Mass Exodus From Big Bang Begins

[VanderL]

Oh, that's the theory you "like better"? Is this theory claiming that a long-range electromagnetic field is the thing that is keeping the galaxy from flying apart? I suppose such a thought should deserve consideration. So let's consider.... Apparently the spinning galaxy itself is thought to generate this field? But gee, it seems to be spinning awfully slowly. Humans have come to have a pretty good handle on practical electromagnetism. Is there any way you can show that this galactic action could "generate" such a strong EM field to be able to alter the orbits of very massive bodies? And not just alter. The effect must be huge. It's got to be 8 or 9 times the effect of gravity from all the stars and dust (and central black hole) that we know inhabit our galaxy. As Rocky Kolb says, "We find that the galaxy has a much larger mass than the sum of all the stars, dust, and other things we "see." The shortfall is not just a few percentage points, but most of the mass of our galaxy seems to have been left unaccounted."

So feel free to explain how big this field strength has to be and how such a massive EM field is generated throughout the galaxy and extending well outside its edges. I guess this is what Nereid means when he suggests that you "lift the EU alternative out of its thirty-year quantitative drought." And after you quantify how much EM we're talking about here, wouldn't we expect to be able to detect such a strong field even within our solar neighborhood?

Peratt's work showed how this works, it is possible to form galaxies without relying on any dark matter. The local field is not very strong, the difference is in the order of the Pioneer anomaly, maybe we already detected the field.

Whoa, Vander. You're letting your rhetoric get a little carried away there. There is not that much that most scientists "accept as truth". And dark matter is certainly not one of those things. It is a contingent explanation.

So it isn't used as a parameter in lensing studies? It is an unproven contingent explanation, awaiting detection after 70 + years. You don't consider dark matter an embarrassment for science?

But you're just guessing on that, right? You really don't know that much about funding for science, do you? How many proposals did you submit to NSF over the last 5 years? Have you ever?

I didn't know NSF funded research abroad, thanks for the info, could you explain why this is important?

Cheers.

[Nereid]

Big bang models now use an ever increasing variety of free parameters to maintain consistency with various observational restraints. Related to origin and expansion alone, we now have the Hubble constant, the cosmological constant, the cosmic deceleration parameter, the density parameter, subdivided into the density for ordinary matter and that for invisible dark matter, and the bias parameter.

Mike Disney, among others, has had a lot to say about this - can you give us reference to a paper of his that you particularly like?

More generally, the need to ensure that the inter-dependence (if any) of the various parameters is well-understood, of identifying and addressing degeneracy in analyses of large sets of observational data, of applying information theory to the field, of setting error limits appropriately, ... these are all topics which you will find much discussed in the literature.

But back to your main point (also one of VanderL's favourites) ... what is the maximum number of free parameters a theory in physics can have, before it will earn your 'fudge' moniker?

A recent survey gave the over 50% figure on amateurs dismissing BB, go to "30 problems with big bang".

Which survey? Where was it published?

Read a story about the CCConference and it should include a mention that it was created as a response to the Scientific American article.

Where did you read this story?

I see the last part of your post is already being addressed by others here.

[Nereid]

I see the complete demise of the BB in about 10 years when they see gigantic galaxies with redshifts of 10+.
This will be accomploshed when the Next Generation Space Telescope is launched in its projected date of 2011.

It's good - and rare - to have something so specific, thanks cyrek1!

Right now, they see gigantic galaxies that with the Spitzer Telescope, are portrayed to have been formed about 2 billion years after the BB origin.

How big is 'gigantic'? Do you have a reference?

I may be an amateur cosmologist but I have studied the BB for more that 15 years and I cannot accept the idea of 'creation out of nothing' in violation of known laws of physics.

Where did you get the idea that the BB was created 'out of nothing', and 'in violation of known laws of physics'?

If you're talking about the 'initial singularity', then you are surely aware that, as there is no good theory in physics which encompasses both GR and quantum theory (and as they are mutually inconsistent), no scientific statements can be made about the Planck era.

