It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

The CMB has been intensely studied, over the past decade or so. There are GB (TB? more??) of data, from dozens of independent missions and projects.

To what extent do alternative cosmologies match this vast library of data? Which one(s) match best?

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" do not 'have to' do anything; this thread simply asks "which one matches the observations best?"

It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

The K Trumpler effect is not (explicitly) one of the five sets of points in the OP.

In post #13, I replied to Jerry Jensen, clarifying the scope of this thread (alternative theories of cosmology).

To the extent that the K Trumpler effect is considered either big, distant, old, etc, in any alternative cosmology, then I expect that the observations which Trumpler used to establish the effect, and others who have subsequently verified (and extended?) it, would be an important consideration, in that alternative cosmology.

However, that is beyond the scope of this thread.

If you, lyndonashmore, would like to start a new thread, on the K Trumpler effect, and the role it plays in an alternative cosmology, please do so.

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" do not 'have to' do anything.

It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

The incidence of absorption and emission lines (and bands) in the spectra of astronomical objects has been intensely studied, over the past century or so. There are GB (TB? more??) of data, from (tens of?) thousands of independent observations runs.

There have also been many independent studies into the abundance of elements and nuclides in cosmic rays, meteorites, the IPM, and (to a limited extent) the ISM, from direct observation, using a variety of techniques.

To what extent do alternative cosmologies match this vast library of data? Which one(s) match best?

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" do not 'have to' do anything; this thread simply asks "which one matches the observations best?"

It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

I do not understand how "where the energy goes when photnons are redshifted" is an observation. Can you please provide a succinct explanation?

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, the OP does not ask about the extent to which "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" address theoretical concepts such as "where the energy goes when photnons are redshifted"; this thread simply asks about observations.

It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

"Arp's bridges" is not (explicitly) one of the five sets of points in the OP.

In post #13, I replied to Jerry Jensen, clarifying the scope of this thread (alternative theories of cosmology).

To the extent that "Arp's bridges" is considered either big, distant, old, etc, in any alternative cosmology, then I expect that the observations which Arp used to establish these bridges, and others who have subsequently repeated (and extended?) these bridges, would be an important consideration, in that alternative cosmology.

However, that is beyond the scope of this thread.

We already have a very extensive thread, More From Arp et al. If you, lyndonashmore, wish to discuss the role of "Arp's bridges" in any alternative cosmological theory, I suggest that you do so in that thread.

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" do not 'have to' do anything.

It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

I do not understand how "why quasar light curvesd are not 'stretched'" is an observation. Can you please provide a succinct explanation?

So, to answer your question, lyndonashmore, no, the OP does not ask about the extent to which "alternative cosmologcal theor[ies]" address theoretical concepts such as "why quasar light curvesd are not 'stretched'"; this thread simply asks about observations.

May I suggest that you read the OP again?

Specifically, would you please read this part (I've added bold, for emphasis):I hope that my clarifications, of your six preceeding posts, have been of some assistance, in terms of giving you a better understanding of what the scope of this thread is (and what it is not).

Should you (still) have any questions about the scope of this thread, please don't hesitate to ask.

Any new theory must rise or fall based on its own merits and not by its ability to bash the Big Bang or vice versa.
The means of testing a theory are not always obvious at first but they generally come with time.
If you want to talk observations, you have omitted the two most significant and those are the the ability to explain dark matter and dark energy.
This is your thread but you won't disvcover anything with blinders on.

I find it quite interesting to read how the BB does or does not match the five sets of observations just as I would find it interesting to read how well, or how poorly, any alternative cosmology matches the five sets of observations.

Your OP specifically cordons off the Big Bang theory from the same criteria for criticism that you espouse in the OP for use on validating an alternative theory - if an alternative theory can be shot down by this criterion then why not the big bang theory?

Why not revise the OP to allow the big bang theory to be treated on equal footing as the alternative theories so that all may learn the weaknesses and strengths not just of alternative theories but of the big bang theory as well?

__________________
°
°
My invisible elf ??? Why he is made of dark matter and lives off of dark energy !!!
°
°

Wow....it sure ain't easy, is it Nereid?

Look guys and gals. The OP is pretty simple and specific - read it and then think before posting. Nereid is suggesting something rather unique for this forum. It simply solicits from you all how well [a subset of the data fit the alternative 'theories' of cosmology (I would say alternative 'ideas' - there aren't many competing scientific theories, perhaps 1 +/- 1, but this isn't my thread). Bashing the current working scientific explanation for these observations/data takes relatively little (often vanishingly little) effort. But as pointed out above, that isn't good enough - from the point of view of science.

