Alternative Models of Cosmology

The house in general and Peter, John M, Steve and Tom in particular,

I still need help on this CMBR. We, i.e. Peter, John M and I just had some discussion on the 'Black hole' thread but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss here and not distract on the black hole topic.

For such an important evidence as CMBR it would appear we are not yet clear about certain things. I thought I was right about what I know but I may be wrong and also need doubts clarified. IF a smoke analogy is appropriate, regarding the CMBR...

(1) Is this to be seen as a fog present everywhere in the universe or (2) is it a smoke streaming towards us from all directions or (3) is there a third model?

In some accounts I see different statements that make it difficult to be clear. For instance, it is said not to have any discernible direction or source, in which case it would resemble a fog (model 1) since smoke would have a direction from a source, but in other descriptions it is said to bear the imprints of what happened in earlier epochs, suggesting that it has been travelling towards us carrying those imprints (model 2).

On the view that is propagating towards us, it makes sense that the imprints of what it encounters on the way are on it enabling us to glimpse scenarios from earlier epochs. But there doesn't seem to be a discernible direction in space that one can say points towards the edges of the universe or point towards the past, which would have been the case for radiation coming from such a direction.

John M in reply, says "The surface of last scattering is wherever that light emanates from, be it the sun, stars and planets, or the walls of the room and the people in it, that provide us with the information about them. Now this background radiation has no such apparent source of 'last scattering'", which as I pointed out would seem to imply that we reading this are also part of that 'surface of last scattering'.

Some clarification is therefore appreciated given the importance of the CMBR evidence to cosmology...

Regards,

Akinbo

PS. John, M, it would seem there is a difference between light been redshifted because it is being cooled by some mechanism like reducing energy density and light being redshifted because the source is moving away.

As I dig deeper I now realize the last word has not been heard about the CMBR. See .. I guess the origin of CMBR is not a closed case afterall.

The link was ripped off One physicist's radical reinterpretation of the cosmic microwave background.

Akinbo,

The data and interpretive flaws Fahr found seem irrefutable but where his solution invoked 'scattering photons off photons' it departed from those or any logical foundations I know. That's a shame because with the one small logical addition that "clouds of particles can move" his scattering off matter would work just fine on it's own. The axiom is; 'c is localised wherever it goes'.

It's almost as if your grey aliens have put a 'block' on anyone with a PhD understanding that key dynamic relationship!

For the CMBR there are 2 basic assumptions to pick from; 'Ether' or 'no ether'. With ether we can have just waves, probably of smaller 'particles', quantised to big ones at detections, or with 'no ether' we must have quanta, which can be constituted by OAM at some wavelength. So both can have both! Choose your preference, but in both cases it's irrefutable that all radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by condensed particles of matter from fermions upwards. So it can ONLY propagate at c wrt the local dielectric medium rest frame (once all has interacted with the medium particles) what other possible logic fits findings!?

Now where that radiation first 'came from' is the ONLY other relevant matter. I've studied it from when the brilliant Bob Dicke predicted it and Penzias and Wilson first found it by accident. Dicke was no fool and spot on. It is ALL emissions, from EVERYWHERE. The BB stuff was just a 'hijack' by the troglodytes as those emissions might just be long gone considering we were there!!

If we all lived on planet 'Dimwit3' in a galaxy doing 0.5c wrt Earth, and found light coming from all directions at 'c', would we be arrogant enough to think it did c wrt 'US' on all OTHER planets too rather than c wrt each planet? I suspect anyone with half a brain would realise we were NOT quite that important!!

I' expect science officer Spock's giant eyebrows would have lifted so much they'd have got caught in the light fittings! (shame he couldn't laugh). Can you explain to me, as if I'm Spock, what it is that suggests some other 'logic' than that? Then we can dissect it.

Many thanks

Peter

Photons scattering photons;

IF a particle form periodically forms in each wavelength event, the notion is quite plausible. The real cross-section would likely be quite small and very brief, so the probabilities of interaction would also be very slight. Witness if you will the classical spread of coherent (laser) light, being significantly more compacted than mixed wavelength photonic streams. jrc

Peter, thanks for replying. We have agreed on the 'domestication' of light speed to the medium rest frame, it is only our mechanisms that are not aligned. With regard to "For the CMBR there are 2 basic assumptions to pick from;... Choose your preference...". Please help me with my choice.

