Serious Dark Matter Problems

[Native]

Wait, are you suggesting that zeta-pinch is the formation mechanism for planets and stars? Just to be clear?

Yes I am indeed - Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia - it is even the natural formation mechanism in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes I am indeed - Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia - it is even the natural formation mechanism in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

I'm not sure if you're saying what I think you are, because if you are, I'm not sure how you believe it.

Are you a proponent of some kind of plasma ether or something? You realize that for a pinch you need something to squeeze filaments to get flux crunch. And do you realize how characteristic and detectable this would be if it were true?

For instance, do you believe it's just some kind of worldwide space agency conspiracy or something that spacecraft don't record these kinds of ubiquitous filaments?

Off the top of my head, how do you explain neutron stars, for instance?

I... think I need to wait to hear more about what you're proposing, because if it's what I think it is, it's fractally wrong (wrong at every level of magnification). Sorry if that sounds rude. Speaking to the idea, not to the person.

 

[Native]

What's meant by this is that alternatives that just amend gravity like MOND or TeVeS have a harder time explaining anomalous galaxies/clusters like this than dark matter does.

Thanks for your always serious and balanced attempts to explain "what´s the point in the standing theories" I really like your approach .

Native said: ↑
Quote from this link - NGC 1052-DF2 - Wikipedia
"The apparent lack of dark matter in NGC 1052-DF2 may help prove that dark matter is real".
This is SO illogical and scientific stupidity! How can a lack of "dark matter" prove that "dark matter" should be "real dark matter"?
Good Grief!

What's meant by this is that alternatives that just amend gravity like MOND or TeVeS have a harder time explaining anomalous galaxies/clusters like this than dark matter does.

OK, lets go through this:
1. Dark matter was initially inserted in galaxies when discovering the galactic rotation anomaly, which contradicted Newtons ideas of "celestial motion", right?
2. The present discovery scientists didn´t think of other fundamental solutions, but held onto the factually contradicted gravity model.
3. Calculations of the assumed dark matter are now taken into considerations all over in the cosmos.
4. What if other fundamental E&M solutions could have solved the so called "galactic rotation curve anomaly"?

I know of the MOND and TeVeS attempts to balance the gravity ideas, but they´ll never succeed in this before investigating seriously how the three other fundamental forces could be at play - an investigation which really should have been done immediately when Newton´s gravity was contradicted on the galactic scales.

The dark matter explanation is simple: something stripped the galaxy of huge chunks of its dark matter. We see this elsewhere, we catch the Bullet Cluster in the middle of the act. (During collisions of clusters, baryonic matter self-interacts and tends to get tangled up with other baryonic mass while the dark matter flies through unperturbed. In the Bullet Cluster, as the most famous example, we can even see a bow shock in the baryonic matter where it self-interacted and the dark matter is by this point far away).

This thing is not a problem, it's more scientifically exciting than it is problematic.

Well, if the very idea of "dark matter" is nothing but an invention made to patch a contradicted gravity idea, there is nothing but serious scientific problems left.

If this is the case, I´m afraid all kinds of other anomalies but in galaxies, also are biased interpreted to fit the invented "dark matter" idea itself.

We were earlier discussing ad hoc assumptions and IMO we have here a good (i.e. bad) example of this. Initially it was assumed that objects in galaxies followed the Newtonian celestial motions - which was wrong and now "dark matter" is added as a new assumption - still without having solved the first assumption.

 

[Meow Mix]

We were earlier discussing ad hoc assumptions and IMO we have here a good (i.e. bad) example of this. Initially it was assumed that objects in galaxies followed the Newtonian celestial motions - which was wrong and now "dark matter" is added as a new assumption - still without having solved the first assumption.

Dark matter is not a good example of something being egregiously ad hoc. This follows the pattern of a lot of things in science, many discoveries in physics, in fact.

I wonder, are you skeptical of GR too? Consider the fact that Mercury's orbit also didn't follow Newtonian expectations. Naturally, some very reasonable ideas were brought up: perhaps, for instance, there was another planet within Mercury's orbit (it was called Vulcan, and it would have been awesome for this IMO). So, scientists began to look for Vulcan.

That's a reasonable supposition. Would the Natives of the day been saying, "that's nonsense, that's ad hoc?"

Now, of course, it was wrong: there is no Vulcan. But Mercury's orbit was one of the things resolved by Einstein's GR.

(BUT, by the way, this same reasoning: "this orbit isn't quite right, maybe there's something pulling on it" is exactly how Neptune was discovered!)