Squashed - if that's what you want to discuss, then start your own thread. It's hardly original within this forum, however. That's not a put-down; it's just an observation.

Bob Angstrom - again, I am sure Nereid would welcome you to start your own thread. Nereid chose just a small subset of the data which are associated directly with the BBT. He could have added many more, but to keep things simple, I presume, he kept it to 5 that are most familiar.

Indeed, thank you for making this point.

In this thread, I am interested in one, just one, aspect of any merits which "any new theory" must have - the extent to which any such (alternative cosmologies) can match the five sets of observations (data) referred to in the OP.Which is what?

"Any old theory must rise or fall based on its own merits and not by its ability to bash {alternative cosmologies}"?

Could you clarify please?Indeed.

In terms of looking at alternative cosmologies, I am "starting small" - this thread looks at only a subset of observations.

The scope does not include experiments (though some could be smuggled in, I'm sure)

Nor does it ask about what is big, distant, old, etc in any alternative cosmology (i.e. the things which, in an alternative cosmology, would be important to at least consider testing), other than those implied in the five sets of observations (e.g. the CMB, galaxies).

Perhaps, if this thread throws up some alternative cosmologies that look sufficiently interesting to me, I might start a new thread on such a topic.It seems the OP is insufficiently clear, so let me try again.

I am interested in the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations. Specifically, the (millions of) observations grouped into the five types in the OP.

An alternative cosmology may seek 'to explain dark matter and dark energy', or it may not.

Whether it does, or does not, is beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread simply asks about observations.Quite frankly, many posts in this thread have surprised me.

And they have made me curious ... do these posts reflect a misunderstanding of what science is, and how it works?

So, thanks Bob Angstrom (and lyndonashmore, and VanderL, and Jerry Jensen, ...); some time in the next week or so I would like to start another thread, here in the ATM section, to explore the extent to which there is an "ATM" view of science. Or, more narrowly, to determine just what 'alternative astronomy' really is.

But please, let's get back to the topic of this thread - what are the best alternative cosmologies, in terms of ability to match the five sets of observations?

This is a good question; perhaps I should have addressed it in the OP.

Spaceman Spiff, in a post quoting yours Squashed, covered part of this, but let me give my own spin on it.

There are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of papers examining the extent to which one or more Big Bang theories match the observational data in the five categories of the OP.

There are, perhaps, hundreds of review papers on that topic (maybe someone could start a thread, in the Astronomy section, to collect references to such review papers?)

Here in BAUT's own ATM section there are dozens of threads, with thousands of posts, attacking one or other Big Bang theory, in terms of its ability to match observations (indeed, one motivation for me starting this thread is the huge imbalance - 'bashing the BBT' seems to take up far more space than 'here's something better than the BBT' ... yet this is the ATM section!).

Further, before any theory, or idea, can be 'shot down', we need a starting point. This thread seeks to establish one small part of such a starting point - the extent to which alternative cosmologies match observations (data) in the five categories listed in the OP.

Once this thread has run its course, and we have some nice material on the extent to which {alternative cosmology A}, {alternative cosmology B}, ... and {alternative cosmology N} match observations (data) in the five categories listed in the OP, maybe someone (which could be me) might start a new thread, aimed at 'shooting down' the best.

Or maybe not. In any case, it's outside the (clearly stated) scope of this thread.See above.

Thanks for the reply, Nereid.

As far as alternate cosmologies I only know of a few that I have been impressed by or know of:

1.) The steady state cosmology;
2.) The Electric Universe/Arp theory.

A lot of the ATM posts seem to address single issues or subjects rather than tackle the entire cosmos and so I would have a hard time considering them equal to or replacing the big bang theory.

__________________
°
°
My invisible elf ??? Why he is made of dark matter and lives off of dark energy !!!
°
°

I think the "NOT" needs to be bigger to get a better clarification.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

The expansion is not in question. The question is, Why? Or perhaps I should say, the question the DEILE hypothesis answers is, Why?

Q. Why is space expanding on large-scales?
A. Because space is contracting on small-scales.

Okay

In my own words, Self creation cosmology (SCC) follows in the respected 'tweak GR to test GR' tradition of Brans-Dicke.

