The only strong argument I have netted while peddling the non-time dilated supernova interpretations discussed on these BB pages is: "There is no viable cosmology outside of the Big Bang."

There is a plausible, workable, and most importantly testable cosmology outside the failing constraints of the modified Einstein-deSitter Big Bang theory. This cosmology is conceivable without the jerky dark energy or the undetectable dark matter proposed to align the current prevailing cosmology with observations. It also eliminates the Copernican rings of quasars, active galaxies, and passive evolution that paint the current
epic as unique. It explains MOND behavior and Tully-Fisher phenomenon. The supportive framework for this theory, with far fewer exceptions than the current revision of the Big Bang, falls within known locally observable physical laws.

Why is an Alternative Cosmology Needed?

The Big Bang universe originally proposed was based on four critical observations:

a) An observed Doppler shift.
b) Light element abundance.
c) The cosmic microwave background (CMB).
d) Agreement between particle physics and the CMB.

In the development of this theory many collaborating evidences have been substantiated. The most obvious of these is the observed and quantified evolution of galaxies, galactic clusters, time dilation observed in distant supernova, and evolutionary peaks in observed concentrations of quasars and galaxies with active nuclei.

The soundness of the basic BB structure is rarely questioned in serious astrophysical circles, but a number of observations have severely strained constraints placed upon the Big Bang by Einstein deSitter postulates. Specifically: The universe is too big and too old, there is too much galactic super-cluster structure to allow coupling of the microwave background of a Big Bang explosion to the current epic without also introducing “dark energy”. There are heavy elements found in the most distant objects observed at near solar levels.

Using just the criteria upon which the Big Bang was originally proposed, this is a failed cosmology. However, the success of the big bang in modeling galactic and other evolutionary trends mitigates these failures. Or does it? If the fundamental postulates are wrong, is there a non-expanding model of the universe that agrees with critical observational evidence, and if so, can the entire phenomenon ascribed to the Big Bang be addressed in this alternative model? Can this be done within known constraints?

These are important questions because there are also disturbing indices in the galactic evolutionary trends. The quasar population appears to peak in a fairly local Copernican ring. The kinetic energies of ‘red’ to ‘blue’ galaxies found in galactic clusters appear to have been quite stable in the ‘early’ periods leading up to the current epoch, and then appear to have abruptly shifted. There is variation observed in the cosmic acceleration proposed to prevent ZKG effects from overwhelming the integrated Sachs Wolfe effects eons before the abrupt change in the galactic distribution pattern. These quirky observations scream that there is something wrong with more than one primary parameter.

Static Steady State Cosmology Revisited on the Basis of New Cosmic Evidence:

I postulate there are at least four fundamental concepts inherent in Big Bang cosmology, which prevent a proper reading of the cosmos: The distance modulus is wrong, underestimating cosmic attenuation. There is intrinsic redshifts in extremely bright objects, such as quasars and active galactic nuclei. There is a cosmic non-Doppler redshift functionality that shifts, attenuates and homogenizes light from very distance sources while preserving the spectral lines, and there are sources of primal matter throughout the universe.

Why doesn’t this type of model grow out of existing astrophysical programs?

These cosmological changes require a difficult line of reasoning, extrapolating the combined effects four deviations from the standard model. These distortions lead to the conclusions that galaxy, quasar, and star populations are aging in support of a dying universe. Every one of these effects can be traced to two or more misconceptions about the properties of interstellar electromagnetic radiation transfer functions.

A makeover of cosmology requires fundamental changes in the interpretation of current observations. Here, I will outline these changes and provide single threads of evidence.

It is imperative for the reader to at least tentatively accept these postulates in order to form a testable hypothesis.

a) Very brilliant objects are intrinsically redshifted in a manner that displaces them in the current interpretation of cosmology. Specifically, quasars, galaxies with active galactic nuclei, and virtually all E class (blue elliptical) galaxies contain intrinsic redshifts that are proportional to temperature, ionization of the extended photosphere, radio loudness and proximity to other brilliant objects.

Halpen Arp and others have produced study after study supporting this thesis, but the best evidence is in the apparent proper motion of quasars obvious in a NASA funded full sky statistical radio survey demonstrating apparent proper motion of quasars. This proposal will demonstrate how careful statistical analysis of galactic clustering will either strongly support, or nullify this hypothesis.

b) Most cosmic redshift is neither relativistic nor Doppler. If QSOs are intrinsically redshifted, the distance to these objects is drastically overstated and since the photo-path to these objects is used to calculate the density of the interstellar medium, this gas density is much greater than current calculations and through parametric effects capable of causing much of the cosmic redshift.

