark ages, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.15224632]

>>15224461
>It's also completely vague.
How so? Assuming the basic interactions' foundations are valid, It quite specifically suggests addition of charge dependent attraction and repulsion terms to the basic interactions the Friedmann equations seek to utilize to characterize a universe. That's not vague, it's just currently not possible to model completely mathematically without complete solutions of fluid dynamics and plasma physics. Until it can be, the logical progression is experimentation and observation - not religious adherence to a fucking equation.

>You need a lot more to build an actual model of cosmology.
Such as removing charge interactions entirely the way LambdaCDM does? Seems like less, not more.

>the foundation of the modern world
Is not LambdaCDM, or any cosmological model, because the modern world doesn't operate on cosmological scales.

>Semiconductors, circuits, radio communications, satellites, GPS
The output of engineers and experimentalists, not theorists. That you can write an equation that matches some of their outputs doesn't mean your theory is responsible for the function of the devices - we had working heat engines when phlogiston was still being replaced with "the caloric" and working electrical devices long before the electron was theorized.

Why do theorists always seem to fall back on "modern world needs us" arguments whenever their paradigms are threatened?

>they're attacking all of quantitative physics
[citation needed], first of all, and second, that's how science works. If the (quite specific, and by no means homogeneous) aspects of quantitative physics challenged by EU ideas are valid, they'll survive the "attack" and come out with an additional supporting evidence in the form of failure of an alternative. Did you think these were holy texts?

[Anonymous No.15224855]

>>15224632
>How so?
Is it enough to model the basic observable and nature of the universe? No it fucking isn't. Is the universe homogeneous? Isotropic? Is it infinite in size or age? Does it have a net charge? How does redshift occur? How is Olber's paradox resolved? These are some of the things one has to specify for a cosmology, even a qualitative one. Similarly you could describe LCDM as "a universe ruled by gravity". But that would be fucking useless, because it could describe thousands of different models.
>Assuming the basic interactions' foundations are valid, It quite specifically suggests addition of charge dependent attraction and repulsion terms to the basic interactions the Friedmann equations seek to utilize to characterize a universe.
Your EU chums don't agree. The Friedmann equations describe a dynamic universe ruled by GR, either expanding or contracting. Static solutions are unstable. They do not believe in an expanding cosmology so this is absolutely not right. I'm quite sure the majority of them don't believe in GR either. So nope.
>Semiconductors, circuits, radio communications, satellites, GPS
>The output of engineers and experimentalist, not theorists.
Experimentalist who quantified their would in the language of mathematics. Quantitative physics isn't just theory.
>Did you think these were holy texts?
I think I need more convincing that their wrong than just a random youtube video claiming it's so, without even a single experiment, observation or derivation.

[Anonymous No.15224872]

>>15218850
The sun is a collection of divine energy for the chosen few to cultivate and absorb to become gods amongst men

[Anonymous No.15224917]

>>15224855
>Is the universe homogeneous? Isotropic?
Unknown in either model. Assumed in LambdaCDM. Difficult to reconcile with observation.

>Does it have a net charge?
An interesting open question - that LambdaCDM answers simply with "assume yes, and zero".

>How does redshift occur?
Not really known - assumed in the standard model to result from recessional velocity due to expansion of distance itself.

>Olber's paradox
Same explanation LambdaCDM uses to avoid the CMB cooking us all - redshift. EU's biggest struggle is, without a doubt, explaining redshift - there are competing ways of treating it in EU models, such as plasma interactions or dust interactions absorbing and re-emitting at lower bands (even some intrinsic redshift explanations use this, except as a result of emitter-local interactions as opposed to diffuse intergalactic ones).

> The Friedmann equations describe a dynamic universe ruled by GR
Hence adding electromagnetic interactions to the "ruling" paradigms being a natural EU-based extension of the equations to satisfy your obsession with them - it's just that those interactions are too complex for the equations, and that the instability of static solutions is a consequence of gravitation being a monopole field and thus either collapsing or diffusing exclusively. The fact electromagnetism is a dipole with attraction and repulsion alike prevents the same universal instability from developing (as the result is flow, not monopolar expansion or contraction from initial density).

[Anonymous No.15224974]

>>15224917
>>Is the universe homogeneous? Isotropic?
>Unknown in either model. Assumed in LambdaCDM. Difficult to reconcile with observations.
It's not a matter of knowledge, we're talking about the foundations of these models. LCDM is based on the Friedmann equations which are derived from the assumption of homogeneity and Isotropy. So naturally, in the model it is known. Whether or not it is true in the real universe is another matter, but we're talking about models. You cannot model cosmology without making any assumptions.
And these questions were rhetorical. My point was that your "model" doesn't answer these questions, so it's not a cosmological model.
>there are competing ways of treating it in EU models, such as plasma interactions or dust interactions absorbing and re-emitting at lower bands
Neither of those things actually work. Emission and re-emission would not conserve the direction or energy of the photon. Many models of electron/plasma interactions violate thermodynamics or energy conservation. But of course they're much more interested in selling books than actually working on the fundamental questions of their "paradigm".
>Hence adding electromagnetic interactions to the "ruling" paradigms being a natural EU-based extension of the equations to satisfy your obsession with them
But it's not the EU model. And you admit this doesn't even work. So no it's not useful.