Lyndon is exactly correct when he makes this 'observation' (which does not make his theory correct), and precisely why I chose not to participate in this thread at all.

I would certainly never get into any kind of card game with Nereid, she has become far to adept, at stacking the deck!

When she says the 5 points are 'observations' (NOT INTERPRETATIONS), and then allows no Big Bang comparisons, it simply defines something which is absolutely not true.

All 5 points "ARE" interpretations with a Big Bang flavoring of one kind or another!

Which brings me to Bob Angstoms post above, which is the truest thing that has been said in this entire thread, which I will answer in the thread you started Grey, based on that very concept.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Why is it so hard for ATM proponents to simply show how much their pet theories fit the experimental data, and not to say bad things about the Big Bang Theory?

What's wrong with having ONE thread where they are asked not to bash the mainstream?
EDIT to add: Why can't ATM proponents play by the rules normal scientists play by?



So, the sky is dark because the mainstream scientists interpret it that way, not because it is actually dark.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

papageno
Senior Member

I answered the first part of your post in Grey's new thread.

Okay, ya got me, # 5 can be eliminated from my statement.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I read and it does not answer my question.

So, why can't ATM proponent put their efforts into showing how well their theories agree with the available experimental data, instead of bashing the mainstream?
After all, mainstream scientists work on getting the theories to agree with the observations.


Are you saying that the observed microwave background is there only when you wear the "BB goggles"? That its spectrum does not follow a black-body spectrum?

Are you saying that spectroscopy, used to detect elements and estimate their abundances, requires the Big Bang Theory and not Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics?

Are you saying that the Hubble relation (redshift proportional to distance) is only an interpretation?

Are you saying that the large-scale structure is there only because the mainstream scientists believe in the Big Bang?

In order to make all five observations only interpretations of the BB Theory, you'll have to show that determining distances and taking spectra of objects, and detecting microwaves, require the BB theory.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Look, lyndon and RussT: this thread was started to discuss a specific topic. If you want to discuss problems with the BBT, then start your own &$%# thread. There's plenty of room on this forum to do so. Bringing up the issue here is as polite as, say, barging into a thread about spaceships in the last set of Star Wars movies and insisting that everyone talk instead about how bad the movies were. It's simply inappropriate. Further attempts to interfere with the discussion on this thread will be dealt with severely.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

You are right, of course, which is why I didn't post in this thread for so long, and why I should have stuck to my original reason for not doing so.

I am glad Grey started the other thread, because all of these kind of answers can be addressed there.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

It is hard to judge cosmologies by how well alternative theories match observations because all theories are the result of a fine tuning between theory and observation. If the theory does not produce the expected observation, the authors revise the theory until it does. Few new theories have been worked out in great detail because of the work involved and because the authors can see that the effort is not likely to result in anything new.

People who say bad things about the Big Bang should be ashamed of themselves. Bashing a poor defenseless theory!

Dear Bigsplit and Nereid,

Bigsplit: most of those questions would be answered by a quick look at the website www.gravity.uk.com

Nereid, I'll try and give more specific answers in a week or two.

All the best,

John Hunter.

From the links in this post extract, it would seem that lyndonashmore's idea "matches" the CMB observations in the following way:
-> "the wavelength of the CMB photons given off will be in the range 0.076mm to 7.6mm - and it is in this range of wavelengths where the intensity of the CMB curve should peak"

One statement is clearly a mismatch ("For the CMB, the wavelength of the majority of photons is 2.1mm."), but perhaps this is a mis-statement (perhaps it means something like "For the CMB, the wavelength at which the SED peaks is 2.1mm").

I could find no quantitative statements concerning the SED of the CMB, nor of its intensity, so the extent to which "Ashmore's theory" matches the observations is open at this time.

Next: a look at the last of lyndonashmore's claims, those relating to 2) observations underlying the Hubble relationship, especially wrt galaxies.

PS: As lyndonashmore has declared that he will not be posting further (at least in this thread), unless another BAUT member wishes to present more material on "Asmore's theory" and the extent to which it matches the five sets of observations, I guess we'll soon be done with this alternative cosmology.

at the bottom of page 3 i attached a couple of images.

i propose that these show that the cmb is actually produced by point sources.

There are two different "Ashmore cosmologies" presented in the linked pages, wrt the Hubble relationship:

-a> a Hubble constant that is proportional to the 'average' density of electrons in 'intergalactic space'.

-b> a Hubble constant that is a combination of fundamental constants.

