Dirac and Gravity December 15 2003


Those of you who have followed my postings know that I propose that the expansion of space is uniform. Presently astronomers stop the expansion at the boundary of galaxies, I propose that even matter itself is part of that expansion.

One of the consequences of the theory is that the effect of gravity becomes a function of cosmic time. (Cosmic time marks the temporal location of a point with the beginning of time occurring at the moment of creation.) Paul Dirac believed that gravity was greater in the past and tried linear relationships described by cosmic time, but never established viable relationships. I believe I have. The following is Dirac’s abstract on the topic, note the date was 1974.


Cosmological Models and the Large Numbers Hypothesis by P.A.M Dirac
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
Series A Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Volume 338, Issue 1615 pp 439 –446
Date 07/1974

Abstract
The Large Numbers hypothesis asserts that all the large dimensionless numbers occurring in Nature are connected with the present epoch, expressed in atomic units, and thus vary with time. It requires that the gravitational constant G shall vary, and also that there shall be continuous creation of matter. The consistent following out of the hypothesis leads to the possibility of only two cosmological models. One of them, which occurs if one assumes that the continuous creation is a multiplication of existing matter, is Einstein's cylindrical closed Universe. The other, which occurs if one assumes the continuous creation takes place uniformly through the whole of space, involves an approximately flat Minkowski space with a point of origin where the Big Bang occurred.



The creation of matter was required in order to maintain the balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces. Celestial balance is required since solar systems have been in existence for billions of years. Dirac decided that If the gravitational force between two orbiting systems decreased, the mass of the objects would have to increase. In part he suffered from the same bias Einstein did in that he desired to establish a universe that would be perpetual. If mass were continuously added, then new stars can be created, life could continue.

In the proposed uniform expansion of space model, the effect of gravity is diminished with time; celestial stability is preserved by the loss of energy of the system. Two orbiting objects in a stable orbit gradually decrease in velocity as the effect of gravity decreases, thereby maintaining the necessary celestial balance. The expansion of space-time comes at a cost. Energy decreases with the passage of time.

I know that this is radical, but if you can suspend immediate rejection, let’s at least check if Dirac’s problem of celestial stability is resolved.

Uniform expansion

If two objects double in size and double in distance and all the rulers also double, what has changed? The gravitational force between the two is reduced by a quarter (1/R^2)

Imagine two measures of length, one relative, the other is “absolute” . We measure things relatively, but if there was some “frame of reference” outside of the expansion that allowed us to observe the expansion we could see that “true” distances doubled. If gravitational relationships are based upon “true” measures, then the effect of gravity between two objects that have doubled in size should have 1/4 the gravitational force between them.

It is proposed that the following relationships describe the uniform expansion of space-time.

Ratios of Time

D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
V2/ V1 = (T1/T2) ^(1/3)
E2/ E1 = (T1/T2) ^(2/3)
"G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)
Lets see how my proposed relationships do in maintaining celestial stability. (The numbers 1 and 2 demarcate earlier and later measures of cosmic time respectively , D = absolute distance, V = absolute velocity, E = absolute energy, G = gravitational effect or “gravitational constant”

Problem 1

If the Universe is 6 billion years old, how long will it take for it to double in size?
Also, if an object is 1 meter long now, how long will it take for it to be twice as big in absolute measures?
Also, if two orbiting masses are in stable orbit, how long will it take for their orbits to be twice as far apart in absolute measures?

D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
2/1 = (T2 /6) ^ (2/3)
T2 = 17 billion years or 11 billion years from now.

Note that D2 and D1 are absolute measures, relative measures remain the same. The meter stick would still be a meter long, based upon relative measures.

Problem 2

How much slower should the orbiting objects in problem 1 be moving?

V2/ V1 = (T1/T2) ^(1/3)
V2/ V1 = (6/17) ^(1/3)
V2/ V1 = .707

Problem 3

Was celestial stability preserved for the two orbiting systems?

Stable orbiting systems require a balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces.

Centrifugal force varies by FC = (M) V^2/R
Since velocity is reduced by the square root of two squared ( (.707)^2), and R increased by a factor of 2, centrifugal force is reduced by a quarter, FC = (M) 1/4

Since it is proposed the effect of gravity is determined by absolute distances, Fg = g mm/R^2, then since R is doubled, Fg = 1/4(g mm)

The effective force of gravity is reduced by a quarter, and centrifugal force is correspondingly reduced by a quarter. Celestial stability is preserved.

