Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

[Zyxzevn]

I think that this is indirect proof of plasma redshift:

Time-delay between neutrinos and gamma-rays in short GRBs
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.07212.pdf
Neutrinos in high energetic events arrive earlier than light?
Just skip the black hole part.

If light is redshifted, it is also slowed down.
This is shown in the plasma-redshift experiment paper. (Wang?)

[Michal Z]

When we study redshift patterns from around our own solar atmosphere, we find evidence that plasma redshift is the real cause of photon redshift in space. It was once believed that space was a near vacuum. Now we know it's a dusty plasma environment that interacts with light. Photons traveling through a plasma medium lose energy to the plasma atmosphere. The greater the amount of plasma that the light has to traverse, the more redshift we observe.

Its no mystery then why there's a distance/redshift relationship to objects in space. The more plasma that light must traverse, the more it loses momentum to the plasma medium. In such an environment, a static universe also automatically predicts the existence of a distance/redshift relationship, albeit an non-expanding explanation for photon redshift. In some few instance, galaxy movement might also be toward us or away from us. It's a somewhat more complex environment than trying to treat space as an empty vacuum.

This observation from solar physics suggests that all redshift in space is plasma redshift related. The more plasma that the light has to traverse, the more potential for it to transfer momentum to that plasma, even though that particular photons reaches a telescope on Earth.

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for posting.

[Michael Mozina]

Between this topic, and Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model, it's really hard to decide what specific issue(s) might motivate younger astronomers to finally break ranks and jump ship.

Simply by incorporating known and documented causes of redshift and signal broadening into a cosmology model, and by including the E (electric) side of Maxwell's equations into the model, nothing about the observations of spacetime are particularly mystifying. All energy is conserved. All or most high energy plasma emissions are related to electrical discharges and the observation of the alignment of galaxies over billions of light years is easily understood. Unusual galaxy and galaxy cluster rotation and counter rotation patterns are easy to explain, all within the confines of pure empirical laboratory tested physics.

Meanwhile the LCDM model predicts nothing useful about galaxy counter rotation patterns, and it's predictions related to satellite galaxy layouts have already been falsified. Even with four metaphysical fudge factors, it's expansion speed estimates are still internally inconsistent, and worst of all, it defies the conservation laws of energy. The LCDM model doesn't actually "predict" anything correctly at higher redshifts in fact. It's a totally inept and scientifically bankrupt cosmology model.

Think about the redshift implications for a minute. We know that plasma redshift is a real and documented cause of photon redshift in the lab. Chen even observed a link between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift. We've had observational confirmation of plasma redshift in the solar atmosphere in center-to-limb redshift measurements for more than a century. We also know from Hubble telescope images, and other telescopes that the universe is filled with plasma.

There's simply no logical way to ignore the *most likely* causes of photon redshift in the plasma in space, but that's exactly what that mainstream does. They don't even allow for any amount of ordinary plasma redshift/inelastic scattering in cosmological space. Considering the fact that 99+ percent of the universe is plasma, it makes no sense to even "assume" that another cause of redshift is necessary or warranted, and it *certainly* makes no sense to assume that no significant amount of cosmological redshift is due to any of the known and identified empirical causes of redshift.

This is the most damning aspect of the LCDM model, and it leads directly to the violation of conservation of energy in the LCDM model. LCDM proponents have to "assume" that all of the *known* and documented causes of redshift have no effect whatsoever inside of cosmological plasma. That isn't even a rational assumption.

Since the core assumption that was made by the big bang model wasn't rational to start with, the SN1A data turned out to be wildly inconsistent with that assumption, and dark energy was the ad-hoc fix. They just added another metaphysical band-aid that now covers 70 percent of their entire model. Wow!

We can actually see a chain of evidence linking the mainstream's original physics error of leaving out ordinary causes of redshift out of any cosmological calculation of redshift, and their second devastating error, the gross violation of the conservation laws of physics. The two major physics errors by LCDM proponents are correlated, one error leading to the next, in a catastrophic comedy of errors.

Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is far superior to both MOND theory and dark matter. Only the Birkeland current model predicts galaxy counter rotation and Marklund convection, both of which have been observed, and the DM model failed its own internal satellite galaxy layout test. Better yet, even unusual cluster rotation patterns can be explained by the BK model.

The first major mainstream error of making no provisions for ordinary plasma redshift was so devastating to empirical physics because it required the introduction of three different metaphysical entities to cover it up, including inflation, space expansion and dark energy. It also leads to a violation of conservation of energy. Their second major blunder of ignoring the role of E fields in space got covered up with dark matter. Two important empirical physics errors led to four invisible metaphysical band-aids and a violation of the laws of physics. Even with all those metaphysical band-aids, their expansion speed estimates are *still* internally self conflicted! Their SN1A estimates still don't even jive with their CMB estimates and the difference is far greater than the error ranges of both methods..

IMO the redshift error was the biggest error, the most obvious error, and the most damaging in terms of astronomy. The big bang model is best described as the big redshift blunder theory.

[Zyxzevn]

Plasma-redshift:

Plasma redshift as it was demonstrated in the laboratory has a side-effect:
Light is slowed down, more at higher frequencies.

I think that this has been observed at novas, but could not find articles yet.

Using this backwards, we can also determine how much the plasma has been
involved in the redshift.

Big bang:

The breaking of conservation of energy is indeed a major problem of the model.
While the energy can theoretically come from another dimension, that other dimension
must be proven to exist.

Einstein invented the Lambda to compensate for the loss of energy of gravity.
His gravity slowly loses energy due to the slowness of the force.
He assumed that the astronomical bodies are circling inward, and not outward, as
we currently observe with our Earth and Moon.

Another problem is that a finite universe will slowly collapse into itself due to (normal) gravity.
While the theory currently states that the universe is infinite, I think they first used expansion
to compensate for this theoretical collapse.

It is also interesting to note that some of these theories were invented when we
thought that the Milky-way galaxy was the universe.

[Michael Mozina]

It is also interesting to note that some of these theories were invented when we
thought that the Milky-way galaxy was the universe.

That only changed less than a century ago thanks to Edwin Hubble. Until recently it's also always been assumed that the space between galaxies was a relatively empty "vacuum", whereas today we finally realize that it is full of plasma, but only *after* the expansion model became popular.

It's staggering to think about all the "tests" the expansion model has failed over the years. Each failure has resulted in massive, and usually metaphysical revisions, but the core assumption of space expansion is never questioned. It is considered to be "sacred dogma".

Plasma redshift is an empirically demonstrated cause of redshift in the lab. Just as Birkeland predicted from his experiments, most of the mass of the universe isn't even found in the stars themselves, but rather it's contained in the plasma between the stars.

Light from distant galaxies doesn't travel through empty space, it travels though plasma, filled with EM field gradients, temperature gradients, and it travels through the quantum foam of spacetime, all of which affect it's momentum.

There's absolutely nothing mysterious about redshifted objects in space. It's predictable from the lab results of Chen's plasma redshift experiments, including the correlation between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift observed.

The concept of violating the conservation laws of physics should be the death sentence to any cosmology theory. To the extent that we can be certain of "laws" of physics, we can be certain that simply doesn't happen.

Plasma redshift is a 'natural' explanation for cosmological redshift, whereas the LCDM explanation is positively preposterous and it violates the conservation of energy laws.

The worst part IMO is that the LCDM is *so* bad, and *so* fragile with respect to criticism, that's it's literally indefensible at the level of science and empirical physics.