But I'm curious, which 'known laws of physics' does the concordance model in cosmology violate?

[Gerbil94]

Dark matter is already used as a given in modelling lensing and many other aspects of cosmology.

Lensing responds to total mass, whether it's dark or light.

[nutant gene 71]

First, the post that you cite nutant gene 71, was made before Fraser approached me about being a moderator, on UT (just for the record).

Your comments about the difficulty of getting independent research published are not unique. Rather than address this here, I have started a thread, in BAUT's Q&A, on getting independent research published. I invite you to join that.

Thanks Nereid! I'll go and check it out, good resource. Not that my ideas are necessarily Earthshakingly brilliant, but I have reason to think the universally constant Newton's G may not be. We've had some very lively debates on BABB regarding the Pioneers Anomaly and possible variable G "proportional" and its equivalence effect on "variable mass". Appreciate it, would be nice to have some real opinions on the math, if nothing else.

BTW, Apj rejected my paper on the Pioneers Anomaly, but didn't expect different.

Ivan

[VanderL]

Lensing responds to total mass, whether it's dark or light.

So?

[cyrek1]

It's good - and rare - to have something so specific, thanks cyrek1!How big is 'gigantic'? Do you have a reference?Where did you get the idea that the BB was created 'out of nothing', and 'in violation of known laws of physics'?

If you're talking about the 'initial singularity', then you are surely aware that, as there is no good theory in physics which encompasses both GR and quantum theory (and as they are mutually inconsistent), no scientific statements can be made about the Planck era.

But I'm curious, which 'known laws of physics' does the concordance model in cosmology violate?

reply (gigantic galaxies)
The Milky Way and Andromeda are considered to be GG and with those 2, you can include M87 which is considerably older along with the ellipticals in other clusters.

(creation out of nothing)
The BB supposedly started out of zero space and time was added to give it motion.. See Michael Zeiliks Astronomy, The Evolving Universe. This book was recommended by Ned Wright.
There is no consensus about the origin, so that adds up to nothing.
The priest who founded the idea of an expanding space and universe also said it started from a gigantic 'primeval atom'. That idea did not catch on so it was disregarded.

(Planck Era)
You are right. As far as Planck is concerned, all he did was eliminate the idea that light is a continuous wave. He showed that it is a pulse of energy. All the other ideas about his 'quantum photon' was expanded into the other fields to resolve other problems.

(Laws of Physics)
The Conservation Laws imply that matter always existed, so there was no beginning for a physical (matter) universe. Also, the 'expansion of space' causing the redshift conflicts with the Michaelson-Morley experiment that prooved there is no ether for the light transmissions in space..

cyrek1

[Jerry]

I have to chuckle every time I peak in at the Newtonian vrs EU debate that keeps hopping from thread to thread. The only salient question is: Can magnetic forces be properly characterized as monopoles? We already know gravitational energy is easily converted to and from what we describe as electromagnetic energy. Removing or transforming the only definitional limitation would marry the forces on all scales, no matter what we choose to call them.

[Mr. Peabody]

(Laws of Physics)
The Conservation Laws imply that matter always existed, so there was no beginning for a physical (matter) universe. Also, the 'expansion of space' causing the redshift conflicts with the Michaelson-Morley experiment that prooved there is no ether for the light transmissions in space..

That is new to me, and I like it. The MM proves light does not move relative to space/ elysium/ ether, and cannot cause "stretching" of photons.

However, if the property of Elysium is that it does not require a change in the speed of light relative to space/ elysium/ ether, then the results do not discount Elysium.

IF NOT BIG BANG,WHAT?

An Elysium of infinite divisibility, responding to electromagetism in accordance with observed ionization of space and Higgs theory could cause the tired light effect with no blurring, solving the reshift dilemma, and provide the Galactic dark matter that causes lensing[not the "fudge-factor dark matter" used in BB and galaxy theory].

