This is the post in which Jerry first used the expression "The real Catch 22, is that the current standard model lacks the kind of definition Neried insists on seeing in any plausible alternative." Note the date (8 December, 2006).

This is the post in which Jerry stated "early-type galaxies are intrinsically redshifted compared to other types" and "as Russell has demonstrated, breaks the degeneracy in Tully-Fisher relationships" Note the date (11 December, 2006); note the generality of the claims (there are no qualifiers in from of "early-type galaxies").

This is the Nereid post commenting on the (sweeping) Jerry claim (quoted in Jerry's post above). Note the date (11 December, 2006).

How did you know, Jerry, on 8 December, what I would write three days later?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
More seriously, please answer the following questions about your claims:

1) How did you go from Nereid's comment on one Russell paper to your sweeping, general conclusion?

2) What - specifically - is the "degeneracy" which you claim Russell broke?

3) How many galaxies - both "early-type" and "others" - did Russell use to establish his conclusions (in any, or all, of his papers)?

4) What kinds of galaxies comprise Russell's "ScI" group?

5) How did Russell address the (possible) systematics introduced into his determination of 'intrinsic redshifts' by Bottinelli et al.'s use of both a TFR and 'distance' for determining the dust extinction within the B band for galaxies?

6) How did Russell address the (possible) systematics introduced into his conclusions by LEDA's t (morphology type), in at least three different places in the ladder leading to PV₇₂?

7) What systematic and random errors does Russell state for the 'instrinsic redshifts' of the galaxies he studied?

8) What "kind of definition" does "Neried" insist "on seeing in any plausible alternative"?

If you do not wish to provide detailed answers in this thread, to my questions 2 to 7, please do so in the More from Arp et al. thread.
- - - - - - - - -

I look forward to your details answers to my other questions on your claims, per post #26, #27, and #28.

I await your response to my previous post, on the first part of the post of yours that I am quoting here.

I will pay particular attention to a clear demonstration of the degree of accuracy and rigour you apply to 'intrinsic redshift' papers, and look forward to comparing that with your claims concerning papers on the CMB and supernovae.My second question (2b) was apparently not clear; let me try again.

You have made sweeping claims concerning the nature of a Catch 22 in modern cosmology and modern astronomy.

I have challenged your claims.

The only substantive defence, of your claims, that you have made so far concerns gravity; I asked you for clarification.

As you know Jerry, modern astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) incorporates a great deal of quantum theory, in the form of atomic theory (emission lines, radiation pressure, and much much more), nuclear physics (stellar evolution, novae, and much much more), and the full standard model (nucleosythesis, phase changes in the early universe, UHECRs, and much much more).

Yet your defence of your claims makes no mention of any of this. Why?

In closing, I note that you did not answer my third question; here it is again:Please answer this question.

I think that this statement stands on its own merits, although I have personalized the astrophysical community as Neried, I am talking about the general acceptance of sweeping new parametric assumptions while brushing aside verboten alternatives, which has occurred many times since the establishment of the Big Bang model.

Here are examples:

1) Dark Matter is proposed as a solution for observed differences between galactic rotational curves and Newtonian expectations. A forty year search for Dark Matter candidates – CDM, HDM, Whimps, MACHOs and what have you, has yielded nothing – no physical properties other than gravimetric results that do not match predictions. Yet dark matter has been ‘proven’ according to NASA. All that has been proven is the ‘null hypothesis’ – none of the expected particles have been detected.

2) It is abundantly clear that there is too much structure for the existing universe to have evolved in 13.6 billion years (it is known to be more than 18 billion years across.) This requires an inflationary parameter, where, either due to the lack of gravity, or some other force, the universe expanded and developed structure at an incredible speed, then suddenly slowed to near the present rate. The energy diagrams for such an event are well, astronomical, in terms of the net changes necessary in the velocity of the expansion. Don’t look for any error bars here, Neried, there are no good solutions.