The second is marginally consistent with recent determinations of H₀, but inconsistent with a non-linear Hubble relationship, such as one that includes a non-zero 'deceleration parameter'. As there are now thousands (?) of observations of high-z supernovae, and as neither webpage addresses these observations, it would seem that -b> only marginally matches the observations for low redshift galaxies.

The first may match observations, but the webpage does not present anything on the extent to which H₀ varies with 'average' electron density in 'intergalactic space'. From the information presented, it seems that the observed value of H₀ should vary between ~12 and ~1200 km/s per Mpc (vs the HST Key Project Team's result of ~71 km/s per Mpc). AFAIK, this variation in the value of H₀, among galaxies, does not match the observations.

Indeed.

And what is the alternative cosmology in which the CMB 'is produced by point sources'?

What does this alternative cosmology have to say about the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the radiation from these point sources?

And to what extent does this alternative cosmology match the other four sets of observations?

Nereid

i have no "alternative cosmology" from which i make this claim....it is just a single observation.

i cannot provide any comments upon the SED or the other 4 sets of observations.

i will say that the tonal adjustment accentuates the variance between strong and weak emissions...and appears to show a cmb that is already organised into clusters (of point sources) and voids..of various scale.

eg: the bright areas in the first image appear to form straight lines that are arranged to enclose large hexagonal voids.

my own view is that we are looking at large scale structures at possibly 10 - 15 billion light years distance.

Nereid,

I have posted an alternative model to Big Bang theory on several science forums. It is called 'The Gravity Model'. It would take a while to reproduce it here, but you can see it if you put "the gravity model vs. big bang theory" into a search engine. In my opinion, it explains observations about the universe far better than Big bang theory.

Welcome to BAUT, W. Davidson!

Unless there's more than what's on sciforums, hypography science forums, and the science forum, your 'model' seems to be entirely qualitative. In this respect, there is no match with any of the five types of observations listed in the OP.

But perhaps I missed it; could you please point to a paper (or papers) where your idea has been published? Alternatively, could you please point to material that shows how your idea matches the following, quantitatively*?

-> the CMB has a blackbody SED, with a temperature of ~2.73K

-> the CMB has a millikelvin dipole (temperature and direction, with error bars, to be supplied later)

-> the 'night sky' is darker than ~30 mag/square arcsec, in the U, B, and V bands

-> the local value of the Hubble constant, H₀ is 71 km/s/Mpc (error bars to be supplied later).

*This is just a summarised, small subset of the five categories of observations listed in the OP.

Sorry, Nereid. All too technical for me. I'm a layman, remember! You have to go easy on me. The model does have dipole effects, though.

I've no idea how the CMB gets to be 2.7K. Bit of a detail, really. When I've got a bit more time, I'll post the whole thing and try to answer the less technical questions that come my way. I've just recently discovered this forum.

More nonsense, Nereid. How about, BB is correct? Belly up to the bar and put your observations to the test. Pick on me for a change. You guys like to pick on Nereid [who knows what she is talking about]. I don't mind being challenged.

Thanatos,

Nonsense, is it? How about all the matter in the universe being compressed into a volume the size of an atom? That's what BB theory tells us to believe, and it's pure nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that matter can be condensed like this. The rationale for it is simply that it must be so in order to make Big Bang theory work. Why does it not occur to people to think that if that is what it takes to make BB theory work, then BB theory must be wrong?

Or how about inflation theory? This tells us that when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit. No explanation why such an event should occur, of course. It's simply necessary to make BB theory work, so it must be so.

Or how about 'dark energy'? A Big Bang universe ought to be decelerating, but observations indicate that the exact opposite is happening. So a completely new and unknown force of nature is created about which absolutely nothing is known except that it is necessary to preserve BB theory.
All of this is very, very bad science. The Big Bang is the classic 'reductio ad absurdum'.

I think that's the wrong way round, W. If an object possesses sufficient mass, there is no force known to physics that can resist its compression so what's left to happen? It is compressed to an infinitesimal point (and general relativity breaks down in the quantum region).

It's not that the big bang requires this to happen, it's more that there isn't a better explanation at the moment. If the big bang is wrong, it needs to be replaced by a better explanation that fits the observations at least as well. And the current mainstream theories do fit the observations pretty well so it's a difficult target once you're past the hand waving.

__________________
Spike
:)

Indeed.

BAUT is a wonderful internet discussion forum, the best there is on astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science. We have a lot of members, and a long history (we used to be BABB and UT - hence BAUT!), and have developed some simple rules for posting here.