None of this is egregiously ad hoc. Same thing with dark matter: anomalous rotation curves were observed, so perhaps there's an explanation that doesn't involve throwing Newtonian mechanics out the window. One such explanation would be if there's a lot of mass out there, and perhaps we can't see it because it doesn't interact (or interacts weakly) with EMR. We have examples of such matter (neutrinos), so it was a perfectly reasonable supposition.

Now, we have evidence that goes far beyond merely conjecture from seeing an anomalous rotation curve. I've gone into some depth with you about BAO, matter energy densities vs. critical energy density, etc.

I'm not sure what opinion you have about the world's scientists to think they're all just children jumping at whimsical ideas, but there's very good reasons why we know dark matter is there. We don't know exactly what KIND of dark matter it is (we can rule out hot dark matter, at least), but we know it's there. It's the same thing as when we knew neutrinos existed but didn't know what kinds there were.

 

[Native]

I... think I need to wait to hear more about what you're proposing, because if it's what I think it is, it's fractally wrong (wrong at every level of magnification). Sorry if that sounds rude. Speaking to the idea, not to the person.

Don´t worry, I already sensed that kindness in your first posts

Are you a proponent of some kind of plasma ether or something? You realize that for a pinch you need something to squeeze filaments to get flux crunch. And do you realize how characteristic and detectable this would be if it were true?

I´m a independent proponent of an Electric Universe to govern everything.

If you for instants take the detections of strong gamma- and x-ray beaming out of the galactic poles, I take this as an evidence of the nuclear star formation in the center of the galaxies - via its strong electromagnetic central Z-Pinch effect.

As electric currents induces perpendicular magnetic fields, which again induces electric currents and so on, the entire EM circuit in galaxies also produces minor Z-Pinches in the galactic arms, which also can form stars and planets.

Off the top of my head, how do you explain neutron stars, for instance?

I explain these stars as heavily E&M charged stars with very fast magnetic pulses - and not as (impossible) quick rotational objects as in the "Standard Model".

I of course know my perceptions here goes against the standing consensus ideas, but there you have it.

 

[Meow Mix]

I of course know my perceptions here goes against the standing consensus ideas, but there you have it.

Can you give me a quantitative idea of your proposal? What equations govern protoplanetary creation?

My most important question was missed: why have our spacecraft not detected the kinds of EM filaments required for the mechanisms you propose? Do you believe there's a conspiracy?

 

[Native]

Dark matter is not a good example of something being egregiously ad hoc. This follows the pattern of a lot of things in science, many discoveries in physics, in fact.

As far as I can read and conclude, "dark matter" was first suggested to play a role in "local" galactic realms - and now it is thought to play an estimated role in the 28 % of the observable Universe. If this isn´t a sign of ad hoc adding's, I don´t know what is.

I wonder, are you skeptical of GR too? Consider the fact that Mercury's orbit also didn't follow Newtonian expectations. Naturally, some very reasonable ideas were brought up: perhaps, for instance, there was another planet within Mercury's orbit (it was called Vulcan, and it would have been awesome for this IMO). So, scientists began to look for Vulcan.

No I´m not that skeptic about most of the GR as I´m not skeptic of the Newtonian planetary calculations too. But I´m very skeptic about the REASONS for the standard model gravitational explanation of planetary motions et all. Newton simple put calculations on already known planetary orbital motions - without knowing what force could be at play. He just assumed "gravity" - as present scientists still do and still without being able to explain this assumed force.

The elliptic orbital planes of planets are all a result of the very formation of the Solar System - which once took place in connection with the Milky Way formative E&M forces itself. These elliptic planes are all the result of a "sudden expanding motion" from the Milky Way center and this expanding motion confirms the observed galactic rotation vey nicely. Even the Suns is wobbling because of this initial expansive motion.

I'm not sure what opinion you have about the world's scientists to think they're all just children jumping at whimsical ideas,

Of course I dont have this opinion as I, as your good self too, am going after the cases and not the persons.

We don't know exactly what KIND of dark matter it is (we can rule out hot dark matter, at least), but we know it's there.

If one don´t know what something is - this thing can be assumed as everything - and even nothing at all but simple mind stuff based on former misconceptions, in this case the orbital celestial motions et all.

 

[Meow Mix]

As far as I can read and conclude, "dark matter" was first suggested to play a role in "local" galactic realms - and now it is thought to play an estimated role in the 28 % of the observable Universe. If this isn´t a sign of ad hoc adding's, I don´t know what is.