3) The radio source count, in a BB universe, should peak somewhere in the observable past and then fall of as the total size diminishes – it does not, in fact the count continues to climb as far back as we can see. A new parameter is inserted here – the assumption radio sources where more plentiful in the past – which is immediately cited as evidence of evolution of radio sources.

4) Ditto for X-ray soft point counts
5) Ditto for infrared point source counts

6) The Big Bang was once used to explain the metallicity of the universe, with modern era stars like the sun being examples of evolved stars rich in iron, while certain galaxy types found only at great distances contained much less iron. What we have found, is super-solar iron levels in the most distant, and therefore the youngest, quasars. New parametric assumptions have been required to explain both high metalicity in distant objects, and low metallacity in local systems. In any case, metallicity cannot be used as one of the supporting pillars of the BB – it varies too much, everywhere – just as would be expected in a universe where new matter is created all the time.

7) Solar neutrino counts are about one third of what is necessary to explain solar nuclear fusion as the source of solar energy. Astrophysicists were quick to add a new parameter – transforming neutrinos – to address the problem, (even though a transforming neutrino must have mass, the lack of which was the defining characteristic of the neutrino in the first place.)

8) In spite of the fact a broad-base of local supernova magnitudes exist, researchers were able to use ‘stretch factored’ supernova to prove the universe is expanding and determine a cosmic value for the Hubble constant. But when the magnitude and count of distant supernovas fell off-of-the-curve, another new parameter – Dark Energy – was invented to explain the discrepancy between the slowing of the expansion predicted, and the ‘acceleration’ observed. Particle physicist Steve Weinberg insists particle physics experiments rule-out the existence of Dark Energy by many sigma. If an ATM theory was advanced that violated particle physics axioms on this scale, no one would look at it twice.

9) When the Pioneer 6 probe passed near the limb of the sun, the Doppler changes in the velocity of the probe were many times greater than predicted by General Relativity. It was concluded that the experiment had failed, and that solar magnetosphere and corona effects biased the data.

In each of these cases, the experimental results were not what was expected, so new parameters where added to explain the deficiencies of the standard model. New parameters are readily accepted by mainstream researchers as long as they do not eschew any of the sacred cows of astrophysics: A single synthesis (the BB), Doppler redshifting, general relativistic gravity & velocity dependant time. New parametric assumptions, such as intrinsic redshifts, are not allowed the same degree of freedom from compatibility with quantum concepts enjoyed by GR and dark energy parametrics.

Russell found that he could reduce the observed scatter in the Tully-Fisher relationship by introducing a new parametric constant: An intrinsic redshift for certain galaxy types. Error bars and sample sizes are scarcely relevant here: Either the parameter reduces scatter, or it does not. True, if his sample size is larger, the statistical confidence of the method improves, but reducing the scatter by introducing an intrinsic redshift has less statistical uncertainty in general, than using a ‘stretch factor’ to correct supernova magnitudes for light curve width: It is the difference between a baseline and a slope correction. In most astronomical circles, Goldhaber’s ‘supernova stretching’ is accepted without comment; while Russell’s ‘intrinsic redshifts’ are summarily dismissed. Both are using “more highly correlated data” as a bases for introducing new parameters. Both may be wrong.

To the best of my knowledge "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was coined by Carl Sagen. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because who defines what is extraordinary? In my book, it is extraordinary to claim theories proposed more than a hundred years ago that do not agree with current evidence are more valid than a new theory that does.

__________________
jwj

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

Wow, there are significant corrections needed for the assertions put forward in most of your examples. This ought to be fun! As time permits....

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

And why shouldn't we consider changes to the theory. Do you think that a theory must be monolithic? The solar neutrino problem is a classic example of how science actually works as opposed to your flawed conception of it. I've written about this many times, and the history of the solar neutrino problem is nothing like how you describe it. You make it sound like it was a "gee, lets multiply by three" when in fact two very different threads of research came together to resolve the issue. In brief.

A) The Homestake experiment found 1/3 the number of neutrinos expected from the standard solar model.

