Accepted.Hmm, I'm not sure that anyone expects any theory to match any points.

Doesn't the OP simply ask about the extent to which an alternative cosmology matches the five sets of observations?

Several posters have suggested, directly or indirectly, that cosmological theories should (or similar) match observations other than the five sets listed in the OP. Any BAUT member may start a new thread, with just this (or similar) question as the OP. However, this thread has a (I hope) clear, specific scope.This may, or may not, be so.

It is, however, OT ... except to the extent that we may ask of an alternative cosmology "to what extent does it match the 'axis of evil' data in the CMB?"Well, if you won't put an alternative cosmology 'on the table', so we may ask "to what extent does it match the 'axis of evil' data in the CMB?" or "to what extent does it match the CMB observations, in general?", then why mention it?So, just so that I'm clear about this, are you advocating that alternative cosmologies do not need to be asked questions such as "to what extent does {alternative cosmology X} match {observations}?" Or are you advocating merely that alternative cosmologies need be asked only questions such as "to what extent does {alternative cosmology X} match {observations other than the five sets in the OP}?"

Thanks john hunter.To what extent does your idea differ from any BBT, in the extent to which it matches the CMB data?

Specifically, what values to the various cosmological parameter have, in your idea, for the best match? (I expect that "best" will have a specific, quantitative meaning).What is f? t?To be clear then, what values do the various cosmological parameters have, in your idea, that best match the observed abundances of elements and nuclides?To what extent does your idea match the various published P(k) curves (or equivalents)?I look forward to the specific answers, re the extent to which your idea matches the observations

These seem to be very good questions, bigsplit.

However, they are OT for this thread. I suggest that this is the appropriate thread in which to pose these questions.

Nereid,
I thought that you would never ask!
Ashmore’s theory can do the following,
Not only can it explain the Hubble relationship for galaxies, but it can also calculate a value for the Hubble constant and get it right.
It can also explain the paradox as to why measured values of the Hubble constant, H are equal to hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space Ashmore’s paradox
It can explain the CMB and calculate a value for the wavelengths and shows that it will be in the microwave region.
It not only explains the CMB but it predicted that the CMB is ‘scattered’ by electrons as per your link. Since, in this theory, the CMb is emitted by plasma clouds, the axis of Evil is explained- as plasma is formed in Hydrogen clouds and some of these are aligned about our locality. If that is not enough, it shows some interesting coincidences between the temperature of the plasma clouds and the CMB wavelengths.
“Acceleration’ is also explained.
It will be published this year.
Supernova time dilation and quasar ‘non time dilation’ are also explained - but you will have to wait for the book for that – out this summer (“Big Bang Blasted”) and available through all good bookshops and Amazon.
Cheers,
Lyndon.
P.S. the website also ‘debunks’ the CMB blackbody curve

Hmmm. If the secondary photon from the interactions are in the microwave region, how does 21cm radio get red-shifted?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Those are some impressive claims*!

How about the other three sets of observations?*I'm sure we'll be coming back later, to examine the extent of the match in more detail, for these two - CMB and Hubble relationship for galaxies.

in the same way. Bigger wavelength, bigger collision cross-section, more collisions, bigger shift in lambda, redshift z constant for all lambdas.

Hi Nereid,
Forget item 3) it is a non starter. Hoyle et al show that these abundances are generated in stars. The BB cannot get them all correct at the same time. If it gets these abundances right it gets the others are wrong and so on. Furthermore in the BB something like 95% of matter is 'dark' I would be more impressed if the BB could tell me what 95% of the universe is made from rather than 1%. No this item is a non starter.
Item 4) need to look at this one busy at present.
Item 5) who says that the universe must be infinite? Me thinketh you asumeth too much! The BB might not all be wrong!
cheers,
Lyndon

The question is, "to what extent does the lyndonashmore alternative cosmology match the observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides?"

Perhaps I missed it, but the part of your post quoted above doesn't seem to provide any answer to that question.OK.Hmm, the question is "to what extent does the lyndonashmore alternative cosmology match the observations that the upper limit on the background diffuse EM radiation is {X_nu}(the CMB excepted)?"

Perhaps I missed it, but the part of your post quoted above doesn't seem to provide any answer to that question.

I've done some digging, and it seems that there is a thread, from BABB days, discussing your cosmology theory, lyndonashmore - here.