Do you know how that 28% figure was obtained, though? I've been speaking about it in some past posts: that is not ad hoc. (Energy densities, BAO, early structure formation, independent cross-checking with other methods as in the plots I posted)

No I´m not that skeptic about most of the GR as I´m not skeptic of the Newtonian planetary calculations too. But I´m very skeptic about the REASONS for the standard model gravitational explanation of planetary motions et all. Newton simple put calculations on already known planetary orbital motions - without knowing what force could be at play. He just assumed "gravity" - as present scientists still do and still without being able to explain this assumed force.

Does your paradigm explain why these forces are only ever attractive, or have the strength that they do? Secondly, when I was measuring G as an undergrad, what do you suppose I was "really" measuring?

The elliptic orbital planes of planets are all a result of the very formation of the Solar System - which once took place in connection with the Milky Way formative E&M forces itself. These elliptic planes are all the result of a "sudden expanding motion" from the Milky Way center and this expanding motion confirms the observed galactic rotation vey nicely. Even the Suns is wobbling because of this initial expansive motion.

I'm still interested in seeing the quantitative side of these proposals you're making. What "sudden expanding motion" from the Milky Way center? Are you talking about Sagittarius A*? What is the mechanism of this expansion, and what evidence led you to believe there was such a thing?

Of course I dont have this opinion as I, as your good self too, am going after the cases and not the persons.

That's on me, I did sort of word that in such a way.

The sentiment I was trying to say, though, is this: why do you think you are right, but every cosmologist and astrophysicist on the planet is wrong if these things you're saying are so obvious? I'm not trying to make an appeal to authority here (I can back up every claim I've been making), but I'm curious just on a social note what your explanation is for nearly everyone on the planet being so wrong?

Edit: How are we operating our spacecraft so precisely if our ideas about gravity are so wrong?

 

[Native]

Can you give me a quantitative idea of your proposal? What equations govern protoplanetary creation?

As said above it would concern the three fundamental E&M forces working in hydrodynamical realms and not "gravitational ideas" at all.

Note this: My personal approaches derives from ancient Stories of Creation, Natural Philosophy and the findings of Cosmology. I´m not working specifically with mathematical equations as it is my conviction that these cannot explain the overall and important motions in observable Universe.

My most important question was missed: why have our spacecraft not detected the kinds of EM filaments required for the mechanisms you propose? Do you believe there's a conspiracy?

Of course there isn´t any conspiracies. You can observe these EM filaments all over in the observable Universe.

Text from - Best Image Yet of the Cosmic Web - Sky & Telescope
"Gravity has woven the universe into a cosmic web. Primordial gas that filled the young cosmos collapsed into expansive sheets, then into filaments, separated by huge voids. On very large scales, this gas has a texture like soap bubbles or tangled spiderwebs".

Me: Of course "gravity" hasn´t woven these web stringed patterns. It´s all electromagnetic strings of formation.

 

[Meow Mix]

Of course there isn´t any conspiracies. You can observe these EM filaments all over in the observable Universe.

But these structures are so well explained by dark matter! I have (you'll never see this coming) more slides for you.

First, regarding energy densities.
[GALLERY=media, 9474]Clusters by Meow Mix posted Jun 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM[/GALLERY]

Takeaway from this: there is more matter-related energy density than there is baryonic matter (that we can see). That makes it dark matter by definition (not literally related to sight, I shouldn't say that: but related to not self-interacting or interacting with EMR).

That means it can either be cold or hot dark matter:
[GALLERY=media, 9476]Structure by Meow Mix posted Jun 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM[/GALLERY]

Hot dark matter is ruled out, because it doesn't produce the structures like you posted (that we see). But cold dark matter does, and it does so remarkably!

In fact, taking the known energy densities, before we even launched COBE, a curve was drawn:
[GALLERY=media, 9475]Cobe by Meow Mix posted Jun 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM[/GALLERY]

Let me be as clear as I possibly can about this: this plot includes both the theoretical curve from these energy densities I've been talking about (what we expected to see), and the actual data, with error bars. The error bars are so small compared to the curve that you can't actually see them!

(I have plotted this with the error bars multiplied by 400 to make them visible, I can post that if anyone is curious to see).

I want to make sure you fully understand how theory with dark matter produced a plot before we even launched the satellite to take measurements that was this accurate. If we're so wrong about gravity and dark matter, how did we do this?