One of those rules (#13) concerns this Against the Mainstream (ATM) section. As it's a little different from what you probably found in the other fora on which you posted your ideas, I recommend that you take the time to read it, read some other threads in this section, and write your posts with the rules in mind.Actually, I don't have 'to go easy' on you; if anything, I have to 'go hard on you' - you chose to post an ATM idea, in this ATM section of BAUT.

Further, you chose to post your idea in a thread which has a very specific, clearly stated scope (quoting from the OP; bold added):This point was made subsequently, several times, in this thread.What is the direction of the dipole? What is its SED (spectral energy distribution), or temperature? How well does the spatial distribution correspond to a dipole?Unless your post contains specifics on how well your idea matches one or more of the observations in the five categories listed in the OP, please do NOT post further in this thread.

If you wish to post your ATM idea, and have it discussed within the framework of this ATM section, please start a new thread.

Approximately half of the posts in this thread have been off-topic.

Some have served a useful purpose of clarifying the scope, some have lead to new threads, in which there is interesting, on-going discussion.

I urge all BAUT members who are considering posting to this thread to please read the OP, and the later posts clarifying the scope of this thread.

If you have questions about the scope, by all means, please ask.

However, from now on I will split out posts that are clearly OT, into new threads.

Well, that's what I was going to do, Nereid. However, I've taken your advice and done some reading. The forum is much more technical than I'd realised. Clear case of 'a fool rushing in'. I would not be able to answer the questions that would be put to me, so I'll just stick to the 'amateur' sites. The 'Gravity Model' can take its place in history from there.

Apologies to Nereid for getting bellicose. It do tend to argue when confronted with bad science.

Dear Nereid,

Can we start with details of 2)

f=f(0)exp(-Ht), or equivalently received wavelenth = emitted wavelength*exp(Ht), where H is the Hubble constant, t is the time of the journey , (as assumed by an observer on earth), for a photon of light travelling emitted from a distant star, and being received on earth.

So this gives dw/w=Ht + 0.5(Ht)^2 , not exactly a linear relationship (w is wavelength).

The deceleration parameter is from a(t)=a(0)exp(Ht) where a is the scale factor of the universe. -a(double dot)*a/(a dot)^2 = -1, i.e. an accelerating expansion see www.gravity.uk.com/einstein_equation.html

All the best,

John Hunter.

Thanks John Hunter.

So, in terms of the question in the OP (my bold: "ability to match [...] 2) observations underlying the Hubble relationship, especially wrt galaxies."), how well does this idea match the actual observations?

Specifically, for example, for some good, big, consistent dataset of distances vs redshifts (from the Hubble Key Project, perhaps?), how well does this John Hunter idea match? Or, for some good, big, consistent dataset of redshifts with distance proxies (from one of the high-z supernovae search teams, perhaps?), how well does this John Hunter idea match?

In any examples, the John Hunter idea may have a different derivation (or even re-definition!) of 'distance' than the folk who reported the observations - but any such different view of 'distance' needs to include a 'new' view of the (relevant parts of the) distance ladder.

(I assume that no one 're-defines' redshifts - they are direct observations, even if, in an alternative cosmology, they are interpreted as something other than universal expansion, gravitational redshift, doppler motion, ...)

Dear Nereid,

In http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t25may99_2.htm there is a diagram near the bottom of the page.
I would favour a point to the right of deceleration parameter = -1, above density parameter of1/3 (0.33), on the curved line h/age of universe = 1.

However the point on the curve is worked out with calculations based on traditional assumptions. This matches the model in www.gravity.uk.com/einstein_equation.html quite well



In http:arxiv.org/ps_cache/astro.ph/pdf/0502/0502163.pdf a value for deceleration parameter of q=-0.75+/-0.2 is quoted (slight variations for different models), also close to the model above, and Reiss and Perlmutters results are consistent with q=-1.

John Hunter.

Just to be quite clear, you claim that your alternative cosmology, as outlined on {some website, I can't find it just now}, with values of the cosmological parameters (in this alternative cosmology) of {list}, matches (all? some?) good datasets of redshift/distance, for (low z) galaxies, and (some? all?) Reiss and Perlmutter's high-z supernovae data, as well as Virey's re-analysis* of (which?) high-z supernovae data?

If that's so, then:
a) what is {list}? (i.e. parameters and values)
b) how would you characterise the goodness of fit?
c) any progress on the extent to which your alternative cosmology matches the other four sets of observations?

*the link in your post doesn't work; I think the paper you want is this one - can you confirm please?