It was expansion that gave us BB theory. If we disprove expansion, we have no need for BB.

Einstein and others showed that a finite universe collapses, therefore a non-collapsing universe should be infinite.

on "The creation from nothing", Big Bangers will never side with the creation from nothing, but they also won't stand by singularity....
It's like at the shooting gallery when you hit the target, it turns around and goes the other way. You hit it again, and it reverses back to it's first position.

[Nereid]

(creation out of nothing)
The BB supposedly started out of zero space and time was added to give it motion.. See Michael Zeiliks Astronomy, The Evolving Universe. This book was recommended by Ned Wright.
There is no consensus about the origin, so that adds up to nothing.
The priest who founded the idea of an expanding space and universe also said it started from a gigantic 'primeval atom'. That idea did not catch on so it was disregarded.

There is so much confusion and misunderstanding about this 'initial singularity' or 'creation out of nothing' and its relation to the BBT that I'm thinking of creating a sticky on it.

The two most successful theories in physics today - General Relativity and quantum theory - are mutually incompatible. One condition in which this mutual incompatibility becomes intolerable is during the Planck era, or, more generally, any time, anywhere you get a Planck mass confined in a volume of radius Planck length at a temperature at least as hot as the Planck temperature.

Since we have no theory of quantum gravitation, we have no way of saying anything scientific about this era.

The BBT, therefore, is a set of scientific theories only after the Planck era.

Was there a singularity? Who knows!

Did the universe get 'created out of nothing'? Who knows!

(Laws of Physics)
The Conservation Laws imply that matter always existed, so there was no beginning for a physical (matter) universe.

And, as I have just explained, we have known for some time that our most successful theories in physics are mutually incompatible, which incompatibility becomes intolerable in the Planck era. Who knows what conservation laws there are in such conditions?

Also, the 'expansion of space' causing the redshift conflicts with the Michaelson-Morley experiment that prooved there is no ether for the light transmissions in space.

You've lost me here - would you be kind enough to explain how the MM experiment is in conflict with General Relativity ('expansion of space' is the default solution in a universe which contains mass-energy)?

[ngeo]

Nereid said,

"The BBT, therefore, is a set of scientific theories only after the Planck era."

Doesn't the BBT make the assumption of certain defined conditions during the 'Planck era'?

[cyrek1]

cyrek quote
Also, the 'expansion of space' causing the redshift conflicts with the Michaelson-Morley experiment that prooved there is no ether for the light transmissions in space.

Nereid quote
You've lost me here - would you be kind enough to explain how the MM experiment is in conflict with General Relativity ('expansion of space' is the default solution in a universe which contains mass-energy)?

cyrek reply
GR introduced the concept of the 'curvature of space' which Einstein later tried to save from collapse by introducing a cosmological constant. The later Doppler observations and adopted idea of an expanding universe forced him to drop the idea which was then unneded.
It has nothing to do with the transmission of the light waves.

The BB'ers had to use the space expansion to explain the redshift observations to explain the implied central location as an infinitely small probability. This explanation then created central locations from a observers point of view.
This explanation then used space as an ether and carrier of the light waves.
Unfortunately, they overlooked the MM experiment which refutes this.

[VanderL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL
I concluded from Peratt's work that it is possible to form galaxies without having to include dark matter. If you think I overstated anything just read his papers and tell me different.

Given the rather confused state that some of the 'merged' topics are in, it might be a good idea if you could post a link to these here, anew.

I think that's a bad idea, the point of this thread is not to discuss the alternative theories, but the shortcomings of the current one(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL
I don't see much response to dgruss23's posts about the problems for CDM that are recognized by many scientists.

All in good time.

Now would be a good time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL
So I guess everyone agrees dark matter is a real problem which could ultimately prove fatal.

I rather doubt that. A more accurate statement would be something like "there are lots of open questions about CDM and its role in cosmology".