B) Since the model was in good agreement with other observations (luminosity, etc) the question was whether or not the solar model was wrong or perhaps there was something wrong in our model of neutrinos. It was always possible that neutrinos have mass (especially the mu and tau) and that this would allow mixing of the flavors. It's things like this that drive science forward, Jerry. Something you don't seem to understand.

C) It was known at the time (60's) that there was a second flavor of neutrino, the mu family. Homestake was not sensitive to them and some suggested that neutrinos might change flavor. This would not explain the 1/3 factor, however.

D) In the 70's and 80's the third generation of quarks and leptons (such as neutrinos) was proposed and discovered as part of research on the standard model of particle physics, not in response to any solar research. Further research (Z0 width) confirms that within the standard model three families (and three neutrino flavors) is all there is.

E) With 3 flavors the factor of 1/3 from the original experiment starts to become compelling. Several experiments begin in the 80's to try and detect neutrino oscillations (some of my friends worked on these).

F) Experiments such as SNO and Super-Kamiodande begin to take data. These experiments are sensitive to all three flavors of neutrino, should be able to detect the entire flux.

G) in the early 00's SNO publishes its results. They detect the entire flux in all three flavors and find it agrees with the standard solar model prediction. Super K and other experiments confirm the result.

H) Accelerator experiments also detect neutrino flavor oscillations. Minos and MiniBoone (sp) are working on defining the parameters.

I) We progress through the 00's to try and better understand the implications of this and how it extends and modifies the stadard models (of the sun and of particle physics).

So, Jerry, this is how science progresses. It's not the ad hoc adjustments you seem to think occur, but rather different threads of evidence from different areas of research congealing to form a new theory. For a better description you would do well to check out the papers from SNO as well as John Bachall's page for more detailed descriptions of the solar neutrino problem, its history, and its resolution. This is real science. Something you clearly don't understand. Bachall is dead, unfortunately, but if you feel so strongly about this why don't you write the folks at SNO and tell them that you view them as intellectual frauds. You may not say as much in your post here, but it's clear from context that that is your implication.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

(my bold)

There's a lot here to challenge; I'll make just one challenge in this post.

In the Quantized Redshifts ATM thread, I replied to Extropia DaSilva thusly (extract):I will add the thread started by Grey: How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct?

You posted to two of those four threads (How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories? and How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct?). Your posts in those threads did not really address the questions asked; in particular, you did not seek to provide anything about how well any "verboten alternative" was able to match any good observational results, even within the context of the alternative itself!

Jerry, if only Peter Wilson and john hunter presented anything at all* in the way of a '(quantitative) match observations to what alternatives predict', what criteria do you suggest should be used to judge alternatives?

(To answer this question, please post in the How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct? thread).

Now here's my direct, pertinent question on your post (quoted above):

Please show, with respect to cosmology theories, that "verboten alternatives" have
a) demonstrated quantitative consistency between what they predict (or model) and what is observed
b) demonstrated internal consistency
c) demonstrated consistency with (other) well-established theories where their respective domains of applicability overlap.

Scratch the plural; please show this wrt just one "verboten alternative".

*the details are in the How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories? thread; each presents a case for only one set of observations (though john hunter asserts others should match to the same extent they would for concordance models).

Your solitary denial of the recent Bullet Cluster finding confirming dark matter really does nothing to counter this result, which was reported in hundreds of publications, including Universe Today and Chandra's own site.

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

Are you deliberately ignoring both history and saliency (wrt cosmology) Jerry?

Haven't you read up on how the mass in galaxies is essentially trivial, in terms of the mass-energy of the universe (even if you adjust DE to zero)?

Didn't Zwicky, way back in the 1930s, establish that the DM in clusters far exceeded the (estimated) mass in the individual galaxies?

Aren't there several, well-established and (reasonably) well-constrained sets of independent observations which bound the DM mass in clusters?

Aren't these results consistent?

Doesn't the estimate of the mass in DM, derived from cluster studies, nicely fit with both WMAP (and other CMB observations) and large-scale structure work?