I came across this very simple e-book today, Einstein for Everyone, by JOHN D. NORTON. I highly recommend it for clearing quite a lot of misconceptions about Einstein's theory. Same author writes a simple to understand account about preferred frame for motion

Wikipedia does not do enough justice to the topic but I went through all the same before later coming across this experiment by Silvertooth , which claims to have detected a 378km/s motion of the earth through space by a mechanism quite different from the CMBR observation. Please criticize this experiment and let me know whether it is of any significant value. Although the experimenter published a letter to Nature.

With all these and on that topic, I can now ask you again if the CMBR can be used as a global preferred frame of reference (i.e. not a local like the Earth, Sun, Galaxy, etc), but a global one by which absolute rest and motion can be defined? In answering, take note of this from John Norton's e-book: "No experiment can reveal the absolute motion of the observer. This is a consequence of the principle of relativity. Another way to see it is to recall that the principle of relativity leads us to conclude that absolute motion cannot figure in any law of physics. But if it is not in the laws and the laws determine what can be, then absolute motion cannot be. So no experiment could detect it!

Now, if experiment now detects an absolute motion, what next for our physics?

Best regards,

Akinbo

PS. I recommend Pentcho to also read John Norton's book. Really useful to comprehend if it is desired to Rip Einstein Apart.

Akinbo,

There is much we can't directly detect which we infer exists, and some we CAN infer may exist. In a hierarchical model the 'centre of universe' rest frame can be inferred but can never be measured or utilised locally.

I'm quite familiar with Norton and agree much of his analysis, including space and time as very different, but he stops when he hits the logical paradox (as only the hierarchy resolves it).

Your use of the word 'global' betrays the common limit of thinking. 'Global' only refers to EARTH as 'everything'. We must substitute 'Galactic' and 'Universal' for the greater scales. This means that when we invoke 'domestication', we must invoke it consistently, that means at ALL scales!!

i.e. Light speed is localised to OUR galaxy on arrival (c wrt the AGN).

light speed is ALSO then localised to OUR solar system on arrival!! (c wrt the sun) (which NASA well knows from probe radio signals).

It also applies consistently at SMALLER scales, where the two frames become Maxwell's near and far fields. Now THAT is enough to make many mainstream physicist blow a fuse! but it resolves the 'Maxwell ether and KRR paradoxes and also at last recovers Snell's Law at the moving refractive plane. The 'proof of the pudding'.

I recall I also agree Silvertooth (he's not alone) , but have to dash now, Mum's 90th, but I'll catch up with the other links later.

Best wishes

Peter

You have framed the CBMR issue quite nicely with the three basic cosmologies.

"(1) Is this to be seen as a fog present everywhere in the universe or (2) is it a smoke streaming towards us from all directions or (3) is there a third model?"

(1) This cosmology assumes a plasma aether fills space and that is what makes things happen. The actions that we see from the past are affected by the plasma aether in between us and the action. This universe is steady state and has tired light.

(2) The expanding universe is what I hope you mean since that is the mainstream. In an expanding universe, the CMBR is a lucky accident of time since it is now moving at 99.998% of c and will go over the event horizon in a billion years or so. Future astonomers will only see black sky...and then try to figure out why.

(3) The shrinking universe is what I like, but no one ever talks about a shrinking universe except of course locally. The CMBR in a shrinking universe is blue shifted with a gamma of 546, so that means the actual temperature is 2.7 / 546 = 4.9e-3 K. There is still an event horizon, but the universe decay rate is what defines force and so astronomers will see a similar CMBR in a billion years and deduce a similar cosmology. By then, we will have figures this stuff out...I hope.

The CMBR noise ripple is a wonderful gift of time. The multipolar noise spectrum makes sense for either an expanding big bang or a shrinking from full size universe. The plasma aether guys are in trouble, though, and the noise spectrum just does not seem to be consistent with any kind of aether story. It takes a lot of "spin" to get the CMBR consistent with plasma aether.