Statistical studies clearly show the rise time and light curve widths of supernova Ia decrease with increasing distance if relativistic calculations are used to introduce time dilation. There are no known physical mechanisms for this bodacious interpretation of observations.

There is a possibility supernova researchers are unable to discriminate the hypernovae class of distant objects from very distant supernovae Ia. If this is true, rather than a jerk occurring in the cosmic acceleration parameter, a locally observed bimodal distribution is being identified as a single class of objects in deep space, severely biasing the interpretation. In other words: What are observed and classified as time dilated supernova Ia may in fact be distant hypernova, which are not time dilated. If this supposition is not true, where are the distant hypernova?

c) The distance modulus, currently thought to be a relativistic function, is actually an exponential attenuation that is primarily caused by the increasing temperature in the space approaching brilliant features, such as our own galaxy. This function is obvious in the Compton scattering of light passing close to our sun, but the tensors of polarization and Chandrasekhar’s rules regarding radiation transfer dictate that whenever a beam of electromagnetic radiation encounters a molecular hindrance, a transfer of energy will occur that is proportional to the Planck temperature of the molecule.

Tolman surface brightness, Tully-Fisher, and Cepheid distance estimates do not track the current distance modulus unless passive evolution is invoked that is directly proportional to redshift time and distance. The attenuation of distant supernova do not track the expected relativistic curve. A logarithmic attenuation provides a better match with observations. A radiation transfer function predicts this magnitude function.

d) There is a regenerative process in the cosmos that is an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is the only portion of this proposal that requires new physics and it is not the purpose of this essay to develop this concept. However, for the balance of this theory to remain viable, these violations must exist throughout space and time.

This assertion is justified by the observed broad distribution of both heavy and light metal concentration throughout the known universe. Light element abundance was once one of the keystone arguments of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang theory requires heavy element ratios to increase with evolved distance and time from the primal Big Bang event. The observed detection of solar and even higher levels of heavy element abundance in the most cosmically distant and therefore earliest epics is a nullifying failure of the Big Bang predictions.

Since there are also areas of the local universe that are heavy element poor, it is just as valid to argue point violations occur to the laws of thermodynamics as the Big Bang postulate of a single, inexplicable event. It is just as correct to state that the very existence of the universe violates the second law.

The application of these postulates allows a new cosmology to emerge that is very similar to the steady state models proposed by Zwicky, Hoyle, Mach Daric and others. It is the observations of the current generation of great telescopes that drives this reevaluation.

Specifically, these observations reveal new structure unpredicted by Big Bang cosmology.

If current interpretations are allowed to stand, we are seeing super-Machian jets of matter at relativistic speeds. We see stars with energies that exceed the Eddington limit. There are observed motions that require dark matter to assume many forms, and dark energy to explain the lack of secondary structural peaks in the cosmic microwave background.

By assigning what is currently interpreted as recessional velocity to intrinsic and cosmic redshifting and attenuation, many of the inconsistencies and instabilities of the current cosmology disappear. These include:

1) Copernican rings in the population count of quasar, AGN, and blue galaxies. Assigning intrinsic redshifts to these structures eliminates the periodicity by removing the apparent over population in the recent past.

2) Like the rings mentioned above, there are also periodic fluctuations in quasar intensities. By assuming redshifting is caused by parametric changes induced by molecular hydrogen, these observed harmonic effects can be interpreted as resonant overlaps in molecular hydrogen peak absorptions.

3) Dark Matter in the fringes of galaxies: If Huygens functions are assigned to galactic rotation, the anomalous rotational velocities in the fringes of galaxies are reinterpreted as artifacts of the inner velocity wave functions permeating into the fringes of the galaxy. To conceptualize this, imagine a flotilla of motorboats circling a very small island, with the inner boats traveling faster than the outer boats. If the
wave function of the water is analyzed to predict the speed of the boats, the speed of the outer boats will be over estimated.

4)Dark Matter in galactic cluster in-fall. This unique dark matter feature, which is at odds with Tully Fisher and MOND tests of surface brightness, disappears when blue galaxies are assigned intrinsic redshifts, placing these blue galaxies in the .red cluster voids. This prediction is extremely interesting because it can be verified with an appropriate statistical analysis of the Sloan digital survey.

5) A jerk in the acceleration of the universe. This most curious interpretation of Supernova Ia light curves is better represented by a non time-diluted assignment to the light curves of hypernova at high redshift. This strange cosmic jerk is then interpreted as a bimodal distribution of Supernovae Ia and Hypernovae, which is consistent with local observations.