Perhaps we could revive that thread, so that anyone interested in questioning and challenging that idea, in ways that go beyond the scope of this thread, may do so there?

I have a few questions, although every time I stick my neck out it seems to get swatted by people with more knowledge on the subject. But here goes:

How does your model for the CMB match the angular power spectrum predicted and recently confirmed by several Inflationary Scenarios?
I don't quite understand your rebuttal to element abundances, how we can't measure them. It was my understanding that we have these nailed down to a high degree of precision...?
What predicitions does your theory make for 2007, when the LHC comes on-line, and does or does not detect supersymetric particles, gravitons, Higgs, etc...?

That's about all I could think up after a cursory peek at this thread. I may post more questions before you have time to answer.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

There is another extremely important point to Lyndon’s comments and that is that NO astronomical evidence is valid in determining the relative merits of one cosmology versus another. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of modern cosmologies that explain how the universe may have formed by means of some event other than the big bang. If any one of these is true, then the universe is not the result of a big bang. If the universe was not formed within a big bang, then where can you observe the aftermath of a big bang? If the universe was formed in a clash between a cosmic tiger and a phoenix then the CMB, WMAP, Hubble redshifts, the Axis of Evil (essentially everything we see from a distance) would be the observed effect of what happens when a tiger and phoenix collide. The only way you could observe the effect of a big bang would be to leave our universe and find another universe that did form within a big bang and make your observations there. If there were no big bang, then where could you find evidence for a big bang? This is why astronomical evidence is not valid when the BB itself is being questioned. Think about it!

(Snips): “the strongest (ATM) alternative(s)
ability to match several sets of good observational results.
The observations that are within the scope of this thread are the following: etc. etc.”
__________________________________________________ _______________

OK, to match observations, to best match observations, but each new paradigm may have different interpretation of the observed phenomena. And from the interrelation of the observations we have found fundamental laws that also must be matched

To start we must accept that what we observe is only what is within our local range of observation, with whatever means, of the existing Spectrum of Electromagnetic Radiations, accepted or observed by our human senses and intellect.

But to expose a new theory you must include the interpretation or the why and wherefore of the observed phenomenon and the laws to obey.

Another premise is that the observed universe is One an all parts are interrelated to conform that unity. Therefore the observations are interrelated within that unit and the interpretations must match that interrelation.

Within our local range of observation, all observations known are limited to that range, the observer and the observations are One, that is, a local range is a limited, Closed System.

Conclusion: The following proposed new Paradigm with the matched observations, laws and interpretations, point to what the author concludes: the Universe is a cyclic Closed Thermodynamic System, which predicts no beginning or ending. The author accepts and matches the observations similar to the interpretations of the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) of Fred Hoyle and Narlikar, as far as the nucleosynthesis alternative and the interpretation and origin of the CMB,(observation (1)), but there is no expansion (2). The translation and acceleration of the Galaxies is a local phenomenon caused by a true cosmological constant. The older speeding Galaxies and Quasars (Older than BB Clusters (4)) as they nearly reach the c speed, ionized into neutron Galaxies disintegrate (beta decay) into free stable elements, protons, electrons, positrons and neutrinos (3), and ever recycle into new stars and Galaxies. Red shift absorbed to oblivion (5).

See from beginning to end, Gustavo Rosania-Schneider’s : http://antibigbang.com

And all its adjoined Links.

__________________
New Physics by observing the real purpose and functions of the Beta Decay Phenomenon, origen of permanente decay and regeneration of the universe: http://antibigbang.com/BetaDecay.htm

An interesting (philosophical) question.

Sadly, it is beyond the scope of this thread (and possibly beyond the scope of BAUT - we are a science-based forum, not a philosophy-based one).

Interesting claims.

Within the scope of this thread, it seems that 4) ("observations that were used to determine the large scale structure of the universe, such as those referenced here.") is not addressed.

To what extent does this idea of Gustavo Rosania-Schneider match the relevant observations? In particular, is there a chart, similar to the one here, showing the match to observations?From the website you provided a link to, I could find nothing on how well this idea matches the observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides. Is there any such?Would it be correct to conclude that there is no diffuse background electromagnetic radiation (other than the CMB), according to Gustavo Rosania-Schneider's idea?(my bold) How similar? How different?