Note in my web page www.uniformexpansion.com a generalized algebraic check for stability is presented. The model for deriving the relationships is also proposed.

Also at the web page you will see that the relationship describing the acceleration of points in space ("G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)) is theoretically based upon the geometric expression describing the expansion of spaceitme. This also conforms to Newton’s Laws of Gravity. This means that a theoretical model that describes a specific rate of expansion of points in space-time ( a metric) preserves celestial (and atomic) stability and also predicts Newton’s experimentally derived Laws of Gravity.

This is a big deal.

Notice that there is a loss of energy of the system

Problem 4

How much energy was lost due to the uniform expansion?

K.E is proportional to V^2 so since the velocity is reduced by the square root of 2 the K.E. is decreased by a factor of 2.


(This loss of energy is for all systems. A system is anything contained within a bounded volume.)


Problem 5

How much slower would someone on one of the orbiting systems measure the change in velocity?

This is a bit preposterous in that someone would have to live billions of years, but the results will be interesting.

Since someone on one of the orbiting masses would not detect the doubling of the size of the orbit because their rulers doubled, the only thing they would notice is that it takes longer to compete an orbit. From our absolute perspective we know that they are moving slower by square root of two, and they are traveling twice as far. The time to complete an orbit would be increased by the square root of two times two. Their perception is that for some reason they are slowing down in their motion around their orbit.

This doesn’t seem like much until we consider being an observer in the present, looking at an orbiting object in the past. If we were not aware of the loss of energy due to the expansion of space-time, objects in the past would be perceived to be moving too fast for the amount of mass we assume they contain. We would conclude that there must be some missing mass or “dark matter” within the system keeping celestial stability.

Snowflake

Thanks for providing this snowflake. I had read long ago about Dirac calling for continuous creation of matter but had forgotten it of late. I think he is calling for creation of new nucleons. Another possibility would be that existing nucleons increase in mass. This could happen in a Le Sage-type model.

You've listed your alternative equations in this and other posts, but you haven't yet explained why we should like them more than Dirac's. At least I can't see where you did it. In proposing a new model like yours it's really important to explain why we should take that critical first step down the road you propose. I haven't taken that first step yet, because I couldn't see a reason for it.

Hi ExpErd Man

Thanks for the response.

You seemed interested in Dirac’s theoretical model of a varying gravitational “constant” which failed to maintain celestial stability. If I propose a theory that also predicts that the effect of gravity is a function of cosmic time yet it preserves celestial stability, why aren’t you interested?

The reason to check it out is simply because I am begging for an honest evaluation.

When I wrote that I have a theoretical model that predicts Newton’s laws of gravity, I think that is an important fact to check out. Einstein’s E=mcc was based upon a theoretical model with amazing consequences. The fact that my theory predicts a loss of energy from all systems due to the expansion of space is important, it means that eventually all life will end, and it is not billions of years away for humans. Everything has a beginning and an end. The edge of the universe becomes defined. Every point in the universe is the center of an expanding universe. Two dimensions of time exist. The universe conforms to an order that is staggering, it is like a multidimensional snowflake with dynamic structures, we live on the edge of that growing snowflake.

The reason to check it out is that I honestly believe it is incredibly important.

Snowflake

As others have pointed out, if everything expands equally, including your measuring stick, you couldn't tell anything was expanding. Such expansion would be unfalsifiable.

Unless, as you point out, gravity stayed the same. Then as the distance (d) between two objects expanded, the gravitational attraction between them would decrease as d-squared, and this would obviously be detectable.

So now you propose, what if the actual strength of the gravitational constant was decreasing in inverse proportion to the expansion?

Well, there are two flaws with such a proposal:

1) If the distance between orbiting bodies is increased, you would need a stronger gravitational constant to sustain the orbit with the same velocity, not weaker. If you claim the velocity slows down with the expanding distances, you're switching from your "absolute" reference frame back to the relative frame, which would be a flaw in your argument.

2.) Even if you succeed in balancing the "new" gravity to the "new" distances, you have done nothing but return to square one! Once again, you couldn't tell if everything is expanding as you claim, and this time gravity would be no help in hoping for a determination, because you've got it varying in perfect proportion so you can't tell! And once again, such a scenario would be unfalsifiable.

"Celestial stability is preserved" simply because you defined to be preserved.