Or are you, perhaps, claiming that this kind of consistency - across many different kinds of observations (made using quite a range of different aspects of physics), and of many different kinds of astronomical objects - is a bad thing? that it is NOT what science is about??

Here are the direct, pertinent questions, about your ATM claims, as presented, that I would like you to answer:

1a) within the "current standard model" (of cosmology), how important is DM in spiral galaxies?
1b) How does your answer to 1a compare with the importance of DM in clusters?

2a) In what way(s) are SZE observations (of rich clusters) "gravimetric results"?
2b) In what way(s) are X-ray observations (of rich clusters) "gravimetric results"?

3a) What is the extent to which the various estimates of the DM content of rich clusters are inconsistent?
3b) What is the extent to which the CMB results and the large-scale structure results are inconsistent, wrt DM?

(my bold)

Source (reference) please.

No, it is not "abundantly clear." Early structure formation has been an active area of research for decades, and gaps in our understanding have been filling in. Why has this been so difficult? Well, the more relevant observations are of "light" from objects that has been traveling 12 and 13 billion lightyears distant!

To my understanding, which is far from comprehensive, early structure formation is research in progress, i.e., it is still being figured out. There is really no consensus theory yet to criticize, Jerry.

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

But that is my point.

Current Theory looks somethiing like This:

[Primal state Gap] Big Bang synthesis followed by [Big inflation gap] followed by [Metallicity gap] followed by [Dark Matter gap] all multiplied by [Dark Energy Gap], and we can divide everything by the [Gap between quantum and relativistic theory]

We all agree these gaps exist, what we do not agree upon is whether is is reasonable to assume the initial premise, the primal BB synthesis, is an unquestionable truth; or as NASA puts it in one of their videos: 'We are not certain what happened next, but we are certain what happened first'. That is just silly.

The irony here, is I agree, or rather accept the conclusion of a thousand astro physicists, that the only model that 'works' using known physics leads to these conclusion.

So my basic model looks more like this: [Universe exists gap] there is a mechanism for [Cosmic redshift gap] which must include [intrinsic redshift gap] in order to explain what appears to be galactic evolution, but is really a combination of [new matter formation gap] and selection effects and a [CMB source gap]. So I'm not doing any better...unless I can both make predictions and explain observations that BB theoriest cannot.

Returning to the Catch-22 principle, so much theoretical work has been based upon the initial BB premise cosmology, that any alternative that only addresses one aspect of the problem, such as intrinsic redshifts, is rejected not because there us not evidence supporting such an assumption, but cause of the weight of the body of interlocking evidence that is dependent upon the initial assumptions.

Why reject all of this? I am of the opinion that assuming 96% of the universe is Dark Energy is a dismal, albeit necessary, assumption to keep the BB model intact. No, the results of WMAP do NOT reaffirm the existance of Dark Matter, only the inconsistancy of the CMB peaks with the primal synthesis, unless Dark Energy is included in the solution. I hope there is a better answer than that. (Assuming that Newtonian physics underestimates the mass of objects like the sun might be a good first step.)

__________________
jwj

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

Well, given your track record of misunderstanding of how science works, as exemplified in post 33, why should we take you seriously? You have not done anything to demonstrate credibility as a critic of science. Have you had a chance to go back and read up on the history of the solar neutrino problem? Do you think it at all resembles your dismissive assessment in post 33? If so, why? And don't forget to write the scientists involved and tell them you think they're wrong. I'm sure they'll be as impressed as we are.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I think Sagan said it a little more accurately: "Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened -- the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear."

1. "unquestionable truth" - This is just provocative rhetoric. Nobody in science thinks that anything is an "unquestionable truth."

2. "reasonable to assume the initial premise" - You are misusing the word "assume" AND the word "premise." The idea that today's universe evolved from a very hot, dense, and compact state is not an "assumption" nor an "initial premise." It is a conclusion based on observations and solid logical deductions generated from those observations.