The CMBR dipole does indeed show us where we are in the cosmos, moving toward Virgo/Leo at 371 km/s. That comoving velocity gives us a proper time, which is absolute...or at least 99.9998% absolute and within the 28 ppm ripple of our 2.7 K background. Even though our local atomic time is frame dependent a varies, our proper time is tied to the CMBR frame and therefore the same for the whole universe.

The one endearing mystery in the CMBR is the large scale structure, the cold spots and the great attractors. These are the quadrupole and octupole noise peaks that there is a lot of argument about right now.

Thanks for the Silvertooth link, that was very interesting.

"...I went through all the same before later coming across this experiment by Silvertooth , which claims to have detected a 378km/s motion of the earth through space by a mechanism quite different from the CMBR observation. Please criticize this experiment and let me know whether it is of any significant value."

Of course, here is the real reason. The measurement was an artifact of day to night room temperature changes.

Reproducing Silvertooth

I liked Silvertooth's bi-interferometer, a ring interferometer coupled with a linear interferometer. However, anyone who has done interferometry knows that the data just does not look like Silvertooth's hand drawn sine waves. That made me a little suspicious.

So when Marett reproduced Silvertooth's result with real looking data with noise, I thought great, this is real. Then when Marett went on to show that the effect went away when the room temperature did not vary from night to day and had nothing to do with Leo, the experiment made perfect sense as an artifact.

Coupling a ring (i.e. Sagnac) interferometer to a linear interferometer is a good idea and should first of all measure earth's rotational velocity. The ring interferometer is sensitive to optical rotation effect and the linear interferometer is much less sensitive to rotation. So Silvertooth's gismo should first of all recorded the earth's rotation velocity, ~300 m/s at that latitude, then maybe earth's orbit, 30 km/s, but never in your dreams the 371 km/s CMBR velocity. The optical rotatary effects are just too small to measure in this manner.

Thanks Steve. I will trust your judgement on this and throw Silvertooth in the trash can.

I had already suspected that no optical experiment with the light source and light path on Earth surface can detect the Earth's motion (being in the same ship -Galilean relativity). However, light paths from beyond and outside the ship can reveal the ship's motion hence the CMBR revealing a velocity 370km/s.

You like 'The shrinking universe' but I don't agree with it. The CMBR temperature is now 2.7K. In a shrinking universe it must then have been even colder in the past since energy density was lower and you say it is now increasing (shrinking volume).

What do you think about the CMBR being a preferred frame of reference for motion and rest? I have been begging Peter to accept that it is but he would not bulge.

Peter,

Happy 90th birthday to your Mum. Hope she shared the secrets of her longevity with you, which I am sure would not include 'absorption and emission at local c'

Regards,

Akinbo

It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia. The question is can optical experiments show gravity waves and the Ligo results will be coming over the next couple of years.

I do not think that gravity waves distort space any more than light does and so these efforts will prove futile. However, there are other experiments with particle physics that should show our direction and velocity, like IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion...

As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations. Moreover, having the speed of light define the collapse rate of the universe has a very appealing symmetry. If all objects are actually comoving at the speed of light, all mass = E/c2 is clear without the Higg's boson. All motion is a decrease in velocity and an increase in inertial mass and it is as if light were standing still and we are moving.

I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that.

Dear Steve, thanks for being forthright in your reply. In response...

"As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations."

Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead. Unless of course you come up with urgently needed oxygen, I should be inviting Eckard, John M, Tom, Peter and co as the pall bearers. LOL :)

Part of the success of the Big bang model is the relative abundance of the elements (primordial nucleosynthesis). Those with stronger bonds able to be stable under the high ambient energy conditions are more in abundance, e.g. hydrogen, helium, etc. Structure formation and abundance follows quarks, atoms, molecules in that order. With starting ambient temperatures of 0.0049K, almost everything including humans would be stable and would exist at the beginning. The evidence says otherwise.

"It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia"

I think no need complicating with gravity waves. The motion of the Earth about the Sun is not linear! It is rotational and optical experiments (notably M&M) did not see it. It is only when the light path is from a distant source (like Lunar laser ranging, Pulsars, GPS, etc) that the Earth based observer sees BOTH his linear and rotational motion (against Einstein's SR postulate that electromagnetic, e.g. optical phenomena CANNOT be used to discern Earth motion).