The following alternative to the BigBang theory requires a single hypothesis: enough hydrogen on the path of the light beams.
This explanation will be done in several steps:
1- Which conditions must be fulfilled by a light-matter interaction to simulate a Doppler effect ?
2- A well known solution exists in laser technology. The key of its use with ordinary light was given in 1971 by G. L. Lamb. While the light is redshifted, the radiowaves are blueshifted
3- The observation of periodicities in the spectra shows that the active matter is (hot) atomic hydrogen for Karlsson periodicities and (cold) molecular hydrogen for Tifft-Napier periodicities.
4- A lot of applications shows that the theory works; the most spectacular are:
out of our galaxy, the full spectrum of the quasars and the proximity effect
in our galaxy, the pearl necklace of SN1987A supernova.
in the solar system, the “anomalous acceleration” of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, and a binding of the anisotropy of the microwave background to the ecliptic.

1- To be Doppler-like, a light-matter interaction must:
a) not blur the images, that is be coherent (just as the refraction).
b) not blur the spectra, that is in an elementary interaction, the frequency of a beam must be changed without an increase of the linewidth.
c) leave almost invariant the relative frequency shift. (almost because it is not strictly constant in the spectra of the quasars.
d) not be Doppler. If, while a source S of a continuous wave emits a certain number of cycles, a cell C receives an other number, the number of cycles, that is of wavelengths between S and C changes, it is a genuine Doppler effect (except relativistic effects). Consequently, the theory must fail with a CW source, it must contain a parameter of time-incoherence.
e) be ordinary optics and thermodynamics, if possible.

2- The CREIL effect is an increase of the entropy of a set of light beams simultaneously refracted by a convenient medium.. G.L. Lamb showed that any refracting matter works with femtosecond lasers; with ordinary light, only low pressure gases may work. The hot beams (hot from Planck's law), usually light, are redshifted, the cold (radio, microwaves) are blueshifted.


3- A very simple computation using standard spectroscopy shows that, if the dispersion of the polarisability of the refracting medium is neglected, the relative frequency shift is constant. Karlsson's and Tifft's periodicities are easily found from a simple study of the propagation of far UV light in atomic and molecular hydrogen respectively.

4-
- A very complicated spectrum is found by the theory supposing that an extremely hot object is surrounded by hydrogen. It is exactly the spectrum of a quasar. It seems that a microquasar, neutron star having the X and radio emission of a quasar and moving quickly in a galaxy becomes a quasar when it reaches a higher density of hydrogen out of the galaxy.
When a light beam crosses excited atomic hydrogen in the neighbourhood of a quasar, it is strongly redshifted: it is an “anomalous redshift”.
- The very hot kernel of SN1987A ionizes hydrogen in its neighbourhood, there is no light absorption. At the distance where this ionization stops, the light is absorbed on the lines of atomic hydrogen and simultaneously redshifted, so that the absorption works on a wide band and is intense. Thus a spherical shell of very excited hydrogen is generated. This shell super-radiates tangentially a circle into any given direction. As there is a competition of the modes, a particular set of modes stabilizes, the “pearls” appear.
- Beyond 10 AU, protons of the solar wind neutralize into excited hydrogen. This hydrogen catalyses transfers of energy from the solar light to the radio of the probes and to the MB. As the wind is generated anisotropically by the Sun ...

The complete theory requires a few lines of elementary computations. Did we obtained much from few? Compare with the Big Bang !

__________________
JMB

Long time no see, JMB; welcome back! I'm puzzled - where is the cosmology?

It seems that what you've presented here more logically belongs in the How good are the best alternatives to modern astrophysics theories? thread.

For example, none of what you've presented seems to relate to the origin and evolution of the universe; rather, it relates to the physical mechanisms and processes which give rise to what we observe from (a small number of) astronomical objects (or phenomena).

Further, of the five sets of observations in the OP, you address only one, and that only marginally (the CMB; you address only an apparent alignment of one - or two? - low multipoles in the angular power spectrum)*.

Did you post to the wrong thread?

If not, then to what extent does this alternative cosmology (whatever it may be) match the observations of

-> the major features of the CMB (the SED, the dipole, the several hundred multipoles in the angular power spectrum)?

-> the Hubble relationship, for galaxies?

-> the abundance of elements and nuclides?

-> the darkness of the night sky?Er, if I may quote from the OP (bold added):*While you certainly talk about redshifts, and maybe distances, you do not mention the Hubble relationship wrt galaxies.

And new particle physics to boot, JMB. I'm . . . confused. How does this revelatory theory predict the effects of cosmic ray bombardments on the earth's upper atmosphere?