Despite (apparently) having only a few folk actively working on it, I feel it has done a quite respectable job of checking for internal consistency, consistency with (other) good (physics) theories, and making testable predictions (see "falsifiable tests of the theory", about 2/3rds of the way down the Wiki page).

In terms of the five categories of observations mentioned in the OP, SCC does remarkably well, without the need for inflation, DE, or DM (see here for a more complete discussion).

While I do not, personally, subscribe to this, I will undertake to address any questions that BAUT members may have, about the degree to which SCC matches the five categories of observations.

Irrespective of what happens to SCC, as an alternative cosmology, I'd like to commend it (and QSSC, which Tim Thompson referred to in post #3) to all ATMers, as a model of what an ATM theory should look like, and how the proponents have gone about demonstrating consistency with good observations.

As I mentioned earlier, the thing that astonishes me is the almost total lack of anything new, in terms of "hey, my idea/theory can match all those observations, and then some!"; rather we have (unthinking?) repetitions of "BBTs are (all) wrong! {with varying degrees of intensity and heat, if little light}"That's a whole different kettle of worms - but who does one blame for the misunderstanding of what 'theory' means (in science)? Is it science education in (high) schools? universities? Is it the popular press? Is it (cynical?) manipulation by 'special interests'?

Anyway, one battle at a time.Curiously, most 'bashing' of BBTs, as evidenced here in BAUT's ATM section, is pretty tame, compared with what anyone can read in ArXiV (that's a personal view, of course) - while they may not have the emotional colour of (some of) the posts here in the ATM section, there are (mainstream!) papers that ask far, far more penetrating questions in ArXiV.Which is (partly) why I suspect there's a deeper disconnect - some regular posters to this ATM section may be working from an 'alternative astronomy', or 'alternative science' perspective. A topic for later, perhaps.BTW, it's Nereid (but not nereid).

Of course, I don't mind. But maybe it might help if Nereid were the (grand-) daughter of Nicolas Bourbaki? Living in the 21st century, however; perhaps we're a family? (nuclear? extended? alternative?? you choose!).

Thanks Squashed.

This has already been mentioned, in post #3.I'm sorry to say, Squashed, I have no knowledge of any such (alternative cosmology) theory.

There are a whole lot of Electric Universe ideas (this ATM section's longest thread discusses them), but no proponent of these ideas was ever able to present any theories.

Irrespective of whether they're ideas or theories, no EU proponent was ever able to point to any material which covered how well the EU idea/theory matched (or didn't match) any of the five categories of observation. (There is a great deal of handwaving, and enough word salad to sate any appetite, but no numbers). Of course, I may be quite wrong; so if you'd be kind enough to point to which post(s), in the 2363 post long Electric Universe Model thread, refer to matches with even one of the five categories of observation, I'm sure all BAUT readers of this thread will thank you.

Equally, I'm not aware of any Arp cosmological theory, certainly not one which claims to address all five categories of observation.

BAUT's ATM section's second longest thread (or is it third?), More from Arp et al., contains several discussions of the extent to which Arp has proposed any theories (as opposed to empirical relationships); IIRC, the only one is the Arp-Narlikar Variable Mass Hypothesis, which, as the name suggests, even the authors do not consider a theory (much less a cosmological theory).

Of course, I may be quite wrong; so if you'd be kind enough to point to which post(s), in the Arp et al. thread, refer to matches between an Arp cosmological theory and even one of the five categories of observation, I'm sure all BAUT readers of this thread will thank you.The thread is young, let's wait a few weeks and see, shall we?

So explaining the CMB is not a necessary requirement of an alternative cosmology?

[Moderator Note: the post which Peter Wilson is quoting is now part of a new thread, Why the CMB isn't at cosmological distances (Jerry's ideas). While the conent of that post is good, it's also quite OT, for this thread.]This point has already been addressed, in post #13:Or, wrt the CMB, if, as Jerry Jensen seems to be saying, there is an alternative cosmology in which the CMB (the data) are interpreted as arising locally (or, minimally, not at cosmological distances), then that alternative cosmological explanation should be put on the table.

Of course, this thread does not require anything, of any alternative cosmology; it merely asks how well any such alternative cosmology can match the five sets of observations (of which the CMB is one).

Agreed.

Yes, agreed, although I have generally found little light there, too, and plenty of ill-informed conclusions.