You may doubt anything, and you can state accurately whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that rotation curves of galaxies cannot be explained through gravitational interactons without postulating an "unknown" wich has failed to materialise in 70 years of research, casting doubt on the current model.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Eric Lerner has publised an article that highlights evidence against an expanding Universe model.
This is the abstract:

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.

I think this article adds to the problems for BBT already discussed previously. Any comments?

Cheers.

[Gerbil94]

So?

Well, the presence of dark matter is not taken as given, because you can measure the total mass (from lensing) and the visible mass separately, and see if they agree. If the mass measured by lensing is equal to the mass of luminous matter then that would eliminate dark matter.

[Monique]

I see issues and questions for Big Bang, still see no evidence for "Mass Exodus" for Big Bang support.

[Nereid]

No one have proven the existence of dark matter who is more a mathematical
fudge to fill the holes in the BB theory based exclusively on gravity.

Them thar's fightin' words!

Rather than challenge you to a duel, let me simply ask 'when you say "dark matter", what are you referring to?'

In particular, what's doing the bending in this image of Abell 1689?

Here an explanation about Galaxy evolution from the start to "their actual dynamics of galaxies right now",
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/galaxy.Radio.html

How could these ideas about galaxy evolution be tested, observationally?

Edited to add
The filamentary structure of the universe was PREDICTED by Hannes Alfvén, and you can find the explanation for
current galactic dynamics there....
"According to the Nobel lauereate Hannes Alfvén, "Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure."

Indeed.

Of course, these ideas failed to get much traction among astronomers - do you know the principal reasons (and no, I'm not talking about bias and suppression of maverick genius; I mean in terms of good science)?

[ChaByu]

Them thar's fightin' words!

Rather than challenge you to a duel, let me simply ask 'when you say "dark matter", what are you referring to?'

matter optically and electromagnetically undetectable...

In particular, what's doing the bending in this image of Abell 1689?

Do you have envision the possibility than the "bending" could be a optical illusion caused by giant gas clouds trapped betwen the galaxies in the cluster.Do you have other examples in other clusters?

How could these ideas about galaxy evolution be tested, observationally?Indeed.

The BB model is facing the same problem.If you refer to the two deep field study showing already mature galaxies everywhere you look.

Of course, these ideas failed to get much traction among astronomers - do you know the principal reasons (and no, I'm not talking about bias and suppression of maverick genius; I mean in terms of good science)?

The prediction made by Alven about the filamentary structure of the universe was confirmed by the The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.Is it right than this galaxies distribution have caused a surprise among astrophysisists?
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/

Edited changed the word shape by structure,-filamentary structure-

[David Zachmeyer]

Is it possible that the Gravitron is the dark matter? One reason that we can't detect it is that we need to use the Gravitron to detect the Gravitron. There are two things that are present everywhere - light and gravity.

[antoniseb]

Is it possible that the Gravitron is the dark matter?

Gravitons cannot be the Cold Dark Matter that is sought to explain lensing by galactic clusters, or the rotation curves of galaxies. Such matter has to be gravitationally bound to the observed object, whereas Gravitons (if they exist) should be moving at the speed of light, or perhaps faster.

[thorgal]

As I said in another message, the two main proofs of big bang are :
1- redshift
2- cosmic background radiation

Sorry again, I don't have references at hand with me here (but at home).

1- even though I don't have the references with me here, some astronomers detected correlations (don't remember which kind) between objects that have completely different redshifts and which, according to the standard model, cannot exhibit such correlations. Their papers are almost systematically blacklisted for publication.

2- cosmic background radiation : I read that some analyses show that it is not completely uniform. There are even physicists claiming that this radiation is not a residue of the early radiation phase of the universe but a result of the aether, yes, this old ghost of aether is back in some physicists minds that do not endorse relativity theory (non constancy of c, etc).

I have no opinion for one or the other. I just think that a theory (BB) that relies on few observations and that requires numerous fine-tuning from post observations does not look very good. It seems to me that the consensus on BB theory is more due to an absence of mainstream alternatives, even though most of cosmologists know that the BB theory can be strongly argued against.

