It is not slanderous to attack fundamental assumptions, especially when it can be demonstrated that these assumptions result in a multiplication of parameters. There is no question if my hypothesis is true, a whole lot of people end up looking like fools, but I number myself in their ranks: I almost totally bought into the conventional models until 1) The ultra deep Hubble surveys revealed more of the same. 2) The distant IR, radio and Xray source counts continued to rise ad finum. 3) I dissected the methodology used by CMB and supernova researchers and found them remiss.

Yes, and if I may, Zwicky is one of my heroes. His morphological approach to complex problems parallels my own. Some of the ‘dark matter’ in rich clusters has been tracked down: We know they are loaded with hot and cold hydrogen and other baryons. We also know a great deal of dark matter exists as neutrinos. Even so, the relative velocites of rich clusters indicate that they should not be held together unless there is a great deal more dark matter that is unaccounted for.

But there are two other possible explanations: 1) The clusters are actually flying apart, which would mean after clusters form through some kind of magic, ‘dark energy’ or some other force is tugging away at them. 2) Newtonian inverse square law expectations are incomplete or incorrect.

Galaxy clusters are an incredibly complex environment and frankly, not completely understood – we are only just beginning to get a handle on how much cold gas there is in these environments. I think this is a poor place to test an alternative hypothesis because so many assumptions are necessary. Our own back yard is the best place to look: Why are gravitational assists yielding results that are inconsistent with Newtonian expectations? Why are Martian probe parachute drag coefficients nonsensical? What is Titan made out of, and why can’t we model the atmosphere?

Much of your argument centers on the fact we have such a good, tight model of the universe that it is inconceivable that there could be fundamental flaws. I’m looking at our solar probes and saying that the baseline assumptions upon which the entire cosmic structure has been outlined must be wrong. Specific questions about galaxy clusters cannot be addressed until after the underlying flaws are eliminated.

For example, if there are intrinsic redshifts in certain galaxy types, these galaxies will not be identified as being part of a super rich cluster, even though they are. Once this is understood, some of the need for dark matter in clusters evaporates.

It is worth noting that at great distances, it is common to see blue galaxies in clusters, but locally they seem to have a cluster avoidance mechanism. If blue galaxies are slightly intrinsically redshifted, they are not field galaxies at all, but reside near cluster centers locally, just as they do in distant clusters. This is why I am so focused on Solar observations: The fundamentals must be corrected before evaluating massive distant systems.

It is reasonable to conclude that there is either dark matter, or a different systemic that we do not fully understand. For example, our estimates of gravitational lensing are based primarily upon the lensing observed near our own sun. But what is we seriously over estimate the mass of the sun? That would mean it takes less mass to bend the same amount of light. Virial theorem is also dependent upon the inverse squared relationship, and X-ray observations confirm there is less baryonic matter than necessary to account for cluster population velocity distributions.

I question the claim of independence. There are two, actually three, unproven assumptions common to virtually all galactic studies: 1) Almost all redshift is Doppler recession. 2) Doppler recession leads to time dilation according to relativist principles. 3) Supernova are good standard candles – their distance magnitude relationship is well established within ~ ½ magnitude.

If the first assumption is wrong, and different galaxy types have varying degrees of intrinsic redshifts, population studies over-estimate the distance to intrinsically redshifted systems, which also overestimates the size of these systems. Which also lead to the false conclusion that the proportion of these systems becomes less dense with increasing distance (if you over estimate the size, you over estimate the extinction rate.)

If the second assumption is wrong, so is the calculated value of relativistic attenuation (1/(1+z)^4). I think there is STRONG evidence the relativistic formula for distant attenuation is wrong: Surface brightness measurements indicate an attenuation rate much closer to 1/r^2, unless galaxies of the same type get brighter with increasing distance. I think using an ad hoc surface brightness evolution factor in order to prop-up the relativistic distance modulus is a an unsupportable assumption, given the wide range of galaxy types, metallicity, star forming regions and so on that we can find at every distance.

The third assumption is wrong. We now have enough local supernova type Ia with a wide enough latitude in absolute magnitude that we must anticipate and correct for distance selection effects – we must assume that the more distant supernova we detect are dominated by the brightest of the local types and adjust our estimates of distance accordingly. There are all kinds of cosmic implications when these systemic problems are addressed.

We are completely off-topic for this thread, but our inability to communicate is symptomatic of the Catch-22 nature of alternative approaches to such a complex and well developed system of theories. They are so interlocking, it is almost impossible to independantly dissect any part the whole. There should be all kinds of alarm bells going off in the astrophysical community because of the planetary probe gravitational discrepancies I have cataloged. Something fundamental is wrong.

__________________
jwj

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

I've put it out there a few times over the years as a basic question - does anyone see a flaw in the equations of the Narlikar&Arp VMH? Not once has a mainstreamer stepped up to provide such an evaluation. That question will always remain open from my perspective. I want to know - does anybody see a flaw in the paper's equations? Presumably a referee would've found a mistake in the equations, so I guess the answer there is that there are no flaws in the equations.

So what then would a BAUT member be defending if they were to defend the VMH?

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

The applicability of the equations to the observations?

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

I guess. But if there are not people on both sides willing or able to address the mathematical predictions of the equations that won't happen.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Presumably. Or not.

Did you mean to presume that a referee will never fail to find a mistake in erroneous equations? 'Tis the season for magic, indeed!

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Sure referee's may occasionally miss things. Howver, a paper of that nature (Narlikar&Arp 1993) would've been sent to a referee with expertise in the GR equations. Given the controversial nature of the VMH and the fact that it was published in ApJ, I find it highly unlikely that there is a flaw in the equations themselves. And if the referee had missed something then one would expect that someone else would've found it after publication and Narlikar&Arp would've been forced to publish an erratum.

I just don't think a paper of that nature can slip through the ApJ review process with a basic error in the equations. But that is why I leave the question open. Is there anyone on BAUT that feels qualified to evaluate those equations for such errors?

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

That sounds different. So, you don't think referees are infallible. And their failure to find a flaw doesn't mean there is no flaw. Your previous statement made me wonder.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

No, they're definitely not infallible. I've submitted enough papers to see quite a wide range in the quality of referees.

It's very unlikely that there is an error in the equations of the Narlikar&Arp paper. That's not the same thing as saying the VMH is correct. But my previous statement is based upon the fact that an ATM idea as controversial as the VMH almost certainly would have faced a referee that is highly skeptical of the concept.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982