Sorry, but I don't think so. But I wouldn't feel too bad. Apparently it's pretty common to get caught up in one's dreams, as evidenced by the following observation....

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

Hi cougar

Thank you for your response, I see I have not made it clear enough how to use absolute and relative measures in a way to avoid confusion.

When first doing a problem using the proposed relationships it is important to first work out the relationships based upon an absolute perspective. It is from the absolute reference frame that the necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces are described. Once that is done, relative measures can be considered.

I tried to do that in example 5. The previous four examples were based upon absolute measures, All the derived changes in distance, velocity and acceleration were based upon absolute measures. The necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces was maintained based upon the absolute reference frame.

In problem 5 I translated the absolute reference frame to our relative reference frame. Two historically identical objects are rotating around each other, one is observed locally the other is observed in the past. When the observations of the two orbiting pairs of objects are compared, it will appear that the objects moving around each other in the past are moving too fast. Those who only base relationships based upon relative measures are going to have to assume the orbiting objects have more mass. This assumed mass translates to what we call “dark matter”.

In another paper I am working on I will show how the translation between absolute and relative reference frames corresponds to the observed increase in the amount of dark matter with increasing scales of observation. (ie a certain amount of dark matter is assumed to exist within galaxies in order to account for the velocity profile observed, then even more mass must be added to preserve celestial balance between orbiting galaxies, and then even more mass is required to maintain celestial balance between orbiting clusters of galaxies.

Do you have an explanation you believe in as to why there is always more dark matter the larger the scale of observation? I would like you to post it before I make my post, just so that people can compare the two theories and decide which is the best model.

Snowflake.

This is not an "assumption." It is a theory that explains repeated observations.
What's the question? If you consider a sphere with radius r centered on our galactic center, it will contain a certain volume of dark matter. If you double the radius of the sphere you're considering, the volume of dark matter contained therein will increase roughly eight times. This will be true until the radius extends well beyond the edge of the galactic disk - maybe ten times the outer disk radius.

If you are claiming that as the scale increases, the amount of dark matter always increases at a proportion greater than that expected by simple geometry, I'd ask that you provide a reference to the literature or some other support for such a claim.

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

Hi cougar

If dark matter were distributed as you say, (“double the size, 8 times the mass of the dark matter”), then you are establishing a uniform distribution of matter. A uniform distribution of dark matter results in no possible way to detect dark matter since dark matter would no longer have any influence on celestial orbiting systems.


The following link refers to the mass scale problem regarding dark matter.


http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/DarkMatter.html

Snowflake.

Incorrect. Within galaxies, the dark matter IS uniformly distributed. This is verified (and detected) by observation and measurement of galactic rotation curves, which are flat, implying a roughly uniform distribution of unseen matter. (See your own link.) This uniform distribution of dark matter extends well beyond the highly luminous inner region of a galaxy and forms spherical halos going well beyond the luminous galactic edges. Of course, it eventually becomes less and less dense and effectively disappears out at 5 or 10 times the galactic radius.

You seem to have misunderstood the link's discussion of this "issue," and you have subsequently jumped to an invalid conclusion. You have certainly mischaracterized this as a "mass scale problem."

What is being measured and compared in the linked discussion is not simply the mass of the dark matter at different scales, but rather the ratio of mass to luminosity. To make a long argument short, you have assumed that as the M/L figure increases, it must be the mass that is increasing, when it is much more likely that it is the luminosity that is becoming more difficult to detect (or simply less dense), particularly since we're talking about regions outside galactic disks, which are obviously less luminous than the clearly visible disk portions of galaxies.

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

This term "halo" has been in use for quite some time, and I really don't like it much, even though it is nearing Christmas. My main beef is that it's misleading. A halo is normally pictured as a ring that lies in a plane. But a galactic halo is spherical. The normal halo ring encircles... emptiness. A galactic halo encircles... more halo material going all the way to the galactic center! In other words, a galactic halo is not a "halo" at all - it is... a blob of unseen, nonluminous matter (typically) centered on the galactic center and extending spherically well beyond the edges of the visible galactic disk. Now, I could understand why it's not generally referred to as a galactic dark matter "blob," but surely someone can come up with a better, more accurate term for this significant phenomenon!

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

... a bubble?

Hi cougar,

A uniform distribution of dark matter would not produce the spin profile observed in galaxies.

If one object is uniformly surrounded by other objects, which way is the motion of the object going to be effected?
What ever force is exerted from the left, is equal to the force exerted on the right. Etc.

