Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Or maybe I should ask, is MHDEnzo the best present-day realisation of "EU theory"?

Hot off the astro-ph press:

Based on what y'all have read of MM's posts, both here and in the two other, related, threads, how well would you say MHDEnzo meets his criteria for "EU/PC theory"?

Er, no. I don't think even the EU/PC umbrella is big enough for virtual reality where one "simulates" in software what they cannot empirically demonstrate in real life. Sorry. Fail.

 

[sol invictus]

Well, that's another curve ball for the layman. Am I now to believe that 73% of the mass of the universe is not subject to quantum theory?

No, it is. Why do you say it isn't?

In fact quantum mechanics itself provides a contribution to the CC - a rather disturbingly large one. Remember that string analogy I gave you before to show why the CC doesn't change with expansion? That wasn't really an analogy - in quantum field theory, every "mode" of every field has a zero-point oscillation, and so each mode has an energy. Taken together those form a cosmological constant. The total CC is the sum of the quantum contributions from every field, plus whatever "classical" contribution you started with, plus the energies in whatever scalar field condensates you happen to have (such as the Higgs).

It's rather a miracle that all those contributions add up to a total which is much smaller than any of them indivudually - much smaller. That's known as the cosmological constant problem.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added; source*)

Considering the author, this somewhat tarnishes the glow emanating from MM's keyboard, on the subject of Birkeland and the correspondence between his work and the (present day) observable universe, doesn't it?

Er, how so? It was a relatively simple piece of gear, but relatively 'high tech' for it's time. Even with relatively low technology he *explained and simulated* what still seems to mystify your entire industry to this day. Ditto on coronal loops, jets, plasma filamentary structures, etc.

The author is also somewhat more circumspect than MM in regard to the transcendent explanatory power of "Birkeland currents"; "Table I" is titled "Phenomena in which Birkeland currents are thought to play a role" (bold added).

I think they play a role too. Your point?

For all the praise MM heaps on Birkeland as an empiricist, it is curious that both MM and Birkeland (apparently) missed a curious inconsistency between the "experimental analogy" and the (even then known) reality of Saturn's rings ... the former is self-luminous, the latter merely reflects light.

* and a special thanks to IT, for his superb collection of links.

Well, Birkeland's theories explain how a ring forms and why it forms where it forms. I don't recall off the top of my head Birkeland ever speculating on how much light from a planetary was due to the EM field itself, and how much might be due to particles reflecting light.

There is no doubt that we have better technology today than Birkeland had access to 100 years ago. On the other hand, he wasn't afraid to role up his sleeves and do real science "experiments" with real "control mechanisms". Even his "failures" would still have been based on real forces of nature and real observations he could demonstrate in a lab. Compare and contrast that with inflation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's rather a miracle that all those contributions add up to a total which is much smaller than any of them indivudually - much smaller. That's known as the cosmological constant problem.

And like all "miracles", it cannot be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. It's pure fabrication.

Consider this. Prior to about 15 years or so ago, "dark energy" didn't exist. Someone got the idea we were "accelerating" and suddenly something nobody had ever heard of had now composes 75% of the new theory. Think about that for a moment. Imagine a theory that failed so badly that they needed a fudge factor of 75 percent to get things "working" again? Now of course none of the QM affects can be verified or therefore "calculated" with any confidence, and in a purely ad hoc manner, DE becomes more important than all the real physics in the known universe and it's affect on QM is supposedly nearly zero. The whole Lamdba-gumby theory is put together with bubble gum concepts, wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas. It's pure window dressing math, and pure pseudoscience a the level of real physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's amazing that there are so many "alternate" theories and theorists out there!

Isn't it?

I have been reading about this stuff for years and never heard of these people.

Some of the papers are pretty new too.

Why haven't their theories gained any traction anywhere in the world -- China or India, for example -- where there might be some motivation to show-up mainstream western scientists?

It probably will happen sooner or later. Until the advent of the internet however, not many folks or even many individuals in government had access to much information. That has all changed since the invention of the browser.

It's hard for me to fathom that there could be such a powerful global barrier to accepting these theories if they had any merit.

This community isn't nearly as big as you might think. Odd are that I've "bumped heads" with many if not most of the astronomy 'experts" on this forum on other forums over the past few years.