[Cougar]

...some astronomers detected correlations (don't remember which kind) between objects that have completely different redshifts and which, according to the standard model, cannot exhibit such correlations.

Well, it's the "correlation" that's the question, isn't it? How firm is this "correlation"? Is it a "correlation" at all? What I'm sure you're referring to here is Halton Arp and his perceived correlations between objects that appear to be close together on the sky. But are they? They typically have very different redshifts, which would naturally indicate that one of the "correlated" objects is in the foreground and the other is far in the background. Arp tries to make a case that the objects are actually close together and the redshifts indicate something other than distance. Much of his argument is based on "looks". The objects "look like" they're connected in some way. He's also tried to make his case through "statistical analysis". I believe that most astronomers and astrophysicists think that Arp is wrong and that the "correlations" are just coincidental alignments of objects at very different distances. He's apparently going to need better support for his ideas if he is going to prevail.

...Their papers are almost systematically blacklisted for publication.

Well, that's probably the way Arp sees it, but then his view might be just a little biased. Plus, he's gotten plenty of stuff published. Journals undoubtedly take the position that their decisions on which papers to publish are based on the papers' merits.

[thorgal]

cougar,

I am not defending any view, I am just saying that one should be careful before rejecting or approving a theory because, as a physicist myself, I can say that nowadays, many theories have become dogmas, or even facts of life that are not questioned as much as they should be. Whether Arp is right or not, time will tell but I think it is sound that someone comes up with an observation that seems to contradict the common paradigm. If it's pure **, I am ok with it

Remember also that a theory is what it is, a theory, or model if you like. It will by definition be judged with experimental facts. If one verifiable observation jeopardizes the theory, the theory has to be given up for something better.

About the blacklisting, he's not a single case. If you're curious, check this out :

http://archivefreedom.org

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Eta C
You've got it a bit backwards. The observed rotation curves are data. Observables if you will. It turns out that the observed curves are not consistent with the amount of matter in a galaxy based on the number of stars, nebulae, etc (the "bright" matter to coin a term). So you're left with a couple of basic options.
1) There is matter in galaxies, and the universe that does not emit EM radiation in the observable bands. Let's call it "dark matter." We don't know its properties yet, but it must exist if General Relativity and other theories in the standard models are correct.
2) The current theories are wrong and the "anomalous" velocity distributions are evidence for a new force, for which there is no other evidence at this point in time.

Here it appears that you are claiming that "EM-fields" supply a possible explanation for observed galactic rotation curves. I asked you how this could be possible, what could generate such fields, and how they could possibly be large enough. And you answered....

No, you didn't. You haven't even addressed the question. You just vaguely pointed to a paper or two authored by Peratt. OK, I've now looked at these papers. Peratt does not address my question, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

I saw those models. He assumes the existence of a large EM field. He notes that the earth has a magnetic field, and by sheer extrapolation - without foundation, I might add - he imagines that a galaxy might also have a field. This is hardly a quantitative analysis. This "theory" is based entirely on "I wonder if..." The strength of electromagnetism falls off as the square of the distance. I find it entirely unremarkable that Peratt could make an EM model that appears to have the same effect as gravity, given that the equations are essentially the same. The question remains: where is the field coming from? How can it possibly be so large as to show the effect of ten times the gravitational effect of the known mass?

But that's the question, isn't it? Where does this huge EM field come from?

No, you're the one claiming dark matter is a big BBT shortcoming, AND you claim Electric Plasma whatever can explain it better. Well, it's time to back up your claim.

No Cougar, I'm not prepared to discuss plasma cosmology here, the only thing I wanted to point out is that when considering dark matter (and again I'm asking you if you agree it is an embarrassment for science that after more than 70 years, we're stil clueless), there are alternatives. It was a response to Eta C's assertion that there are only two options. If you want to discuss plasma cosmoloy with me, fine, but not in this thread. And yes, dark matter is a problem for BBT, since it is not just necessary to explain galaxy rotation curves, but galaxy cluster dynamics as well.