In one of my science new articles, (which I am having a hard time finding) it features an article about how the dark matter is proposed to be distributed around our galaxy.

Of course realize no on has seen this dark matter, nor have they touched it. Nor can they tell you its chemical properties. (Barring the examples of cold dark matter, which is so far found to not represent the bulk of the dark matter, and barring the supposed hypothetical weight of neutrinos, which also does not account for all the “missing mass”)

The only reason for believing in the existence in dark matter of the unobserved variety is that it is assumed to be there to account for the observed velocity of orbiting objects. If the effect of gravity were to be a function of time, then much of this unobserved mass can be explained, as suggested previously.

Snowflake

Seasons Greetings!

To all who have been readers of my many posts on a variety of topics, I’d like to express my appreciation for their considered thought. I hope all is well with you and your families.

Thank you.

Snowflake

Incorrect. The observed "spin profile" of galaxies directly implies a uniform distribution of dark matter (assuming the effect of gravity is not a variable, of course).

If the effect of gravity is not constant, but is variable depending on distance or time or some other factor, then yes, that could possibly explain the observed galactic rotation curves and cluster dynamics. But you don't seem to realize that this is one of the most drastic explanations imaginable. This is like saying, "What if the laws of physics were randomly rewritten by the Tooth Fairy every other Tuesday? Wouldn't this explain something or other?"

Scientists look for the simplest explanations first. If those don't pan out, then they look for slightly more complicated explanations. Modifying or rewriting the known laws of physics is typically reserved as a last resort.

Besides, I believe the effect of gravity has been observed to be quite constant. If it changed with time, as you purport, then very distant galaxies would have dynamics considerably different than those that are close by. Well, they don't. Their dynamics are quite similar, and this falsifies your theory. Back to the drawing board. Happy Holidays. 8)

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

Hi Snowflake,
Read your posts with much interest,your enthusiasm
in what you believe is laudable.Why then,can you not grasp the
concept of the pattern of light described by a pulsar?
If you cannot grasp a concept Snowflake,all your math is
of no avail.Are you interested in a concept of Black holes?
Two things only,one a fact only,the other a theory,the singularity,
yes,the event horizon theory.
Only relate to those of like mind Snowflake,but cannot stand self-
opinionated idiots who think they know it all.My read of you is that
you have a good mind,and would enjoy converse with you,don't
take that as patronising,not intended.
Interested in your response......
Nokton

The dark matter is not "uniformly" distributed. If you look at the decomposition of galaxy rotation curves what you find is that normal visible stars, gas, and dust appear to dominate the rotational dynamics in the optical portion of the galactic disk. The maximal disk hypothesis is quite successful at reproducing rotation curves within the optical disk without the need for dark matter.

Once you go beyond the optical disk, the dynamics (flat rotation curves) are dominated by dark matter. In fact, there are reasons for thinking that the dark matter could be primarily baryonic .

Baryonic dark matter has been detected, but its not yet certain how much of it there actually is in spiral galaxies. If it turns out that baryonic dark matter is insufficient, then you have the non-baryonic dark matter although these form are plagued with problems or you have alternative models such as MOND - which has its own problems. Its really too early to rule out any of these options with finality.

Interestingly, there is evidence that some elliptical galaxies lack dark matter. This is consistent with the idea that dark matter is cold molecular hydrogen gas because ellipticals are well known to be largely devoid of gas. So if the dark matter is baryonic molecular hydrogen, then it is not surprising that ellipticals lack dark matter.


Wouldn't all matter with a galaxy be effected equally over time?

Well, NGC 2403 yields the following typical rotation curve:



In the upper panel is the luminosity profile, and the lower panel shows the observed rotation curve of NGC 2403 (dots) and the rotation curves of the individual mass components (lines). I note that the rotation curve (total) flattens well before the luminosity profile drops to nothing, which means that, contrary to your assertion, the normal visible stars, gas, and dust lose their dominance over the rotational dynamics once we reach roughly one-third of the way from the galactic center to the edge of the luminous disk. Thereafter, the flatness of the curve is a measure of the uniformity of the dark matter.

Certainly the regions closest to galaxy centers are the most luminous and the most massive, but I continue to contend that once outside of this special inner region, the dark matter is roughly uniformly distributed. I'm not convinced that it is NOT uniformly distributed even within the inner region; observed rotation curves do not rule this out - they just don't support it.