In this ATM thread, it seems at least some of Gustavo Rosania-Schneider's ideas are being discussed. May any interested BAUT member pose challenges to these ideas in that thread, and expect you to (attempt to) address them?

OK, so according to your post (the excerpts here), the website and adjoined links should provide:

a) at minimum, a statement that "The author accepts and matches the observations similar to the interpretations of the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) of Fred Hoyle and Narlikar"

b) at least an outline of how Gustavo Rosania-Schneider’s idea is consistent with QSSC

c) preferrably, a derivation of the physics in QSSC, from Gustavo Rosania-Schneider’s idea (or vice versa)

d) alternatively, a table (or similar) of what the (cosmological) differences between Gustavo Rosania-Schneider’s idea and QSSC are, in terms of the CMB and the Hubble relationship.

I searched the website, and adjoined links, and found none of these four.

Can you substantiate your claim, erecaman?

I checked this webpage, but found nothing about how well "Ashmore's theory" matches either the 3-year WMAP temperature results, nor the polarization results (the WMAP team's papers can be downloaded from here - the key temperature result can be seen in Fig 22).

There is a section on your webpage on "Clumps in the CMB", but it contains no quantitative information, much less any demonstration of matching to observational data (and certainly nothing concrete concerning the 'axis of evil').

I will take a close look at the coarser matches that you claim ("value of the wavelengths" and "debunks the CMB blackbody curve"), later.

For now, can you please either point to material showing the extent to which the "Ashmore theory" matches the CMB observations (per your claims), quantitatively, or present such matches here?

[Edit to add: and nothing on the CMB dipole either, unless it's in the "debunks the CMB curve" link).]

Nereid pointed out that this was out of scope for the thread, but I'd really like to understand this claim more. We can do so over here, perhaps.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

High standards of scientific inquiry? In Astrophysics and Space Science 268: 77–88, 1999 he writes:

"Metallic whiskers would be a magnificent thermalising agent. We saw at the outset that the average universal iron density could be 10^(-34) g/cm^3, provided an appreciable fraction of the iron produced in supernovae is expelled into extragalactic space. For a mass absorption coefficient of 10^7 cm^2/g the opacity for a unit column of cosmologically significant length, 10^28 cm [about 10 billion light years] would thus be about 10, more than ample to produce thermalisation of radiation in the far infrared."

With such a large opacity we wouldn't see IR/microwave/radio sources at cosmological distances, but this does not concern Narlikar. Moreover, his fit to the CMB anisotropy data in the 2002 paper is not simply bad, it is atricious. He can't even fit to the COBE data, having a "pre-peak" at small-l instead of a Sachs-Wolfe plateau.

His work is just as useless as the next ATM stuff and goes to show how ATM always fails miserably when it ventures beyond word salad.

Hi Nereid,
Thanks for your interest in my site.
Why do you feel that my calculation of the CMB in the microwave is not quantitative?
A UV photon redshifted gives CMb at the peak 'temp' -
calculated.
I thik that you realise that your Op ties everyones hands behind their backs and then expects them to fight.
Either we open up this OP to include what the BB cannot do compared to what ATM threads can or I am leaving.
Knowing that you are a reasonable person i am sure that you will agree to this request.
So Ashmore's theory quantitatively calculates a value for the Hubble constant. Can the Bb do that? No!
I show that CMB is in the microwave - with no 'fiddle factors. Can the BB do that ? No!
Is the OP widened or not?
Are you bvrave enough Nereid to fight on equal terms?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Can someone explain the term "axis of evil"? Because the only definition I know's political, and therefore probably not what's meant here.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You're welcome.Here's what I wrote:It seems that I was insufficiently clear; let me try again.

a) I could find nothing quantitative, on the webpages you provided links to, on the CMB dipole, the 'axis of evil', the angular power spectrum ("temperature map"), or the CMB polarisation.

It may be that you have done quantitative work on (some of) these; I simply note that I couldn't find it on the webpages I looked at.

b) I haven't yet looked at the material on your website re the CMB temperature, or the blackbody curve.

c) I am not looking for calculations; I am looking for only matches to observations.

d) My comments were in response to your own, earlier post, where you stated: "It ["Ashmore's theory"] It can explain the CMB [...] the axis of Evil is explained"

Remember that this thread is about the extent to which alternative cosmologies can match observations (as I think I may have said before).If you wish to contribute to this thread, by providing material which shows the extent to which an alternative cosmology can match observations of the five categories in the OP, you are free to do so.