Intrinsic redshift is rejected because the circumstantial evidence is just not good enough, and it has an exceedingly long history of the evidence not being good enough. As was mentioned in the Arp thread, if there is such a thing as intrinsic redshift, one would have thought that with the advances in observing technology over the past 20 or 30 years, the evidence would have gotten much better to the point of convincing. But it clearly hasn't. We see the same old arguments with little refinement and no smoking gun. It's like trying to revive a dead horse... one that's been dead for 30 years!

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

There are also unanswered questions, about the ATM claims you made in this thread, in several other posts.

Some of these questions are now a week old.

If you need clarification, please ask for it.

If you need more time to answer, please say so (and indicate when you will be answering).

If you now wish to retract your claims, please say so.

If you wish to abandon your claims, please say so.

The bullet cluster is atypical: is is a merger scene, and who knows what is going on. Normal looking galaxies have been searched in vain, for some defining feature of Dark Matter, other than rotatational curves which are decidedly non-Newtonian. Looking at a train wreck and saying 'this explains everything' is silly.

__________________
jwj

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

1) quantum theory is phenomenologically derived. It works, but in makes no sense. It is very successful, and to the extent that we do understand it, we have been able to make GREAT technical strides. But it does NOT mesh with general relativity, and as Feynman said "Shut up and calculate."

2) I have no problem with emission/absorption lines. This branch of astrophysics, or astro-chemistry is very, very solid.

3)UHECRs - nobody understands these, including me. I expect future generations of sensors to improve upon this science considerably. As an aside, I worked for about ten years with one of the very first UHECR researchers. There is much to learn.

3 1/2 Nuclear physics: I expect slightly different half lifes in more-dense/less-dense enviroments, but in general, results very close to what we have experimential observed on Earth.

4)The life of stars: A year ago I would have said the standard burn-out model, (which varies according to mass), is quite correct, but I am much more disillusioned with Eddington now than I was then. I don't know how to interprete what we see in the crab nebula, or the remnant of 1987A, but there is evidence that at the root of a star, there is the ability to create hydrogen. We have curious evidence that the earth is expanding (is the Earth becoming a star?), what about the excess energy given off by Neptune, or is it Uranus? I really do not know.

5) I don't think there was a Big Bang. If there is an intrinsic mechanism for redshifting, all of the evidence for galactic evolution evaporates in a puff of selection effects and an arbitrary distance modules. If there is not, wooh! we are the center of the universe. I don't think that is true.

6) The 'standard model' I am referring to is the Einstein/Walker/Robertson/Goldhaber/Eddington/Wright/everyone else that includes Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, a Big Bang synthesis, and supernovae type Ia standard candles which vary less than one magnitude. It is a fairy tale, especially the part about the CMB percholating through eons of stucture.

__________________
jwj

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

Which is another way of saying "Everything we know is about 4% of the universe and everything else is undefined." I don't buy that.

Zwicky fully expected to find some evidence of Dark Matter other than the difference between what was expected and what is observe. Pebbles called the search for Dark Matter "Embarrassing". I call it verification of the null hypothesis: The Newtonian and Einsteinian concepts of gravity are wrong.
The cosmological principle requires local observation of any physical property we assign to the universe. We don't need Dark Matter physics to explain the curvature of a fast ball, we can't use it to explain galactic rotations.
Absolutely. They consistently indicate Newton was wrong. Dark Matter physics consistently violates the cosmological principle. It is EMBARASSING! Peebles characterization, not mine.
According to researchers who would sell their left nut for another federal grant. Don't get me started with WMAP. There are a number of researchers involved in NMR and medical Xray research who are raising their hands and saying "You can't assume the predicted result and subtract the rest out as background!"
Large scale structure work all assumes all redshifts are Doppler and cosmic distance scales can rely upon this assumption.
What consistancy? Certainly not the marraige of particle physics and general relativity. Certainly not the large scale galactic structure as far back as we can see. As one (current) supernova researcher said to me, "It took us ten years to establish with any degree of certainty that there is a black hole in the center of our own universe, and within six months there were 60 papers claiming evidence of black holes everywhere."