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

At its cepheid distance, NGC 2403 has an optical diameter of 22 kpc or a radius of 11 kpc (based upon the D25 diameter in the LEDA database). You can see this is confirmed in the diagram which is consistent with what I said:

Dark matter does not dominate the dynamics until you extend beyond the optical disk into the HI disk. I should've said "without the need for significant amounts of dark matter" on the following sentence although if you read this excellent article by F. Combes you'll find that he states:

In other words, dark matter is only needed beyond the optical disk. But this is really a simplification because it depends upon the morphology of the galaxy. Rotation curves are not flat for all galaxies, but tend to fall for early type spiral galaxies (Sab/Sb) and have not reached their maximum at the end of the optical disk for late type galaxies (Sd/Sm). NGC 2403 is a late type spiral so there is naturally some contribution from dark matter in the disk.

Combes also notes that the dominance of baryonic matter is also demonstrated by little wiggles in rotation curves that correspond with the spiral arms. Such wiggles would be "diluted" by the presence of a significant non-baryonic component.

What all this points to is that dark matter and luminous matter are quite linked. When you have lots of gas and dust (late type spirals) dark matter dominates earlier in the rotation curve. When you have less gas (early type spirals), then dark matter dominates at much greater distances from the nucleas but the luminous component dominates the rotation of the optical disk. When you have very little gas (ellipticals) dark matter appears to be almost non-existant. In fact it is also not surprising that the most HI deficient spirals in Virgo are Sa/Sab type spirals.

So as I said before the dark matter is not uniformly distributed. If it was, then its contribution to the flat portions of the rotation curve should not change with radius but as seen in the graph above it does.

But the really interesting question is how you can have non-baryonic dark matter so intimately linked to the hydrogen gas content of spiral galaxies. This is part of the disk-halo conspiracy. Or as Combes asks:

The answer to this question makes a lot more sense if the dark matter actually is baryonic cold molecular hydrogen gas. But we'll see when new observations test the idea. As I said, its too early to close the book on either option. But in fact cold dark matter simulations fail to predict the observed nature of dark matter profiles, there's the "missing satellites" problem and so on.

So this provides an interesting dilema for those that like to brandish Occam's razor. If you really follow Occam's razor (which as I've argued before is hardly ever relevant), then the current evidence of galaxy dynamics seems to favor the baryonic dark matter hypothesis over the non-baryonic dark matter hypothesis. But the implications of that conclusion are not too pretty for the standard cosmological model.

I guess its still Occam's razor if we say its easier to keep the Big Bang and its multitude of observational successes and hope the CDM problem is resolved eventually, than to explore the baryonic DM option that is in fact better supported by the observations.

I must be missing something here. The whole idea of dark matter exists because the velocities do not coincide even remotely to the stellar component.

By the way, what is the percentage of ellipticals that "appear" to have little dark matter compared to those that appear to have a more typical amount?

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

In the outer parts beyond the optical disk this is certainly true, but what is being found is that in the disk itself, the detectable matter is often sufficient. Again, it is related to morphology. The smaller late type galaxies tend to be dark matter dominated much closer to the core where-as the more luminous early type systems often do not require dark matter in the optical disk.

Again this is certainly consistent with the dark matter being baryonic molecular hydrogen because the late type systems are much more gas rich than the early type systems.

I found 23 ellipticals with dark matter content assessed from stellar or planetary nebula kinematics. Of those it appears that 13 fall into the no-dark matter category while 10 fall into the dark matter category. The authors did point out that in many of the no-dark matter galaxies, the existence of DM cannot be ruled out, but it is not needed to account for the kinematics.

But there are some additional remarkable aspects to what they found. It turns out that the No-DM galaxies are disky while the DM galaxies are Boxy. So the dark vs no-dark status may correlate with other physical features.

However, this is the one that could be very important: Bertin et al (1994) found that the dark matter galaxies turn out to be known bright X-ray sources while the no-DM galaxies do not. Now if we apply a little logic to this result we can ask this important question: How do you get X-rays? You need some energized gas. So its possible once again that we're seeing evidence that the dark matter is baryonic in the systems that contain it.

There is still a long way to go on this and certainly nobody should conclude that any of this is the final word, but its what the current evidence indicates.

But there is another aspect of these results that is important to remember. It appears that its about 50-50 on the dark matter vs. no-dark matter ellipticals. But that does not mean automatically that the 50% with dark matter have non-baryonic cold dark matter. In fact if CDM models are correct, then every elliptical ought to have CDM. So the 50% that do not have dark matter may very well be a problem for any models/theories that are relying on CDM. The authors of several of these papers make note of this point.