I look forward to the results and interpretation of IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion... YES, We Can! CMBR already shows the way optical experiments can measure the motion of the Earth.

"I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that'.

Peter J. is yet to concede. I think Newton deserves our post-humous apology. Despite various arguments from effects, causes and properties, we appear to have been late in catching up. I have linked these previously. I do so again. Read also the Scholium. We have allowed Mach and Leibniz to lead us astray. Now that CMBR is showing us the way, why can we not go back to the fork in the road to rediscover our physics.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Ahh, you doth protest too much...

I look for observation that the collapsing universe cannot explain, and I have not yet found any.

"Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead."

What my analysis shows is that there is a conspiracy of equivalence between the expanding and collapsing universes. That is, they both predict the same isotope ratios and the same hydrogen to helium rations and they both are consistent therefore with observation. A collapsing unverse actually needs fewer constants to explain the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

So elemental abundances should not dissuade you, it is only the truth with which you should you align.

Okay Steve. Will stop protesting. I actually woke up thinking that perhaps global warming is due to collapsing universe rather than to environmental pollution. Just a foolish idea...

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

A "plasma aether" seems a contradiction in terms. 'Aether' was conceived as a sub-matter medium, conventionally with a single 'universal' rest frame, so equivalent to a 'dark energy' condensate rest frame. Plasma on the other hand is specifically the free fermion pairs and free protons condensed FROM the ether into 'matter'.

Plasma forms 'clouds' in space (invariably around matter moving wrt the 'aether') each matter 'cloud' can move wrt each other. (Whether or not local aether regions also 'move' is entirely 'at large' and a separate question). If you're proposing some different understanding of plasma can you explain what it is, exactly how it differs, why? and relying on what evidence?

As EM waves couple strongly with fermions, constantly re-emitted at c in the local fermion rest frame (Pearle et al's CSL) the fact that clouds of fermions move wrt each other means that the CMB can NOT represent a single 'universal' rest frame datum applicable everywhere. Sure a metre rule at rest in the local cloud rest frame will measure local 'c' wherever it is, but the real point is that ALL SUCH METRE RULES CAN AND DO MOVE WRT EACH OTHER.

That needs you to stop and think and visualise for a moment; All clouds are at rest. All clouds move wrt each other. Light does local c within each. The constant change of speed at domain limits is what CSL by the fermions there implements. That 'discrete field' model is the only logical mechanism which does not fail in logic when tested against observations. light is localised to c on ALL interactions ("measurement situations"; Gell-Mann) with all systems of matter. 'Observers' are simply a system of matter, so however fast they move they will find all light at c.

That's Akinbo's option 3; 'Other'. It resolves the final issues identified by Scott & Smoot. If you see any apparent paradox or anomaly please just say where and I'll show where your understanding is incomplete or not consistently applied. I'd like to understand why it seems so difficult to rationalise and hold.

And by the way I've found no empirical or logical objections to a contracting universe. Indeed a cyclic cosmology requires almost as long a contraction as expansion phase.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

Your devotion to Newton is admirable but as misguided as any religion. You are not consistently applying what you've already seen and agreed. If light SPEED is localised then it's DATUM must be localised! Perhaps you're not discerning between the uniform 'metre rules' of my post above, all reading the same, by ALSO realising that all metre rules in the universe can move wrt each other!

There can be no SINGLE background 'frame' with any validity. The reason the CMB radiation is continually Doppler shifted is that on arrival in ALL those rest frames it changes speed to the local c. It takes a little intellectual effort to rationalise and remember that. You're being lazy any reverting to your old religion (To suggest I'm; "yet to concede" is absolute delusion!).

Have a look and think about the rules of brackets in arithmetic. Nothing in ANY bracket can be directly computed against anything in another, but we can have infinitely many be brackets within brackets. THAT is 'Truth Function Logic' the only paradox free form of logic!