The idea of "merit' seems to be highly subjective. For instance Birkeland's aurora and solar theories have "merit" to this day because they work in a lab. It might be acceptable to ask if they actually *apply* to solar theory, but the ideas have empirical merit either way, even if they are falsified somehow. At least they *can* be falsified, unlike inflation theory that survives even when "dark flows" have demonstrated that it has no predictive value at all, and it's key predictions are falsified.

 

[sol invictus]

And like all "miracles", it cannot be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. It's pure fabrication.

Wrong. It can and has.

Consider this. Prior to about 15 years or so ago, "dark energy" didn't exist.

Wrong, obviously. Dark energy couldn't care less about us.

Someone got the idea we were "accelerating" and suddenly something nobody had ever heard of had now composes 75% of the new theory.

Wrong. One parameter of the old theory was measured more accurately - accurately enough by now that we can be very sure it's not zero.

Think about that for a moment. Imagine a theory that failed so badly that they needed a fudge factor of 75 percent to get things "working" again?

One can imagine that, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Now of course none of the QM affects can be verified or therefore "calculated" with any confidence, and in a purely ad hoc manner, DE becomes more important than all the real physics in the known universe and it's affect on QM is supposedly nearly zero.

Gibberish.

The whole Lamdba-gumby theory is put together with bubble gum concepts, wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas. It's pure window dressing math, and pure pseudoscience a the level of real physics.

Keep raving - it's mildly entertaining. You remind me of that GMB maniac that was posting here recently, only you're a little less colorful.

 

[Tubbythin]

At *no time* however did Einstein try to make the constant he added do any superluminal expansion tricks.

GR can give superluminal expansion with or without a CC. End of story.

When Hubble's observations of redshift over distance was discovered, the idea of an "expanding" universe caught on. At that point Einstein realized that GR was a perfectly elegant formula *without* any constants (no Lambda's) so he *TOOK THEM OUT AGAIN ALTOGETHER*.

Erm. He took all the constants out altogether? Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? I'm giving you one last chance to change your mind here.

Arp's observations had not been swept under the rug yet, and nobody was sure how fast anything might be *moving*, and the assumption of the time was still "movement of objects", not "lambda space expansion". He took out Lambda entirely and reportedly called it his "greatest blunder". GR had no constants as Einstein taught it, and I am fine with GR theory without constants.

GR without any constants isn't GR.

The mainstream however is attempting to "explain" superluminal expansion now with Einstein's blunder theory.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. Einstein's "blunder" was to describe the Universe as a static Universe in an unstable equilibrium. Obviously a static description of the Universe cannot be being used to describe an expanding Universe.

Worse yet, they continue to call it "GR" and claim GR is consistent with this idea. In the business world, that is called "false advertising". Claiming superluminal expansion of "space" is compatible with GR is absurd if you're talking about Einstein's brand of GR. The "new and improved" Lambda-GR does superluminal expansion tricks for breakfast, but of course it's not the GR Einstein taught, the one with out any 'constants".

I'll repeat yet again. Superluminal expansion is perfectly consistent with GR (wiith or without a CC). You have been told this many many many times now. Simply repeating the same falsehood is doing you no favours whatsoever.

 

[Reality Check]

This was the closest thing to a full and honest answer that you got. There's a bit more to the story however and one point that needs to be clarified. The problem for Einstein at the time is that objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and through Einstein's tenure, any sort of "expansion" would have been objects in motion oriented. It would have been very easy for Einstein to explain a "contracting" universe, one that was being pulled together by the curvature of gravity. It would have been equally easy for Einstein to explain an "expanding" universe where objects in motion stay in motion, and their inertia is great enough to keep them expanding forever, in spite the slight tug of gravity. What GR didn't "explain" very well was the idea of a "static" and stable universe, and that was the "mainstream" theory of the day. GR really didn't fit very well with a static universe that was completely dominated by gravity, so he added a "lamba", which was actually only a constant. That constant he added could have represented any known force of nature, including weak persistent EM fields for all he knew at the time. All he was trying to do is explain how a universe came to be stable over time.

At *no time* however did Einstein try to make the constant he added do any superluminal expansion tricks.

When Hubble's observations of redshift over distance was discovered, the idea of an "expanding" universe caught on. At that point Einstein realized that GR was a perfectly elegant formula *without* any constants (no Lambda's) so he *TOOK THEM OUT AGAIN ALTOGETHER*. Arp's observations had not been swept under the rug yet, and nobody was sure how fast anything might be *moving*, and the assumption of the time was still "movement of objects", not "lambda space expansion". He took out Lambda entirely and reportedly called it his "greatest blunder". GR had no constants as Einstein taught it, and I am fine with GR theory without constants.

