Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
This is an interesting challenge, but there are subtle straw men qualities. Alternatives are discounted because the BB is based upon a specific set of rules.
|
You're right, Jerry, there are some unstated assumptions.
For example, given that the scope is 'cosmology', then an unstated assumption is that any cosmological theory will at least attempt to address all (good) observations of the big, the distant, the old, etc.
So, the list includes items which are big, distant, old, etc, in the best cosmological theory we have, today.
Quote:
|
If the rules are wrong, in most cases, so are the interpretations of the phenomenon.
|
Only to the extent that, in an alternative cosmology, there are phenomena which are big, distant, old, etc that are not included in this list (an alternative cosmology should address all items in the list, at least showing that the things observed are not big, distant, old, etc).
And the OP specifically refers to the
observations, not the
interpretations of those observations (which may be quite different, in an alternative cosmology).
Quote:
3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.
My universe is infinite and does not have a beginning, so the high levels of heavy elements found in distant quasars and galaxies is a no brainer: The mean distribution does not change. The local areas that are low in heavy metals does not present a challenge, either: There must be recycling, and an obvious place for this is in galactic cores, many of which just happen to be blowing giant hydrogen bubbles. (Remember, the 2d law of thermal stuff has to be thrown out in a closed system, and whether the violation is a big bang or point exceptions in areas of high density, the results are the same.
|
So, how does your universe produce the
observed abundances of elements and nuclides?
Or, more pertinent to this thread, how well are the observed abundances accounted for, in your alternative cosmology?
Quote:
|
1) the Cosmic Microwave background: It is a gaussian distribution of energy in a low frequency bandwidth. I think it is primarily a function of the electromagnetic field associated with the solar wind at terminal shock with energetic particles. There is also galactic, and cluster-wide contamination - about the only specific information is the increase in intensity toward the galactic center, and a weak stirring cause by the planets in the zodiac plane: The two primary features in the WMAP surveys. The rest is just muddy water.
|
So, once again, how well does your alternative cosmology account for the
observations of the CMB*?
Quote:
|
4) and 2) The classification of the large scale structure is heavily biased by the rules used in interpreting the data. BB cosmologist eschew intrinsic redshifts, and also assign relativistic factors in the k-corrections. If these distance dependancies are wrong, so is the interpretation of structure. The most obvious evidence that these interpretations are wrong is the migration of 'blue' galaxies from cluster cores in the past into 'Field galaxies' at the present time, but in general, all of the power functions, patterns and geocentric peaks in galactic distributions are not due to a universe radiating from a BB center, but artifacts caused by our lack of understanding of the basic nature of light. This is mostly Einsteins fault.
|
Surely this is OT?
The OP explicitly limits the scope of this thread to alternative cosmologies ("
Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.")
How well does your alternative cosmology match the (underlying) observations?
Quote:
|
5) The dark sky: Light travels through space as an electromagnetic soliton, and just as it is subject to the rules of radiation transfer passing through a crystal or any medium with a known density, it also interacts gravitationally with each and every object. Since this is also (In my interpretation) an electromagnetic effect it is NEVER perfectly elastic: redshifting is a radiation transfer event. We don't measure this locally, because it is prohibitatively small, but it is impossible for light to travel through space without an energy budget. The sky is dark because all light is eventually redshifted into oblivion. The universe is not winding into a complete state of equilibrium because massive, dense galactic cores are also converting electromagnetic energy into light elements, and about the only thing that Einstein did get right, is that it takes a lot of light to make a single proton - which incidently, is also a soliton. Waves, baby, waves.
|
So, what, in your cosmology, are the expected (diffuse) background levels of EM, by wave-band? How well does your cosmology match the observations of (upper limits to) the backgrounds?
*
these include the detection of (distant) point sources, of (nearby, rich) clusters, the dipole, and the black-body distribution of photon energy, by frequency.