Silvertooth; His experiment was fine, his analysis as poor as any! There are TWO cases of rotating interferometers, The 1st where the medium moves (in a glass disk or fibre optic cable) the 2nd where the mirrors etc. move THROUGH the background medium (air/plasma etc). The results are different. The Sagnac case of a tubular waveguide rather than fibre optics gives different results (see Wang). Then the emitter itself may either rotate or be 'fixed', also changing the results, confounding all analysis that forgets to distinguish (unfortunately all except my own!!; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163)

I'm sure you can visualise the difference between a mirror moving THROUGH a medium and a mirror and medium 'moving' as one! Well you need to start applying that to ALL CASES to rationalise logically!

Best wishes

Peter

Plasma clouds? What is really amazing is that you truly believe that what you say makes sense...and in a perverse way, you do make sense.

"Plasma on the other hand is specifically the free fermion pairs and free protons condensed FROM the ether into 'matter'."

Plasmas are plasmas...electrons and protons bound into a gas like state by charge force. Most plasmas in space are electrons and protons but you avoid saying electrons, and that makes what you say very confusing jiberish. You seem to be inventing a plasma without electrons. Plasmas are so unique that they are often called a fourth state of matter. They have both electron and ion temperatures and emit and absorb light readily.

I have worked extensively with 1 eV plasmas at 1e20/m3 or so and it was lots of fun. We did spectrosopy, magnetic confinement, rotation with electric field, and succeeded in separating large amounts of ions by their masses. But plasmas are very, very voracious little buggers and we needed several megawatts just to sustain our baby as a steady state at several tens of cubic meters.

In fact, plasmas decay by emission of light and eventually emission cools them to the ground state of the hydrogen atom by a final series of excited state emissions called the Rydberg energy, which is the binding energy of hydrogen. There are a bunch of selection rules and parity issues with these processes, but the energetics are straightforward. Collision, obviously, can also cool the plasma.

Aether is an old term for the imagined working fluid of space and has a long history. What you keep talking about is a plasma that is like a cloud and so it is you who have defined a plasma aether, not me. I am just trying to use words that express what you seem to be saying. If you invent a new kind of plasma, you really cannot call it plasma without confusing everyone, so you need to call it DFM plasma or just plasma aether works for me.

As far as I know, there is no aether that fills all space and there is no plasma that fills all space, and that is because there really is nothing that is space. The nothing of space is just that...nothing at all. You gotta love our language!

However, there are clouds of plasma in space that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of neutral hydrogen that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of cold neutral hydrogen that only absorb light,and there are clouds of dust. Plasmas always emit light and therefore eventually decay into the ground state of the hydrogen atom unless there is sufficient reexcitation to reionize and maintain the plasma electron and ion temperatures, which are usually different.

"As EM waves couple strongly with fermions, constantly re-emitted at c in the local fermion rest frame (Pearle et al's CSL) the fact that clouds of fermions move wrt each other means that the CMB can NOT represent a single 'universal' rest frame datum applicable everywhere."

Matter of all kinds, not just plasmas, absorb and emit light at c. All clouds of matter absorb light, but only hot clouds of matter emit light. If the cloud of neutral matter is cold, we only see its absorption as a result of some background source. We are just such a cloud of hot and cold matter in our galaxy and we are moving wrt the CMB. Every other galaxy in the universe can see the same CMB and measure their movement wrt the same CMB even if they cannot see our galaxy and therefore know our motion.

Therefore the CMB represents a single universal frame that travels at 99.9998% of the speed of light wrt to every other rest frame. We can imagine that the CMB is a rest frame, but we only measure motion and so we must express all spatial metrics in the universe in units of h, the Hubble constant. In this epoch, our metric is H = 69 to 77 km/s/Mpc depending on how you interpret the data. This means that space has so many galaxies per Mpc and so much luminosity per Mpc as well.

It is beyond me why you mention papers that don't even support your thesis. Scott and Smoot have a very nice paper that says absolutely nothing about recycling. Moreover, a direct quote is:

"The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the 'absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study."

So even Scott and Smoot support the notion of an absolute frame of reference. Game on...

Steve,

Bulk diffuse plasma shocks moving wrt each other is fundamental astrophysics, and I specify 'fermion' pairs as electron/positron pairs, which with free protons constitute 'pure plasma'. I agree 'earth bound' plasma conventions are a little different (I too have studies plasmas as well as optics and am a member of the APS Plasma Physics group) so can't be directly transferred.