Cheers.

[Cougar]

No Cougar, I'm not prepared to discuss plasma cosmology here....

I'm not asking you to discuss plasma cosmology, whatever that may be. I'm just asking you to admit or deny that you are claiming that electromagnetism - instead of "dark matter" - explains the observed galactic dynamics of ours and most other galaxies. And if that is your claim, then a brief summary of how this occurs would be appreciated.

[VanderL]

I'm not asking you to discuss plasma cosmology, whatever that may be.

That's exactly what you're asking.

I'm just asking you to admit or deny that you are claiming that electromagnetism - instead of "dark matter" - explains the observed galactic dynamics of ours and most other galaxies. And if that is your claim, then a brief summary of how this occurs would be appreciated.

As I said, what you want is discussing the validity of an alternative model. I'm only "claiming" that there are alternatives for dark matter (another would be MoND)

You must have missed this post:

Cougar:

I cannot see how electromagnetism can come anywhere close to explaining current galactic dynamics, and all I see are the EU and PU proponents dodging the issue.

Then maybe you should read Peratt's paper (just like Nereid did) and while plasma Universe models rely on energy input from galactic scale Birkeland currents (which have been shown to exist in the filamentary structures at every scale), all the "gravity-only" models must rely on gigantic black holes and dark matter. As long as the dark matter search isn't turning up more than the occasional "halo dwarf" or relies on hypothetical particles, it is good science to explore the alternatives.

Just because you didn't read the relevant paper, doesn't mean others are "dodging the issue". Ignoring BBT criticisms (like Lerner's paper) is dodging the issue. This thread shouldn't be about proving an alternative incorrect, it should be about BBT answering it's critics.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[Cougar]

The evolution of the PU from T0 is described in Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened".

I'm sure you are aware of Prof. Ned Wright's discussion of the numerous errors in Lerner's claims. If that's not enough, here is another damning discussion of such claims.

Apparently Lerner made a reply to Dr. Wright at some point, with the catchy title "Wright is Wrong" or something along that line, but this rebuttal seems to have fallen off the web for some reason. A retraction perhaps?

I think Ned Wright is a very smart, learned, knowledgeable, and fair scientist. To imagine that he would side with the mainstream for any of the petty or conspiratorial reasons typically tossed around is ridiculous and insulting.

As I said, what you want is discussing the validity of an alternative model. I'm only "claiming" that there are alternatives for dark matter...

Oh, you want to highlight "alternative models", but you want nothing to do with discussing whether they have any validity or not? Or you just want to wield your ultimate control over what thread contains what discussion? I think I need a new emoticon here!

[dgruss23]

I think Ned Wright is a very smart, learned, knowledgeable, and fair scientist. To imagine that he would side with the mainstream for any of the petty or conspiratorial reasons typically tossed around is ridiculous and insulting.

Did I miss where Tom T or Vander L did that?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Apparently Lerner made a reply to Dr. Wright at some point, with the catchy title "Wright is Wrong" or something along that line, but this rebuttal seems to have fallen off the web for some reason. A retraction perhaps?

It is easily found from Lerner's website.

[Svemir]

1) There is matter in galaxies, and the universe that does not emit EM radiation in the observable bands. Let's call it "dark matter." We don't know its properties yet, but it must exist if General Relativity and other theories in the standard models are correct.
2) The current theories are wrong and the "anomalous" velocity distributions are evidence for a new force, for which there is no other evidence at this point in time.

1) There is matter in galaxies, and the universe that does not emit EM radiation in the observable bands. Let's call it "dark matter.",for which there is no other evidence at this point in time.
2) The current theories are wrong and the "anomalous" velocity distributions are evidence for a new force. We don't know its properties yet, but it must exist if General Relativity and other theories in the standard models are correct.