There are many ways to tests these concepts. One test that has unwittingly already been conducted is the meticulous Doppler measurements of the Pioneer ten and eleven accelerations. In both of these probes, an inexplicable constant accelerating blue shift towards the sun is observed. If a radiation transfer mechanism is responsible for cosmic redshifting, this blue shifting of a low energy signal is consistent with this cosmic factor.

Other confirming evidences could be honed from the Sloan Digital Survey. These include:

a) A statistical analysis of the proper motion of quasars relative to the proper motion of galactic stars should determine an approximate percentage of QSO, which occur within our own galaxy.

b) A statistical reduction of the proximal location of blue galaxies relative to local clusters dominated by red galaxies and .dark matter should reveal whether time and space displacement and therefore intrinsic redshifting of blue galaxies offers a better solution than .dark matter to local cluster mass deficiencies.

c) In a correlating study, the population of nearby slightly redshifted blue galaxies should actually be very local, and therefore be extremely large relative to their redshifted distance, and contain in the edges giant red stars that also have high proper motion relative to the galaxy as a whole.

d) A statistical classification of quasar point sources that are not identifiable as native to obvious galactic cores should find an inordinate percentage of them are in the greater galactic plane and therefore candidate accretion stars.

A careful evaluation of the evidence at hand could either prove or disprove this model. It is also possible that ambiguous results of these tests could lead to further modifications, perhaps reintroducing some aspects of the Big Bang or conversely, slanting the universe towards the plasma models that is already on the table. The most important thing is that viable options to the Big Bang exist within the constraints of the universe as we know and understand it. A proper treatment of the observational data now on hand will define much of the fine structure of this cosmology, and provide a better impetus for future investigative observational studies.


http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/p...04/0404207.pdf

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Go for it.

Yes, indeed. Could gravity really be this simple?

Edits for childish colouring. :roll:

I suggest you submit that to a peer reviewed journal.

It's too good to be censored! :wink:

Love to. I need a team to do astrometrics, a statistician, a couple of data base gurus who know how to extract for the Sloan Survey, a head bean counter, and a few more team researchers: What would be best is a well staffed university astrophysics department - all of whom are well versed in proposal writing so we can do this without starving. Any volunteers?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Soup, either find out a little bit about how science actually works, or just stop posting here.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Sure, but they're already busy on other projects. Sorry.

Actually, I think you've made the problem harder than it is. You don't really need all those other people to do the work.

Aye, and that’s the rub. Even though completely revamping cosmology would represent a major coup, the risk involved in proposing four fundamental flaws exist is beyond the scope of any legitimate scientific research program. It is no wonder Soupd- has become so antagonistic.
The problem could not be any more difficult: How to spawn a reasonable peer review without funding when everyone thinks you are nuts.

In the meantime we are stuck with the curious interpretations Adam Riess has divined from a handful of high-redshift supernova-like events. (Deep sigh)

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Proposing four fundamental flaws? So you are not even sure that they are flaws?
Antogonistic? Soup?

I think Soup has toned down quite a bit. But, as much as I appreciate that, I have to point out that he has never participated in this process, so I'm not sure why he'd have a right to be antagonistic over that process.

Maybe other reasons.
No, that's easy. Show them you're not nuts.
I'll look into that.

The simplest things can make a big difference. I was once helping my advisor with a paper and I made some suggestions, about changing passive voice to active. He agreed it sounded better. Later, he changed it back--he thought it didn't sound scientific enough. Too casual, I guess. I had to agree with him. You and I can sit around and shake our heads that such a stupid thing can make a difference--but my advisor was very successful with grants. He knew what he was doing, he knew his audience.

PS: I fixed the quote problem, sorry about that.

And your contribution to this thread is?

This was your last contribution on my EU thread:

Please read the FAQs. This part of the BB is for discussing ATM ideas. JWJ started this thread. If he is not happy with my tuppence worth, I am sure he is capable of telling me himself.

How do you propose testing this claim?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Soup, what I am saying is that a peer-edited journal is not supposed ot censor AtM stuff; it's just supposed to examine it. If an AtM idea is actually possible and supported by evidence, it can get published in a peer-edited journal.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

So write a proposal to get funding so you can finish up the research and produce the paper -- like most everybody else does it. Of course, a successful proposal will have to show definite promise rather than just an active imagination, so you'll have to include some tidbits of evidence to show there's some hope for such a revolutionary cosmology. And of course the percentage of funding proposals that are successful is probably not that high, so there are no guarantees, but there are different funding agencies....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I guess resistance to an idea is not an excuse for defeatism

Duplicate the pioneer 10 & 11 Doppler studies with the current generation of spectrographs and lasers and interferometes, using multiple wavelengths, beam proximities and radio frequencies. These are expensive but fairly simple and straight forward tests: If we see redshifting of light at nearly the same acceleration as the blue shifting of the radio frequencies in the pioneer craft - Jacques and I win.