The mainstream however is attempting to "explain" superluminal expansion now with Einstein's blunder theory. Worse yet, they continue to call it "GR" and claim GR is consistent with this idea. In the business world, that is called "false advertising". Claiming superluminal expansion of "space" is compatible with GR is absurd if you're talking about Einstein's brand of GR. The "new and improved" Lambda-GR does superluminal expansion tricks for breakfast, but of course it's not the GR Einstein taught, the one with out any 'constants".

There is no "new and improved" Lambda-GR. The GR in the Lambda-CDM model (the 'Lambda-CDM theory" does not exist) is exacly the "the GR Einstein taught", i.e. as written in his 1917 paper.

The specific solution of the Einstein field equations is one that Einstein was well aware of: the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric was first thought of in 1922 and Robertson and Walker added their contribution in 1935.

The "superluminal expansion tricks" are not needed since the restriction in Special Relativity to less than the speed of light refers to physical objects. It does not apply to space.

I was not aware that Halton Arp was publishing anything in the 1930's when Hubble was publishing his data. I guess that would be because Halton Arp was born in 1927!

Many people have reported Einstein as stating that the comsomlogical constant was his "greatest blunder". Of course we now know that his second greatest blunder was taking it out! Of course no one actually took it out. It was merely set to zero.

Then it was observed that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing (or to be more exact and placate you - the rate of expansion of space in the universe is increasing) and now the comsomlogical constant is thought to be non-zero.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Many people have reported Einstein as stating that the comsomlogical constant was his "greatest blunder". Of course we now know that his second greatest blunder was taking it out! Of course no one actually took it out. It was merely set to zero.

Alright, I'll accept that as a valid criticism of my statements. There is a subtle but important distinction between setting it to zero and "taking it out". He did just set it to zero.

What you fail however to accept or acknowledge is that by setting it to "zero", or even if it's not zero, the "expansion" process is simply an "objects in motion stay in motion" sort of expansion. There's no "expansion of space" going on, it's simply an inertial expansion process. Here by the way is a pretty good paper on this topic, and a mathematical objection to "expansion of space", vs. a simple "expansion of objects".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590

From the first paper:

6 Conclusions
In this paper, as a counterexample to the idea of expanding space, we have studied the dynamics of the empty model. We have shown that the cosmological redshift is there (as) a result of the real motion of the source, i.e., a Doppler shift.

In Einstein's use of a constant, his constant could have represented absolutely anything, any *known* force of nature, including EM fields, or anything "existing in nature". He wasn't trying to get superluminal expansion from the process, nor did he claim that "space" (physically undefined) was expanding.

The real physical problem here is that "space" is physically undefined, and the way you folks are using the term "space", it is more or less a magical aether theory that is absolutely unnecessary. In a Occum's razor argument, it therefore has to go. Objects can expand, "space" cannot.

 

[sol invictus]

What you fail however to accept or acknowledge is that by setting it to "zero", or even if it's not zero, the "expansion" process is simply an "objects in motion stay in motion" sort of expansion.

OK then. Consider a closed universe with zero CC full of dust (small particles of matter). Since the universe is closed there is some finite total number of dust particles in it, and (since no particles are created or destroyed) that number is constant - it doesn't change with time. According to Einstein, the space is a hypersphere that expands with time, so that the local density of dust decreases with time. That's something you can observe locally, it's obviously coordinate invariant, and it's completely impossible to explain unless the space is getting larger.

I'm happy to entertain any other points of view, so long as they don't deny the basics above - fixed number of particles in the universe, none created or destroyed, and decreasing density.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590

The first is a trivial and obvious observation (which I've already made three times in this thread). The second is essentially wrong - yes, it's possible to choose coordinates as he says, but that means nothing. One has to define a physical observable, and the density is the obvious choice. Density is a physical quantity which one can measure locally.

In Einstein's use of a constant, his constant could have represented absolutely anything, any *known* force of nature, including EM fields, or anything "existing in nature".

Completely wrong. The CC is a very specific thing - it cannot be due to EM fields. And Einstein certainly did claim that space was expanding

The real physical problem here is that "space" is physically undefined, and the way you folks are using the term "space", it is more or less a magical aether theory that is absolutely unnecessary. In a Occum's razor argument, it therefore has to go. Objects can expand, "space" cannot.