If you provide such material, any BAUT member may ask questions about it, ask for clarifications, or may challenge (its accuracy, scope, etc) - as I have done.

You may choose not to post to this thread, or to not post anywhere in BAUT.

You are also free to start a new thread, on the extent to which any BBT does, or does not, match the same set of five observations (or any other observations) - though I think you'll find there are already dozens of such threads, and thousands of posts on just those topics, already, here in this ATM section (so you may wish to merely post to an existing thread).If the intended scope of this thread is unclear in any way, please ask.

(to repeat, this thread is about the extent to which alternative cosmologies match the observations in the five categories listed in the OP. 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.)Perhaps, perhaps not.

That is irrelevant, for this thread (except to the extent that "Ashmore's theory" can match the millions of observations that underlie the Hubble relationship - I've not yet checked this out).The extent to which coarse aspects of the CMB - the SED, the temperature - are matched, by the "Ashmore theory" is next on my list of things to do.No.

So, Let it be known to all and sundry, that when challenged, Nereid chose to hide behind the rules!
Pity really, I think that it would have been a good thread.
This is the only reason that i am not making any more replies in this thread.
In Physics, I enjoy a fight, and not only my theory but many other ATM proponents who post here can give any BB disciple more than a good run for their money.
However, no one is prepared to fight with their hands tied behind their backs by the rules.
Open up the OP to include what the BB cannot do.
Cheers,
lyndon

From the linked page: "Furthermore, the plasma clouds are in thermal equilibrium where the rate at which they receive energy from the light being redshifted is equal to the rate at which they radiate energy due to the CMB. The radiation will be black body."

The CMB emitting plasma clouds would need to be completely opaque at microwave frequencies to meet FIRAS limits. We wouldn't see distant sources beyond the clouds at these frequencies. There is no way you can dance around this fundamental physical reality and it makes your "theory" a nonstarter.

Here you just gripe about how the way the FIRAS curve is plotted does not please you. Apparently you wish it was plotted so that the Rayleigh-Jeans tail would give the impression of excess intensity. You don't contest the actual data or the interpretation at all.

Cheers Zahl,
All they have is the exponential cut off. One gets this same curve with thermal brehmstrahlung. however the bit on the right is flat with thermal B..... so all you need to explain is why it dips a little. They have few points here. Why don't they tell us this?
Because the data is incomplete?
I am going soon - honest.

try this
Basically, all this nonesense about power spectra, seeds of the bb is wrong since the 'clumps' that are supposed to form the seeds of the unverse are arranged n a pattern symmetrical to our solar system and galactic plane. WOW aren't we special?
Goodbye and Goodnight!
cheers,
Lyndon

It is exactly as it should be with deviations being less than 50 PPM from the Planck spectrum in the plotted region. You have no case.

Nereid chose to start a thread specifically asking how well alternative theories match observations. It's not a bad idea, really, since there are already plenty of threads claiming to show how poorly mainstream theories account for some observations.[/QUOTE]

You are of course welcome to start your own thread, with a different focus. Though you seem to be posting a fair amount in this one in spite of your claims that you would not.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

The well known CMB temperature map can be decomposed into individual components called multipoles. When all of these are summed up together, they produce the aforementioned CMB temperature map. The dipole has one hot spot and one cold spot (it is not included in cosmological analysis because it is believed to arise from our motion relative to the CMB), the quadrupole has two hot spots and two cold spots, the octopole has three & three, the hexadecapole has four & four and so on. According to the theory of inflation, these spots should not have any alignment. They should be randomly placed. However, the CMB quadupole and octopole do show a peculiar alignment. Their spots are cleanly in the same plane and thus the two 'poles have a common axis - the axis of evil. This puts Inflation into potential jeopardy.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/multipoleCMB.gif

See the top two images in the link and notice the planarity and the common axis (nearly vertical in this image). The hexadecapole is random as expected and does not show any alignment.

here's a couple of images showing the azimuthal equal area projections of the cmb (taken from the wmap site).

i've converted the original pallete colours to greyscale...and then altered the tonal brightness (darker) and set it finally with a redscale.

images are best viewed as desktop wallpaper..with a black surrounding border.

*************************

Attached Thumbnails