Edit: To try to be helpful to folks trying to read these plots, in the first plot, those omegas are called density parameters. It will help to understand what a value for Omega_m or Omega_bary even means. These are the density parameters of matter and baryonic matter respectively, and the parameters are defined against the critical density at which the universe is flat (and the universe is either flat or close enough to it). So, that means Omega_total equals 1 either exactly or nearly exactly. So a very small number for Omega_baryon means that baryons compose a tiny fraction of the universe's energy density.

 

[Native]

Does your paradigm explain why these forces are only ever attractive, or have the strength that they do? Secondly, when I was measuring G as an undergrad, what do you suppose I was "really" measuring?

"G" and "g" is derives IMO from a misconception of the general "weight of air" and "atmospheric pressure" - which again is connected with the orbital velocity resistant pressure on planets. In fact, you really were measuring these facts in your undergrade lectures. About the "ever attractive forces", read below.

The sentiment I was trying to say, though, is this: why do you think you are right, but every cosmologist and astrophysicist on the planet is wrong if these things you're saying are so obvious?

I guess it is because modern cosmological scientists in general have lost their natural skills of studying nature and it´s formative patterns on and above the Earth.

Edit: How are we operating our spacecraft so precisely if our ideas about gravity are so wrong?

Its of course and obviously not their calculations which are wrong. It is their "assumptions of gravity" which are wrong.
They easily could have exchanged their gravity calculations with the laws of atmospheric pressure and the planetary orbital velocity pressure - and then get rid of the assumed one-direction-working-force-of gravity, which is the main hinderance in all attempts to make a Theory of Everything.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just a heads up that I'm going to bed and have a ton of stuff to do this weekend, so I likely won't be back until Monday. I'll be back to respond ^.^

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course there isn´t any conspiracies. You can observe these EM filaments all over in the observable Universe.

But these structures are so well explained by dark matter! I have (you'll never see this coming) more slides for you.

How can the assumed "dark matter" create these luminous webbed strings and focused luminous centers of cosmic formations?

Let me be as clear as I possibly can about this: this plot includes both the theoretical curve from these energy densities I've been talking about (what we expected to see), and the actual data, with error bars. The error bars are so small compared to the curve that you can't actually see them!
(I have plotted this with the error bars multiplied by 400 to make them visible, I can post that if anyone is curious to see).

Granted, your "Meow Mixes" looks very impressive and elaborated - but I have to guide you back to the basics of the very invention of "dark matter" and it´s cosmological implications.

1. The Newtonian celestial motions ideas are based on planetary motions in our Solar System.
2. Our Solar System is located in the Milky Way.
3. The law of celestial motions were contradicted in the galactic realms.
4. "Dark matter" was inserted as a regulation of the motions in galaxies.
5. We now have TWO different scientific consensus motions in the same closed system.
6. WHY is it that the orbital Solar System works differently from the galactic orbital system?

This alone should give serious considerations and regulations of what´s going on and in my opinion, only the E&M fundamental forces can provide a common and natural solution for all this:

As the pre-solar sphere was E&M formed by a z-pinch, the attractive EM polarity assembled gas and dust into this z-pinch and formed a huge solar sphere which was centrifugally ejected from the z-pinch center when it reached a critical mass which couldn´t be hold by the z-pinch.

In the way out form the galactic z-pinch, this prime molten hot solar sphere divided into planets and later on, their moons were ejected from their mother planets, hence their locked orbital motions.

Conclusion: All stars and planets are E&M formed and the planetary motions are all a result of centrifugal expansions. This is the explanation of the different orbital motions in galaxies and star systems, - without even mentioning the unexplained "gravity" or other dark cosmological assumptions.

This represent the very back to basics cosmological explanations.

 

[Native]

Just a heads up that I'm going to bed and have a ton of stuff to do this weekend, so I likely won't be back until Monday. I'll be back to respond ^.^

We can be direct in contact by our minds, but the global time differences governs our natural rhythms. I´m sitting here in Denmark in a midday sunlight and 34 degree celsius in the shade - puh.
Enjoy and welcome back.

 

[rational experiences]

Machines built by humans. Who use and instruct the machine via conscious human thinking. A human thoughts says part human consciousness part machine.

The machine status is why you are wrong. Science is to observe consciously only by what you can consciously first see.

Theism non stop theorising via matter taken and arrived out of a mass O planet body that ended on its perimeter as stone.

Stone the seal does not allow for observation.