Then your task is to explain how a homogeneous distribution of density can decrease with time in a fixed space, while at the same time conserving total particle number and mass.

Good luck - I'm sure we won't be hearing from you on that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The first is a trivial and obvious observation (which I've already made three times in this thread).

Whaaaaaaaat? It's not "trivial", it's "critical". There is no need for 'expanding space' when good old objects in motion stay in motion expansion will do just fine to explain doppler redshift! Holy Cow. Handwaves and denial seem rampant around here.

The second is essentially wrong - yes, it's possible to choose coordinates as he says, but that means nothing. One has to define a physical observable, and the density is the obvious choice. Density is a physical quantity which one can measure locally.

The density we observe locally is simply function of galaxy clustering and pure gravity. Our local galaxy tends to collect mass and we live inside that galaxy. The only density you "measure locally" is a direct result of the physical system itself.

Completely wrong. The CC is a very specific thing - it cannot be due to EM fields. And Einstein certainly did claim that space was expanding.

Wrong on both counts. Einstein's constant was never defined.

I get the feeling that you either did not read or did not understand that first paper I handed you. It explained the answer to all of your questions, but you simply handwaved at it, and dismissed the whole thing as "trivial". This is why mathematical explanations are pointless. I handed you the math you asked for, and you never even read it evidently.

 

[sol invictus]

Whaaaaaaaat? It's not "trivial", it's "critical".

That flat, empty space can be sliced in many ways? That is trivial. It is a fact accessible to first year students in maths or physics - in fact the statements in that paper have precisely the same content as the statement that flat Euclidean space can be written in either Cartesian or spherical coordinates. It is literally and mathematically equivalent to that.

The density we observe locally is simply function of galaxy clustering and pure gravity. Our local galaxy tends to collect mass and we live inside that galaxy. The only density you "measure locally" is a direct result of the physical system itself.

That is both false (as you would know if you knew anything about cosmology) and irrelevant, as I have already provided an example where that doesn't happen.

Wrong on both counts. Einstein's constant was never defined.

The CC is a term in a mathematical equation. How much more "defined" do you need?

I get the feeling that you either did not read or did not understand that first paper I handed you. It explained the answer to all of your questions, but you simply handwaved at it, and dismissed the whole thing as "trivial". This is why mathematical explanations are pointless. I handed you the math you asked for, and you never even read it evidently.

That paper demonstrates that in flat, completely empty space, one can choose coordinates that makes it look as if it is expanding. That is correct, obvious, and utterly trivial. It says nothing of any interest.

 

[ben m]

Whaaaaaaaat? It's not "trivial", it's "critical". There is no need for 'expanding space' when good old objects in motion stay in motion expansion will do just fine to explain doppler redshift! Holy Cow. Handwaves and denial seem rampant around here.

Did you understand Sol's comment, MM? It says the opposite of what you think it does.

Do you still claim to think GR is a good theory, MM? You sure seem fixated on throwing away parts of it. You want to (a) keep strong-field and perturbative GR but (b) discard any coordinate system other than your handpicked one, and (c) discard the CC term. That doesn't sound like agreeing with GR, which is very specifically hostile to glued-down coordinate systems and which has always included a valid CC term.

Sol pointed out that you *can* write down the present-day velocities of galaxies in a coordinate system where spacetime isn't expanding. You can then write trajectories for them using "objects in motion stay in motion" and so on. Good for you. This is no more exciting than deciding that the Prime Meridian should run through Halifax and that latitudes should be numbered from 0 at the North Pole to 180 at the South. Do you understand what I'm saying? You *can* do this *if you want to*.

Now---having done that, and presumably still insisting lambda=0---you are free to try to explain Riess's and Perlmutter's supernova data. Whereas GR does it perfectly simply---making this CC term nonzero instead of zero---in this context, in your hand-picked coordinate system, Riess's and Perlmutter's data will say that Newton's Law is wrong and F != ma. Ugh.

 

[Dancing David]

What *empirical* tests? You mean those point at the sky and add math exercises? Those are "simple observations". There is not "test" of inflation in a point at the sky exercise. Even when it fails your 'tests'. you ignore them, as in the case of "Dark flows", or you modify the properties of Nereid the inflation deity.



How so?