There is a bandwagon effect -

Very important, especially since we live in a spiral galaxy, and no evidence of dark matter has been detected. Dark matter indicates Newtonian physics are wrong.
To the extent that redshift can be used to identify which galaxies and quasars belong in which clusters, the answer is the same.

I think it is pathetically naive to assume, given a) the amount of galactic contamination and b) the unknown size, structure of the universe and c) the point source count of soft Xray, infrared and radio counts; that we can look at the microwave spectrum and say, "The power function is less than we expected...there must be dark energy too. We sure hope the supernova researcher can find it for us."
I don't understand this question.
No local observation. The unexpected rotational velocities is real, the explanation is absurd.CMB researchers have made assumptions about the expected galactic and local contamination rates and processed their data accordingly. Eta C implied that I implied particle researcher are tweaking the data until it matches the theory. With rare individual exceptions, I don't think that is true. CMB researchers took one look at the Boomerang data, and completely revised their expectations for the WMAP data. (See Stacy McGaugh's web pages for a detailed accounting of this fact.)

Large scale structure research is totally dependent upon the redshift/distance relationship. This include relativistic attentuation. If these relationships are wrong, the conclusions drawn by large scale structure researchers are also wrong, not because of bad scientists, but because of poor prior assumptions.

In other words, I think cosmic microwave background researchers are ignoring red flags in the data, but large scale structure research is biased by relativistic assumptions. There are many researchers looking at the CMB data and saying, "Why is there large scale anisotropy? Why does the 'axis of evil' align with the zodiac?" These are symptoms of a systemic bias, a failed model.

__________________
jwj

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

Jerry, your peak luminosity is apparently far in the past, and now your light curve is in steep decline!

I'll let Nereid address most of your remarks, which are characteristically metaphorical, and I'll just comment on this one...


That's a funny position since most astrophysicists apparently have a very good idea about what's going on there.
Yeah, it's awfully hard to detect. That's why they call it "dark."

Accident reconstructionists can deduce quite a bit from the debris of a train wreck. And it's silly - or uninformed - to think otherwise.

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

Like Cassini, (see this last weeks status log: Cassini is sending data with 2007 dates.) It is a timeless example of your prospective. (Don't take any of this too personal, I sincerely believe you are being as objective, patient and logical as your good, scientific training allows.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -
More seriously, please answer the following questions about your claims:

Very unfair on my part, and I apologies. Assume I am addressing a plethoria of observations that are symptomatic of the general astrophysical community, an NOT Neried, who has demonstrated many times both a patient and rational thought processes.

Russell demonstrated that the error bars for the Tully-Fisher relationship in certain galactic types can be reduced if intrinsic redshifts that are a function of galactic types are factored in to Tully-Fisher relationships. CAUTION: Reducing error bars is not empirical proof the treatment of the data is correct.
Is this a trick question? Russell's criteria for selecting galaxies was quite harsh - at least in the papers I have read. His objective was to limit the sample to galaxies that fit predefined criteria, not cherry picking. Admittedly, it is difficult es-post-facto to assess the motivation of the researcher.

It has been more than two years since I have taken a good hard look at Russell's methodology.

I'm impressed. You have obviously looked at this much closer than I thought. and closer than I am willing to, given than I am quite convinced Titan is much more dense than Newtonian dynamics allow. (We both concede this limits my objectivity)
I am even more impressed. Niried is clearly up-to-speed in galactic research, and I am not. Assume I am a Doberman, and once I locked my jaws around the funky sand dunes of Titan, I will not let go.
[/quote]
Again, it has been -years- since I have looked deeply into galactic systems,
because I found solar aberrations (abberations?) which are inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.
Neried is operating on the premises that the current standard model is by far the most correct, most complete, and most consist cosmology presented to date. Obviously, the amount of time and dedication Neried spends evaluation alternatives renders this conclusion false.
[/quote]
Thank your for your time and patience. Your are exceptional.

__________________
jwj

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

Use your own criteria:
GR does NOT demonstrate consistancy with particle mechanics. It does not demonstrate consistency with galactic orbits.

It should be rejected.

Irrelevent.

None of the existing theories, including the Big Bang. provide a better answer than god did it all.