In recent years we have greatly increased knowledge about space plasma coupling characteristics, density, distribution and motions (including far higher density and positron fraction that theorised!). I use that latest data not old inconsistent assumptions and theory.

You seem incredulous about 'plasma clouds' refracting light (including localising it's speed to the electron rest frame c). I'm not surprised. It's a new analysis, and it's predictions have been met; as soon as the VLB Array came on line! i.e. (worded rather carefully);

"We report on the first detection of the theoretically-predicted rare phenomenon of multiple parsec-scale imaging of an active galactic nucleus induced by refractive effects due to localized foreground electron density enhancements, e.g., in an AU-scale plasma lens(es) in the ionized component of the Galactic interstellar medium."

Pushkarev A.B., et al., VLBA observations A&A 2013.

The 'Smith Cloud' is a rare unattached plasma cloud in rapid motion wrt our galaxy. Within the Smith Cloud (subject to extinction distance) light and CMB radiation does c wrt the Smith Cloud bulk rest frame. That's how it refracts and lenses images!; by absorption and re-emission (Compton/Raman atomic scattering).

Now if you propose that the electrons of an identical plasma cloud or planetary shock elsewhere doing say 0.5c wrt Earth re-scatters light at anything OTHER than the local 'c' then perhaps your 'single absolute rest frame' for the universe may have a theoretical basis. Otherwise it still fails on simple logic, as it did 200 years ago. I've found the 'hierachical' (small system within larger system) model is the only one which doesn't. Do you understand it?

Lastly; You site Smoot, but did you know even his website has 'ether' in the title!? He found and specified a hierarchy of local system speeds building up to the 'axis of evil' but his analysis ended with the paradox unresolved so he suggested 'local' variable expansions! Also "The dipole is a frame dependent quantity" is entirely consistent with inertial systems (frames) as real Lagrangian bulk 'flow' rest frames. Do you refute that all bodies have surrounding plasma shocks in the bodies rest frame, and/or that bodies (and shocks) all move wrt each other? and/or that propagation speed in all systems isn't 'c'? (SR).

Best wishes

Peter

Oh, this is crazy. Plasmas on earth are the same as astrophysical plasmas...these are the plasmas that I know. The DFM plasma seems to behave differently and so I am not sure what a dfm plasma is like.

Of course plasmas have a different refractive index and therefore lower speed of light. All materials do. Plasmas also have reflectivity and color and luminosity. When light reemerges from the plasma, though, it then reacquires the vacuum c and light does not slow down in vacuum. There is no need to patch the Schrodinger equation with CSL. It works just find as it is. You seem to want to fix things that are not broken.

Light journeying through any semitransparent medium like a plasma undergoes lots of potential processes, but if the light does not reflect or scatter or absorb, it is not changed and emerges from the plasma cloud with velocity c unchanged albeit delayed. If the light reflects from the surface of the plasma, it is also not changed by the plasma or the plasma motion.

All electrons and protons in a plasma are in motion all the time, either thermally or effusively. Once entering the plasma, the light might be scattered either elastically (Compton or Rayleigh) or inelastically (Raman or Thompson). This is a very short time process and makes images fuzzy and only depends a little on the velocity and temperature of the plasma particles.

The light also might be absorbed and reemitted by the plasma. This is a very long time process and can dephase the light and depends a lot on the temperature and velocity of the plasma.

I am not the one who cited Smoot...you are. It is true that his website uses the aether moniker...so what? Smoot's work is very mainstream as is his Nobel prize.

You seem intent on fixing things about space time that are not broken and totally ignore the important issues at hand. Dark matter, dark energy, and black holes are issues that need fixing, not how plasmas and light interact, which is all very well established.

Your DFM plasma evidently red shifts light without a cosmological Doppler shift and supports a steady state universe. In fact, a shrinking universe has a different explanation for the Doppler shift from an expanding universe. But a shrinking universe has light and plasmas behave the same on earth as in heaven.

Look, plasmas are cool and do lots of neat stuff, but they simply are beside the point. The point is how black holes collapse or not and what that has to do with dark matter.