Did you ever think you are perusing a slow destruction of energy slowed only by space constantly opening changing pressure and increasing cold by non mass presence?

 

[Meow Mix]

OK, if we want to talk about getting back to basics, let's look at some things here. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic, but we have to get to particular scales for that (after all, my room isn't isotropic and homogeneous, neither is the Earth, neither is the solar system, neither is the Milky Way Galaxy, neither is the local cluster, etc.)

The universe starts being homogeneous and isotropic at when we bound a few hundred Mpc (that's megaparsecs). Once we look at a slice of the universe that's a few hundred Mpc, then we'll get a good idea of the entire universe. So what's the energy density of, say, stars within a few hundred Mpc?

We can use the mass to light ratio for this job. If every star were like Sol, this would be (1.1 x 10^8 M_sun/Mpc^3) through a typical B-filter. But the sun isn't the most common type of star (lower mass stars are), so we use stars within about a kpc because they have good parallax distances to determine an average ratio (because of O-types and such, this ratio turns out to be about 4 M_sun/L_sun). So we get something like 4 x 10^8 M_sun/Mpc^3. This gives a density parameter (when compared to the critical density) of 0.003: stars only make up about 0.3% of the mass needed to produce the geometry of universe that we see.

Conclusion: the mass isn't in stars.

OK, so where else would it be? The next place to look would be gas. This does turn out to be where most of the baryonic matter is, and we can use nucleosynthesis based on element abundances to figure this out. The density parameter for baryons is about 0.048; so ALL baryons (in principle, including stars) only gives us about 4.8% of the mass needed to get a universe with the geometry that we see.

Let's also consider the motion of galaxy clusters. As with an individual galaxy's rotation curve, we can measure the dispersion in the radial velocity of galaxies in clusters and use the Virial Theorem purely in terms of mechanical and potential energy (we get masses much greater than we would get if we were to mass the baryonic matter). What about the gas? It's actually supported from gravitational infall by its own pressure, so we can figure this out using hydrostatic equilibrium techniques. It's actually a pretty cool technique by which you can constrain the mass enclosed as a function of radius and temperature (you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to mass galaxies).

Since velocity dispersion and temperature both trace the underlying gravitational potential, we'd predict that they should trace each other, right?

Well, guess what:
[GALLERY=media, 9480]Disp by Meow Mix posted Jun 22, 2021 at 12:45 AM[/GALLERY]

They do. (This is velocity dispersion vs. x-ray temperature relation).

The mass-to-light ratio for most galaxies is around 400, and it's not because of interstellar gas.

There is nothing about vague-ish E&M ideas (that you can't or won't quantify) that would explain this.

 

[Meow Mix]

There's also gravitational lensing. If we know the redshift of the lens and the source and the Einstein radius, we can get a very accurate (and direct) measurement of the mass enclosed. When we compare this to the baryonic, visible mass, it never matches up.

Guess what it does match up to though? Massing using Virial theorem, velocity dispersion, and radius/temperature.

For you to wave all of this away and say, "no, it's this mysterious E&M action that I can't even quantify," you'd have to explain why completely independent methods give the same results, and that none of these results could be obtained by a mysterious plasma ether.

 

[Native]

OK, if we want to talk about getting back to basics, let's look at some things here. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic, but we have to get to particular scales for that (after all, my room isn't isotropic and homogeneous, neither is the Earth, neither is the solar system, neither is the Milky Way Galaxy, neither is the local cluster, etc.)

The universe starts being homogeneous and isotropic at when we bound a few hundred Mpc (that's megaparsecs). Once we look at a slice of the universe that's a few hundred Mpc, then we'll get a good idea of the entire universe. So what's the energy density of, say, stars within a few hundred Mpc?

We can use the mass to light ratio for this job. If every star were like Sol, this would be (1.1 x 10^8 M_sun/Mpc^3) through a typical B-filter. But the sun isn't the most common type of star (lower mass stars are), so we use stars within about a kpc because they have good parallax distances to determine an average ratio (because of O-types and such, this ratio turns out to be about 4 M_sun/L_sun). So we get something like 4 x 10^8 M_sun/Mpc^3. This gives a density parameter (when compared to the critical density) of 0.003: stars only make up about 0.3% of the mass needed to produce the geometry of universe that we see.

Conclusion: the mass isn't in stars.

OK, so where else would it be? The next place to look would be gas. This does turn out to be where most of the baryonic matter is, and we can use nucleosynthesis based on element abundances to figure this out. The density parameter for baryons is about 0.048; so ALL baryons (in principle, including stars) only gives us about 4.8% of the mass needed to get a universe with the geometry that we see.