So what? At least his theory *might* be actually "testable" whereas the inflation deity evidently doesn't exist anymore. Ari's theory also has some hope of being physically tested. Inflation is a pure act of faith on the part of the believer without any hope of ever "testing" anything.



Ya, only "grudgingly" and "reluctantly" and 50 years after his death. What part of his work doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny? It was all done in a lab to begin with.



Ok, I'll bite, how did his ideas "fail" in any way? How about his solar wind concepts? You folks can't explain something Birkeland actually simulated in a lab. What's your problem explaining high speed solar wind? Jets? Coronal loops?



So I'll have to be dead before you finally accept Birkeland's explanation of say solar wind, or coronal loop discharges, or jets, or anything related to solar physics? No thanks. I already know his ideas work empirically.



What is so difficult to understand about applying GR theory and MHD theory to objects in space?

I have still not seen you take one single step toward demonstrating your inflation deity in concrete empirical ways. When can I expect to see a demonstration of theory, or is the inflation deity incapable of "predicting" anything useful in a controlled scientific experiment? If not, it's no better than numerology.

More sophistry worthy of a sophmore.

You can not explain many things with your alleged theory.

the observation of the universe is part of 'science', you are just hiding from the fact that your theories do not match observation.

plain and simple, you rtheories do not match observation so you dismiss them.

What about those rotation curves, you are avoiding that like hydrofluric acid, aren't you. You know that your theory can not account at all for the observed phenomena, not the rotation curves, not the observed red shift, not the black body spectrum, not the proportion of elements. None of them.

But please pretend you know what science is. It is rather funnt to see you can not answer direct questions.

I will start with asimple one, what is the source of the energy that creates the current for the electric sun. You have avoided it consistently.

Why because you are smart enough to be opaque and pretend you have an answer, when you know you don't.


1. What explains the observed rotation curve of galaxies? (CDM thread and all)

 

[Dancing David]

Arp's observations had not been swept under the rug yet, and nobody was sure how fast anything might be *moving*, and the assumption of the time was still "movement of objects", not "lambda space expansion".

Arp's statistics are unsound, he can not come up witha coherent model at all, there are plenty of objects undergoing tidal disturbance that do not have associated QSOs.

he is agreat man, but his use of statistics is truely ignorant.

You show a mystic attachement to someone who fudges observation and uses no control groups. Yet he could use all sorts of sample control groups and even blinding (despite the fact that he can't run a lab experiment), he refuses to do so.

Why? Because then his magic bunny picture will just be a sample error.

Truely shameful MM, this is one example where observational science can use control groups and double blinding. Yet Arp fails the test. He doesn't run control samlpes because then his cherry picked sampling technique will be shown to be preposterous.

Brilliant astronomer that he is.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, that's another curve ball for the layman. Am I now to believe that 73% of the mass of the universe is not subject to quantum theory?

that depends, energy is subject to QM, even if it responds only to gravitation, which might be the case.

 

[Dancing David]

It's amazing that there are so many "alternate" theories and theorists out there! I have been reading about this stuff for years and never heard of these people. Why haven't their theories gained any traction anywhere in the world -- China or India, for example -- where there might be some motivation to show-up mainstream western scientists? It's hard for me to fathom that there could be such a powerful global barrier to accepting these theories if they had any merit.

The truth is they are inconsistent or in contradiction to the evidence.

With Arp, he had a good case before modern astronomy, there is no suppression of his views. They just don't match the data we have.

For example, they can not deal with the 'alpha-lyman forest', if Arp or his followers would just run sample control groups then they could prove the correlation between QSOs and Arp objects, funnt how they refuse to use statitics the way the rest of science does. It would be like only taking samples from people who have heart attacks, without control groups you learn littel if nothing.

Most of the alternate red shift theories have a fatal flaw that the proponents ignore.

Scientists love to knock over the dominant paradigm. Guth certainly got a lot of grief in the beginning.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Chodorowski contradicts Chodorowski

From the first paper:

6 Conclusions
In this paper, as a counterexample to the idea of expanding space, we have studied the dynamics of the empty model. We have shown that the cosmological redshift is there (as) a result of the real motion of the source, i.e., a Doppler shift.

Then consider this, by the vary same author, from a later paper (Eppur si muove):

Again, nobody believes (perhaps except Milne) that for non-empty universes the origin of the redshift is purely Dopplerian. From the Principle of Equivalence it follows that there must be also a gravitational shift in presence of matter. Indeed, it is well known in cosmology that for small redshifts, the cosmological redshift can be decomposed into a Doppler component and a gravitational component. In a forthcoming paper, we shall perform such a decomposition for arbitrarily large values of the redshift.