Personally,

I am of the opinion that there is no reason to believe in a singularity - god or otherwise.

__________________
jwj

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

Your response is both appreciated and respected.

I have read elsewhere (sorry, I do not have the source), that the underlying theory, basic experimental/theoritical particle physics require a zero mass for neutrinos, but I defer to your greater knowledge/judgement.

My opionion of particle physics is not that we can substantually improve upon the quantum models, but that General Relativity contains fundamental flaws which make GR and QED incompatible: Specifically time dilation.

Basic science progresses not by application of the scientific method, but by imaginative solutions which, when the scientific method is applied, improve the upon the body of knowledge.

__________________
jwj

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

We now know galactic structure, clusters, mature galaxies and such, extend backward at least 6 billion years. We also know that the current state of galaxies is a function of the position of the galaxy relative to clusters. We know merger rates, star formation rates, cluster densities vary greatly. So why is the Dark Matter content of galaxies so uniform? If dark matter is only coupled to galaxies by gravity, how did it get so evenly distributed?

Why is dark matter always found in distributed ‘tuffs’? I don’t see any way to add all the parameters needed to couple Dark Matter to structure without also coupling dark matter to matter in the very earliest synthesis. Where, in the original synthesis are the bosons necessary to couple dark matter to baryonic matter? Momentum, during a merger, is a function of both gravity and electromagnetic effects. If dark matter is not coupled by something in addition to gravity, why don’t mergers displace the dark matter content? It takes many parameters to get a Dark Matter fit for the galactic patterns we observe.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08...e-dark-matter/

If collisions 'seperate out' dark matter, and we know many galaxies in our own neighborhood have been in multiple collisions, why is the DM content still so uniform relative to the baryonic distribution?

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/11...the-milky-way/

These models are quite complex, and use a plethora of ad hoc parameters, yet still fail to produce results consistent with known structure.

A much better answer is that the difference in rotational velocities between what we observe and what Newtonian dynamics predict, is that there is something we do not understand about gravity on a galactic scale.

__________________
jwj

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

What you have described is reactionary science: The results are different from what is predicted. A possible answer is found, and data that seem to support it. It would be much better if a prediction had been made that Neutrinos change prior to the attempts to measure them. Yes, this is usually the way science progresses, but it can also lead us down dark paths, especially if a fundamental assumption is wrong. You might even end trying to study the surface of a moon like Titan, and not have a clue what it is made out of because the theory says it cannot be made out of what the physical properties observed most resemble: Pebbles and sand.
Apparently there are still some unsettling mysteries:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw54.html

Did anyone predict this? Is there something wrong with the baseline measurements? Wouldn't you feel better about the theories, if they had predictive power?

__________________
jwj

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

So, starting with broad, sweeping claims, when challenged, you are either unable or unwilling to defend them.

Rhetorical question: are there any broad, sweeping Jerry claims that you have been able (or willing) to defend?

A not-at-all-rhetorical question: with respect to the two questions to which you gave (partially) substantive answers, are you willing to defend those answers?

Specifically:(and no, it is not a trick question; rather, it is a question designed to see the extent of the double standards you use, when assessing reported results).

Here is the question again:Please do not, yet again, answer the question by saying (in essence), "modern concordance cosmology is wrong".

I am reluctant to specify details of how you need to answer this question, except that it must be centred on one (or more) of the (in your words) "verboten alternatives".

I'm asking this again.

Please answer the question - did Zwicky, in the 1930s, establish that the 'dark mass' of (certain) rich clusters exceeded the (estimated) mass of the individual galaxies (of those clusers), or not?

In your answer you have made a (new) ATM claim ("The Newtonian and Einsteinian concepts of gravity are wrong"). With respect to the rich clusters which Zwicky studied, please show, quantitatively, that your claim is consistent with his results.Please answer the question asked.

If you require clarification, please ask for it.It seems that my question was unclear; let me try again.