Agreement there, too, although my choice of descriptors between the words "alternative" and "perspective" might differ from yours.

heheheheheh.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

For numerous reasons I don’t think your five criteria are of any use in use in determining the value (or lack thereof) in alternative cosmologies but I’ll keep shut and see what develops.

Apparently you missed it, but Lyndon Ashmore was poking subtle fun and not asking for replies.

Would any alternative cosmological theory have to explain why my socks get lost in the dryer?
Would any alternative cosmological theory have to explain why whichever line I pick in the grocery store it is always the slowest?
Would any alternative cosmological theory have to explain why toast always lands butter side down?--- Wait! That might be a good suggestion for number six.
Enough said ---I hope, but don’t bother to reply this time. I am not really asking any questions.

When I said, "Any new theory must rise or fall based on its own merits and not by its ability to bash the Big Bang or vice versa." I meant that new theories should not be judged worthless because they can be bashed by the Big Bang. Most new theories have not had the time or talent devoted to their development to be compared to the high level of sophistication of the Big Bang. When Lemaitre first proposed his Primal Atom theory in 1927, it was a real dog of a theory. Lemaitre got the math wrong, it was based on wild speculation and slim evidence, and he pointed to cosmic rays as evidence of for the big bang. Lamaitre’s theory was typical of any new theory in that it was largely speculative and full of errors. Eddington was one of the few who was able to recognize the theory for what it got right and not just for what it got wrong. He convinced Einstein and Gamow to take a second look at the theory and they corrected the errors. Hoyle derisively called the theory the "Big Bang" and the rest is history. No complex theory ever arises full blown and error free with all the minutia worked out.

Food for thought:

Occam's razor meets WMAP
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604410

Local Pancake Defeats Axis of Evil
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509039

It appears that the mods do not appreciate a Lancashire sense of humour and hence may I humbly appologise to Nereid for my earlier posts.
The point I was making was that even the BB does not answer these points so why should she expect other theories to do it?
The WMAP observations include “the axis of evil” which the BB put down to ‘contamination.’ Additionally, the link tells us that the CMB is coming from a “fog of electrons” – alternative theories have been predicting this for some time (and no, don’t worry, I don’t think BAUT is ready for another bout of “Ashmore’s paradox” just yet – but you did all see the prediction between CMB and electrons on the old BA site).
The Hubble relationship (can BB predict H?) abundance of light elements (can it do it all at the same time?) etc,
So once again, wrists slapped, apologies to Nereid for the way in which it was done.
Cheers,
Lyndon
Who was it who said, “Do not ask of other theories what your own theory is not prepared to do”

Dear Nereid,

In answer to your original post, I would like to put forward the alternative model described in www.gravity.uk.com

To summarise, the theory is an ammendment of General Relatvity, but with the value of G being variable from place to place. The variation of G is such that, for any test mass the gravitational P.E. due to the presence of the mass is equal to its internal energy.

The main consequence is that G reduces for regions of mass/ratio which approach c^2/G.


the theory can account for:
1) CMB - As in BB theory, the CMB arises after a BB (which occured due to a reduction of G for an enormous dense region of matter)

2)Hubble relationship: the relationship is f=f(0)exp(-Ht)

3) Elemant abundancies arise as in BB theory

4) large scale structure arises due to a reduction of G for dense regions of matter which give explosions and spherical voids. The same phenomenon may account for the emission of jets from AGNs.

5) night sky is dark as in 2)


Both the reduction of G, and the result in 2) arise from conservation of energy in a rescaling universe.

All the best,

John Hunter.

Hello Hunter,


Is there a time table for this rescaling?

How many length dimensions are growing and evoling?

What causes this evolution in length?

Does this imply that the energy volumes at the quantum level are expanding....is there any way to test this? Say we placed a ruler in an accelerator for a year....would we be able to measure any growth over such a period, or would the ruler instantly evolve when "lowered" back to our frame and if so, would we be able to observe the balancing process?

Thanks for the clarification (though I don't know how a new theory could be bashed by the Big Bang!)Indeed.

The history of various theories of science is fascinating, with all sorts of curious tales, twists, and turns.

Look at the only two alternative cosmological theories mentioned in this thread*: both have a considerable history.

But let's get back to the purpose of this thread - other than QSSC and SCC, for which we already have some materials on how well they match the five categories of observations mentioned in the OP (so we have, potentially, a basis for judging which is better), are there any alternative cosmologies, with something other than speculation regarding how well they match the observations?