Let's also consider the motion of galaxy clusters. As with an individual galaxy's rotation curve, we can measure the dispersion in the radial velocity of galaxies in clusters and use the Virial Theorem purely in terms of mechanical and potential energy (we get masses much greater than we would get if we were to mass the baryonic matter). What about the gas? It's actually supported from gravitational infall by its own pressure, so we can figure this out using hydrostatic equilibrium techniques. It's actually a pretty cool technique by which you can constrain the mass enclosed as a function of radius and temperature (you'd be amazed at how difficult it is to mass galaxies).

Meow Mix, All this sounds as you´ve got the entire universal picture quite right and on the very brink of a Theory of Everything, but what is the big problem in all this since this is not the case?

How can you make a conclusion of "the mass isn't in stars" as these usually are measured, explained and compared in masses?

Since velocity dispersion and temperature both trace the underlying gravitational potential, we'd predict that they should trace each other, right?

Agreed in this - but from what dynamic approaches, forces and reasons?

Well, guess what:

They do. (This is velocity dispersion vs. x-ray temperature relation).

Does this graphic plot contains "dark matter" issues too?

I have no reasonable doubts of this measuring plot. But I have doubts about the standing theory and causes in general.

"Velocity connects to x-ray temperature".

Well, unless you have the weak gravity to produce the much stronger EM x-rays, you´re explanation here are disconnected from fundamental forces facts, I´m afraid.

The mass-to-light ratio for most galaxies is around 400, and it's not because of interstellar gas.

Interesting indeed.
Otherwise, "interstellar gas" (and dust) is in "standard models" thought to play the main reason for the formation of the Solar System, and as this is located in our Milky Way galaxy, this formative process is obviously taking part in galaxies in general. The entire formation and motion is exactly "because of the interstellar gas" and cannot be ruled out at all.

There is nothing about vague-ish E&M ideas (that you can't or won't quantify) that would explain this.

I hope you´re aware that all atoms have E&M qualities and have circuital E&M motions? That all atoms can be affected by electric forces and magnetic fields?

When you observe strong gamma- and x-rays beaming out of galactic poles, why is it then that standing cosmological models are holding onto an assumed "g"-force which isn´t explained, and even is defined to be the by far weakest of all fundamental forces?
-----------------------
From your second post:

There's also gravitational lensing. If we know the redshift of the lens and the source and the Einstein radius, we can get a very accurate (and direct) measurement of the mass enclosed. When we compare this to the baryonic, visible mass, it never matches up.

This is not "gravitational lensing". You forget and excludes the E&M bending of E&M light around other electromagnetic spheres. (Or simple refraction in gaseous atmospheres)

And when "it doesn´t compute in baryonic/visible mass", it´s simply because "gravity" don´t work at all, and you should have made some E&M measuring instead in these cases.

For you to wave all of this away and say, "no, it's this mysterious E&M action that I can't even quantify," you'd have to explain why completely independent methods give the same results, and that none of these results could be obtained by a mysterious plasma ether.

What do you mean by "completely independent methods"?

If the used method is based on only 1 of the 4 fundamental forces (and "dark matter"), this method are BASICALLY DEPENDENT of this exclusive approach, and cannot be taken as evidence for a reliably universal test at all.

"Plasma" is mysterious at all: You find it naturally in our E&M Sun and in the beautiful polar Northern and Southern Lights. And you can find plasma in neon tubes as well.

It´s only in the consensus gravitational world such natural phenomena are mysterious.

So much for MY "natural back to basics" for know

 

[Native]

BTW:

The universe starts . . .

I don´t have a start of the Universe - as an energy logically cannot pop up from the blue.

 

[Native]

Note: When I talk of "going back to basics", I´m thinking of "having a new philosophical consideration of everything in cosmology".

IMO we seriously need a cosmological update to modern standards where some old cosmological dogmas are revised, eventually discarded and exchanged to modern and logical conceptions.

For instants:
1. Telescopes cannot work without electricity.
2. No cosmic measurement can be received without electromagnetic sensors.
3. Signals in cosmos cannot be discovered at all if they don´t radiate electromagnetic frequencies of all kinds.

In fact, ALL measurable signals in space speaks of ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY and the understanding of these cosmic signals should logically be interpreted according to electromagnetic fundamental forces and not by OLD gravitational ideas and dogmas.