There are several, independent, methods used, by astronomer, to estimate the non-baryonic and non-luminous mass in rich clusters, including: the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, virial theorem (the method Zwicky used), gravitational lensing (of background objects), and analysis of X-ray observations (at least two, independent, effects).

My question is: to what extent do these independent methods yield consistent results (estimates of the mass of DM), when applied to rich clusters?Please answer the question - are the (rich cluster, DM) estimates consistent with (cosmological, DM) estimates?

It seems that you are implying that not "all redshifts are Doppler", and that "distance scales [canNOT] rely upon this". Of course the first is a strawman (and inaccurate to boot). The second is a very severe claim - that astronomers merely "assume" that "cosmic distance scales" can be determined from observations of redshift.

To what extent are you prepared to defend this claim?The consistency between estimates of DM, derived from different, independent, methods.

Please answer the question.Once again, it seems my question was insufficiently precise; I will rephrase it: in current, mainstream, cosmology models, what proportion of the mass (not Dark Energy) of the universe is in the form of baryonic mass, in spiral galaxies? What proportion is in the form of DM, in spiral galaxies?

For avoidance of doubt, baryonic mass NOT in spiral galaxies includes: baryonic mass in elliptical galaxies, baryonic mass in the IGM, baryonic mass in the ICM. DM NOT in spiral galaxies includes: DM in elliptical and irregular galaxies, DM in the IGM, and DM in the ICM.I shall rephrase my question: what is the relative proportion of DM in clusters to DM in spiral galaxies, in modern (mainstream) cosmological models?How does this answer my question? Specifically, what do SZE observations have to do with dark energy?X-ray observations are used to make estimates of the mass contained in rich clusters; x-ray observations are used to make estimates of the fraction of this mass which is non-baryonic.

If you are unfamiliar with these techniques, please ask for clarification; otherwise, please answer the question.Please answer the question.

In terms of your answer, please explain how "[t]he unexpected rotational velocities is real" is relevant to techniques used to estimate the DM content of rich clusters.All of which may be interesting, and even true (or it may be borderline slander); it is also irrelevant ... because it does not answer the question. Please answer the question.

Glad to hear that you have problems with such a huge part of modern physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology; thank you for the clarification.

In 6) above, what is "a Big Bang synthesis" (as part of the standard model, to which you are referring)?

With your clarifications in hand, I can return to your original, sweeping claim:Jerry's initial response to my request for clarification (repeated) has now been (almost) adequately addressed - Jerry has chosen not to defend his (initial) claims.

However, Jerry modified his initial claim, as follows:I have challenged one part of this ("verboten alternatives"); Jerry has yet to address my challenge.

It's time to take a closer look at the other part of this (modified) claim: "the general acceptance of sweeping new parametric assumptions".

To me, Jerry's claim is, in essence, non-scientific, or perhaps even anti-scientific. Why? Because it either ignores, or deliberately rejects, a key aspect of how modern physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is done - theory formation and testing.

For me, the heart of modern science is theories - their formation, testing, modification, and (as necessary) rejection and/or replacement (with better theories). IOW, without theories there is no (modern) science.

On its face, Jerry's statement seems to be denying this role, of theories, in modern science.

So, Jerry, here's my question, about your ATM claim: in your view of the modern sciences of physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, what is the role of theories?

Perhaps I missed your answer to this question, Jerry? If so, could you please point me to the post in which you answered it? If not, please answer the question.

(my bold)

Other than the Arp-Narlikar variable mass hypothesis (VMH), I am unaware of any "alternative" which includes "intrinsic redshifts", and which also addresses "one aspect of the problem" (presumably the Hubble relationship).

Please state any other (cosmology-related) alternative whose scope includes "intrinsic redshifts".

With regard to the VMH, no BAUT member has declared a preparedness to defend this (in the Arp et al thread); would you be prepared to do so?

I have already asked you - at least twice - about alternatives; I will ask you again, in connection with this specific claim (in bold): please present an "alternative that only addresses one aspect of the problem" and for which "there [i]s [...] evidence supporting such an assumption" (other than 'intrinsic redshift' and 'the CMB is local').