So it would appear that your authority figure on this matter has changed his mind. Or perhaps he is simply self contradictory. Or maybe you just don't understand what everybody else is talking about. Which ever is the case, it is quite obvious that the first comment from 2006 is contradicted by the second comment from 2008, and both comments were written by the same person.

And remember that in general relativity, gravity and space are essentially the same thing, gravity being a manifestation of the local curvature of space. So when Chodorowski speaks of "gravitational redshift" it must be a redshift that links back to space, either curved or dynamic. Chodorowski does say in the latter short note: "The concept of spacetime is central in this theory, but endowing space with physical properties is incorrect." I disagree, and I suspect Chodorowski is in the significant minority here. How does one decide that anything is "wrong" when it results in predictions that are firmly consistent with observation?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Er, how so? It was a relatively simple piece of gear, but relatively 'high tech' for it's time. Even with relatively low technology he *explained and simulated* what still seems to mystify your entire industry to this day. Ditto on coronal loops, jets, plasma filamentary structures, etc.

Huh??

One of the points that the author, a certain A. P., makes is that when in situ measurements became possible (and, no doubt, some time before as well), it became clear that the solar wind (and many aspects of the Earth's magnetosphere) aligned with what Birkeland "*explained and simulated*" only in some respects; in others, it turns out he was wrong ... hence the author's use of the word "surprisingly" (others have said he was just lucky).

Next, apart from the minor curiosity of what you think "my industry" is, the last part seems quite illogical ... if he "explained and simulated" "coronal loops, jets, plasma filamentary structures, etc.", in a manner that would meet an empiricist's criteria, then there'd be no mystery today, would there?

But anyway, I'll bite ... in which of Birkeland's publications did he "explain" (and report his "simulation" of) the "plasma filamentary structures" that are the Crab pulsar wind nebula? the Tarantula Nebula? The M87 jet? I'm particularly interested in reading his explanations of the x-ray and radio emissions of these objects (or these classes of object), as well as his simulations of that emission.

[...]

Well, Birkeland's theories explain how a ring forms and why it forms where it forms.

(bold added)

I have no doubt that his "theories" can indeed explain how a ring forms ... but does his work contain an explanation of how Saturn's rings formed, and could they explain why they are found where they are today? Did he predict that there were rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune too?

I don't recall off the top of my head Birkeland ever speculating on how much light from a planetary was due to the EM field itself, and how much might be due to particles reflecting light.

Is there not a photograph of a simulation of 'planetary rings' among his published works? Does that photograph not show a very bright ring, against a dark 'planet'?

BTW, what did Birkeland say the source of the material in the rings was?

There is no doubt that we have better technology today than Birkeland had access to 100 years ago. On the other hand, he wasn't afraid to role up his sleeves and do real science "experiments" with real "control mechanisms". Even his "failures" would still have been based on real forces of nature and real observations he could demonstrate in a lab.

Indeed.

One problem (of several) is that he was lucky in his simulations ... for example, the solar wind is quite different from the stream of electrons in his terrella, in terms of density and speed, and the mismatch persists even after one applies the well-known plasma scaling rules (due to Alfvén?).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

FYI, here's another paper on redshift that does not require superluminal expansion.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO3PDF/V14N3EDW.pdf

Google is your friend!

It seems that Matthew R. Edwards is "ExpErdMann" in BAUT, and that there are several threads discussing his ideas; here, for example, and here, and here, and here, and here. It seems that this idea needs rather a lot more work before it can be said to be even internally consistent ("I'd be interested in seeing how you represent the photon description as a antisymmetric rank 2 tensor (actually it's a vector, but tensors are generalized vectors) with three degrees of freedom decaying into the symmetric rank 2 tensors of the graviton with 10 degrees of freedom." is one gem).

Of course, if one applies the MM criterion (well, one of them, to do with real experiments with real controls), then Edwards' idea is DOA ... there are (AFAIK) no controlled lab experiments reporting the decay of photons into gravitons.

There are many possible ways to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon purely from a mathematical point of view. Why pick one and call it "superior"?

Let's see now ...

... because it's superior because it does not have any (known) internal inconsistencies? because it accounts for all the relevant observational and experimental results - quantitatively - better than any other?