In process. I don't mind airing this in public, because if someone else launches a similar proposal, all the better. As Milli360 pointed out, the most conservative appoach is usually the best when looking for funding. (Notice how Paul Allen is reinventing the wheel). Nothing conservative about changing everything, and in order to be viable, all four of these parameters have to be corrected.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Ask anyone who's published. That doesn't mean you stop trying, or whine that it's unfair. Some excellent science takes years to get published because the writing is hard (or poor). Some excellent ideas that get published are trashed by hard data within a year, or after a number of decades. That's the way it works.

If the gun to shoot the BB dead requires another set of spacecraft as far out as the Pioneers are now, with more sophisticated instrumentation, that hard data is a _long_ way away in time, and will be very expensive to get. A great number of people - only some of whome will be cosmologists - will have to be convinced it's worthwhile, and will provide the data necessary for a conclusive answer, and that will take a lot of slow and patient work. With all the other high science return mission proposals out there, it's going to have to make an absolutely whiz-bang case.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

The inference being that someone is whining if they are prepared to criticise the status quo? Criticism is part of progress. That's how it works.

But we have already been through all this...

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...sc&start=0

In summation, it seems that it is easier to get funding for projects that support mainstream ideas, but do we really need to go through all this again. I wish I hadn't hinted at this problem again, now.

I think what is also relevant here is that old saying about having walked in another man's shoes.

The inference being that complaining that getting through peer review is hard is like complaining that water is wet. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

Your analogies have a habit of appearing somewhat tenuous.

I stand by the accuracy of my analogies in their proper context. Your assertions do not transmute conjecture and opinion into fact.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

I am not suggesting that they do. But then again, nobody's assertions ever transmute conjecture and opinion into fact. Ths is a statement of the obvious.

As I have pointed out on other threads, the creation of Dark Energy elevates the BB from a failed theory into a religion that can pass any cosmic test simply by modifying the properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The objective is not to disprove this new religion, but determine what is really happening.

Multi-variant statistical analysis of the Sloan Survey will yield solutions to the cluster in-fall rates that will quantify the intrinsic redshift in blue galaxies and quasars. These can be cross-correlated with the apparent proper motion in the ‘red tails’ of nearby blue galaxies to nail down the intrinsic component attrubutes.

The purpose of the Pioneer-like studies would be to determine whether the MOND effect is real, and attributable to some electromagnetic or dark matter force, or if it is an artifact of a CREIL or CREIL-like cosmic redshift. These studies could be piggy backed onto deep space probes conducted for a wide assortment of reasons.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Not being a cosmologist myself, the main thing I see here is that you're poisoning your own case in the short term by namecalling the established opposing theory. If you're right, time will out - that's the nature of scientific investigation. Antagonism will slow your progress significantly. But you probably already know that.

Does this require a vested physics department, or a statistician and database analyst? There's at least one order of magnitude cost difference in there if not more, and you're far more likely to be able to hire the latter than convert the former at this stage in the game.

__________________
“The simplest schoolboy is now familiar with truths for which Archimedes would have sacrificed his life.” – Earnest Renan

Its a good analogy - by complaining that its tough to get an ATM paper published, you imply it should be easier. But then - its difficult to get a mainstream paper published too - should that be easier too?

Sorry, but its a big world and there is a lot of competition. If you want to get ahead, you quite simply need to be a superstar. I'm getting the feeling no one ever gave you guys the "life is tough" speech. Quite frankly, I question the motives of people who resort to this type of thing. 'The Big Bang is a Religion' would make a great book title, but it makes for a terrible title for a scientific paper. You can't say things like that and then complain about not being taken seriously, JJ.

If you're serious about it, JJ, be serious about it.

I am dead serious. The current iteration of the BB violates basic scientific philosophy: Dark Energy introduces a fourth non-locally observable parameter into cosmology. Tweaking this Dark Energy parameter can eliminate the Big Bang completely, in fact the GR physics work better without the bang because it also eliminates inflation. Therefore Dark Energy decouples the theory from its origin.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

How dare you mention the R word? Some people object very strongly.

"you won't have to worry about me arguing against you again."