Well, I hope I can meet the high bar that Dr. McGaugh has set for acceptable comments. Seriously. My first logical argument to Stacy and the readers/commenters is that the scientific method has failed you. The scientific method has not provided a means for you to go back and correct the priors that were incorrect. To be totally frank, nature (personified for fun) is a trickster. Nature has fooled scientists in so many ways. It is difficult to even begin this argument, because scientists are so strident about the scientific method, and yet it is their version of the scientific method that has held them (you) back from discovering reality.
I am not all that bright, but if you stumble across the basic bone structure of nature, everything becomes entirely clear. Look, I’ll minimize mentioning here how science screwed up by throwing point charges on the discard pile, instead of giving them volumetric immutability, but had someone had that thought between 1870 and 1920, nature would have been solved easily within a fortnight. It is really that simple. I’m a fricking idiot, but I got lucky, and I can see how simple it is. So set aside everything you think you know for now.
Look, everything is local. Forget these idiotic fields with no field generators. Astrophysicists are in the best position for solving nature, but they are at the wrong scale. Drop down some 40-60 orders of magnitude. Everything is about orbiting point charges, which are Planck length order of magnitude, and the fields they generate and their influence on other point charges in spacetime aether or standard model particles. Actually that is redundant. You have no idea how mass works. You have no idea about energy shielding. You are deluded by incorrect priors. No wonder you are despondent. It is not possible to reach the solution building upon your faulty foundation.
You really must let go of your priors. General relativity is great at its scales of applicability, but it doesn’t work at the smallest local scales where it becomes evident that spacetime is an aether of standard model particles. Likewise, the inflationary big bang and expansion are ill-conceived. Yes, you will get all those back, but transformed. The inflationary bangs must be realized to be processes that may happen in any galaxy with the right conditions in a fashion distributed in time and possibly periodically. It is steady state at large time scales. Therefore expansion is galaxy-local and in opposition to other galaxies. I know it is strange to contemplate, but that is the reality, and pair production and other processes precipitate traditional standard matter which then gravitates back towards the dominant local galaxy.
Now that we have eliminated the 13.8 billion year old universe idea, in favor of steady state, it seems logical that spacetime is composed of tired photons and neutrinos that have redshifted so far that they become massy and drop velocity until they are captured by the last galaxy on their path. These tired photons and neutrinos and other detritus of decomposed particles that form the spacetime aether (curvy per Einstein) are typically at such low energy that they barely interact with low energy standard model matter. I suppose it is possible that they may even combine into other low energy stable particles. We know nothing about this realm. Seriously, contemplate that. We know nothing, because it is at scales many orders of magnitude below our observability technology.
Ok, this is getting long. It’s not me that is the problem. It is you. Physicists are so stuck in their ways and unwilling to question the scientific method, that they are despondent. I am offering the bone structure of the new paradigm. Suspend disbelief and take it out for a spin. Everything will make so much more sense. You can keep all your observations. Your ‘accepted’ math needs only scales of applicability. Sadly, there are many prior interpretations that you will need to discard if you want to move beyond despondency into productivity. Take it slowly, despacito, and enjoy.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California
p.s. I made the following reply at Triton Station to a commenter who was being tormented by a jackass loser physicist named Phillip Heilbig.
Oh brodix, don’t waste your keystrokes on Phillip. When I was in the corporate world we had engineers who we said were in charge of sales prevention, throwing flak into the air about why things wouldn’t work rather than figuring out how to make them work. You might have noticed that my idea has two particle types and two parameters. That’s it. And I even picked up the idea from the physics discard pile and repaired it. Yet Phillip never engages on the idea. He only defends the failed present conditions of particle and astro physics.
I have been astonished that scientists aren’t willing to consider new ideas that change the paradigm. My idea has zero woo, where the state of the art physics is chock full of woo. Even when I offer that I am only ideating in the scales and territories between GR and QM it doesn’t stop the vitriol from the likes of Phillip. I’ve even gone back and identified the specific decisions where the wrong narrative interpretation was chosen like a physics historian would do, and still no engagement. I have pretty much given up hope that physicists will ever engage. They are in an enormous crisis, yet like a caged animal, just roar and bite at the zoo tourists that fund them and want to help. It is all so tragic.
Another reply to a tragically misguided comment on Triton Station :
My number one principle is to reciprocally honor the dignity of each individual. The issue here is the word reciprocally. For a number of reasons many physicists have developed antagonistic behaviour towards any outsider bearing ideas and even to insiders with out of the mainstream ideas. This is a huge problem for many reasons, but the biggest is that if it is true that major interpretive errors have caused the current crisis In particle and astro physics, then how will physicists get back on track?
I hope you have noticed that I focus on the interpretive errors. Observations are what they are (though even faulty priors could lead to confusion) and I have explained carefully where the math is suspect due to confusion around ranges of applicability, continuous vs. quantum, and so forth. These are highly technical observations about the foundational assumptions of the physics math. I’ve also given a physical implementation which physics sorely lacks and shown that implementation to be parsimonious and a simple repair to a prior physics theory.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty if physicists won’t engage on this set of ideas, particularly because these are many of the same issues brought up by physics luminaries and authors. Anyway, I’m continuing to make strong progress and maybe someday I’ll encounter a physicist who is truly interested on collaborating on ideas that have zero woo instead of banging their noggin on the same issues for decades with little progress. At some point I would think they must come to realize they made some major errors in the prior interpretations. That would be what I would do if I were despondent.
Another reply of mine :
In re: brodix’s prediction “that the background radiation will eventually resolve to be the light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum”
This is why the JWST is incredibly exciting to me. As I understand it, the JWST will be capable of observing farther away in time and distance than previous instruments. If it sees what I predict it will see, that will be the end of LCDM in its current form. As before, I think a lot of LCDM will be recoverable, but simply turned inside out and transformed to a hypothesis of galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs (GLIM?) in an ~steady-state cosmology.
Nobel winner Brian Schmidt mentioned in a 2012 lecture that the Hubble deep field images each cover about one 32 millionth of the sky and that each image shows around 5000 galaxies.
That is about 160 billion galaxies near the surface of the observable sphere at a range of ~10B years ago. What is the proportion of galaxies that have jetting SMBH or AGN at any one time? What fraction of the galaxies mini-banging in the even more distant Planck CMB observations would be required to account for the Planck photon observations? And in particular the power spectrum — keeping in mind it is basically the banging process but distributed in locality and time (intermittent).
Could a professional astrophysicist please explain whether CMB observations are merely consistent with a Big Bang or actual evidence of a Big Bang? Could the CMB observations also be consistent with galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs?
Thanks and I tried to be extra respectful and I really do simply want to help get the fields beyond their current major issues.