Well, if the dark matter is baryonic molecular hydrogen, as you seem to favor, how are you going to explain the structure formation in the universe getting started so early? (Of course, this was a fortunate feature of weakly interacting cold dark matter....)

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

There's a more pressing concern than that. If the dark matter is baryonic, then you have a conflict with Big Bang nucleosynthesis. One major reason for proposing CDM in the first place was that BB nucleosynthesis cannot account for the missing mass being baryonic in form. I haven't seen any discussion of how that can be reconciled. So it'll be up to the Big Bang theorists to see how they can reconcile baryonic dark matter with a Big Bang beginning - if the current evidence that the dark mattter is baryonic is confirmed by additional observations.

The other option is alternative models that did not start with a Big Bang. Since few researchers are looking at the current examples, its really hard to know which of them (if any) would provide a suitable alternative to the BB under the conditions of a baryonic dark matter universe.

Ah. Hence your preference for a baryonic answer. How do you respond to the (fairly) recent WMAP results?

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

I respond with your words:

from this thread. .


If the dark matter is baryonic, then the Big Bang certainly does not conform to all the observations. I've also pointed out that the WMAP results are not 100% consistent with the concordance model - some aspects of the spectrum don't fit. Of course we were told that that is because of "parameter space" which is a fancy way of saying that they can always tinker with their numbers to try to find a better fit.

I'm fine with that - show me a version of the Big Bang that can accomodate baryonic dark matter and intrinsic redshifts and still explain all the observations that the Big Bang does successfully explain. I'll be very interested in such a version. As it stands, no current Big Bang versions can accomodate either of those possibilities.

Based upon where you placed "fairly" I'm not sure whether you mean "fairly recent WMAP results" or "How do you respond fairly to ..."

If you mean the latter then I'd say I've shown far more fairness and tolerance toward considering the Big Bang, than some have shown toward considering Arp's empirical model and his proffered theory to explain intrinsic redshifts.

Ooh, you dirty dog.

If the dark matter was baryonic, wouldn't it be detectable from its effect on the light coming through it from distant objects?

So you think the big bang can't be right, but you have no alternative? Personally I think "baryonic dark matter" and "intrinsic redshifts" are losing theories, and therefore they do not threaten to contradict the big bang theory.

Oh, sorry. I meant fairly recent, of course. :wink:

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

Yes, but molecular hydrogen is not easy to detect because it does not radiate at the low temperatures most of it would be at.

No, I've always said the Big Bang might be right, but I don't think it will turn out to be right. What I've said is that if BB versions can be developed that can accomodate intrinsic redshifts, then I would find such models much more compelling than what is currently proposed. And I've said that the Narlikar&Arp cosmology is one alternative, but its irrelevant to discuss it if there is little interest in Arp's empirical model for intrinsic redshifts which seems to be the case:

Time will tell.

Read the input of dgruss and cougar with interest,appreciate their
comments on questions they create between themselves,and that theydo.
I believe they believe the question is to be answered only within the
framework of their conception of their understanding.
Nothing could be further from the truth,no offence,dgruss,cougar.
The universe is far stranger and more complex than you speak of.
With respect to you both,Happy New Year

That's an important point nokton. Theories provide frameworks for interpreting evidence. Cougar and I were debating the nature of dark matter, but we're in agreement that dark matter is required in some cases because we agree(I think) that the current gravitational models seem to work very well. As with all these discussion you must provide evidence that a framework is flawed before you look to a new framework. I haven't seen that evidence with regard to gravity.

Thanx Dgruss,
With respect,and I mean that,was trying to point out
that a one way street is just that,a dead end.Was trying to encourage
you,and those like you,to explore different concepts.
Dgruss,don't blow me away,but have you ever considered the mean
temperature of galaxies,and what that could imply,with respect to the
discourse between yourself and Cougar?

Snowflake, did something odd happen in Problem 3? The gravitational constant G became g and apparently did not change like G should have. If G changes that would throw out the balance.

The most directly relevant aspect of temperature is that molecular hydrogen is very difficult to detect at the low temperatures it would have in the halo of a galaxy. In fact the detections of molecular H2 are usually at higher temperatures - around 100 Kelvin I think - although that wouldn't be the only temperature its detected at.