Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

Hello

Origins of the Universe, was there a Big Bang or no bang at all or eternal bangs of a cyclic nature.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140
Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
(Submitted on 26 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The standard LambdaCDM model of cosmology is usually understood to arise from demanding that the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric satisfy the General Relativity dynamics for spacetime metrics. The FLRW data-based dominant parameter values, Omega_Lambda=0.73 and Omega_m=0.27 for the dark energy and dark matter+matter, respectively, are then determined by fitting the supernova red-shift data. However in the pressure-less flat-space case the LambdaCDM model is most easily derived from Newtonian gravity, and which was based on the special case of planetary motion in the solar system. Not surprisingly when extended to galactic rotations and cosmology Newtonian dynamics is found to be wanting, and the fix-up involves introducing dark matter and dark energy, as shown herein. However a different theory of gravity leads to a different account of galactic rotations and cosmology, and does not require dark matter nor dark energy to fit the supernova data. It is shown that fitting the LambdaCDM model to this new model, and so independently of the actual supernova data, requires the LambdaCDM model parameters to be those given above. Hence we conclude that dark energy and dark matter are no more than mathematical artifacts to fix-up limitations of Newtonian gravity. Various other data are also briefly reviewed to illustrate other successful tests of this new theory of gravity.

 

[DrRocket]

Hello

Origins of the Universe, was there a Big Bang or no bang at all or eternal bangs of a cyclic nature.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140
Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
(Submitted on 26 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The standard LambdaCDM model of cosmology is usually understood to arise from demanding that the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric satisfy the General Relativity dynamics for spacetime metrics. The FLRW data-based dominant parameter values, Omega_Lambda=0.73 and Omega_m=0.27 for the dark energy and dark matter+matter, respectively, are then determined by fitting the supernova red-shift data. However in the pressure-less flat-space case the LambdaCDM model is most easily derived from Newtonian gravity, and which was based on the special case of planetary motion in the solar system. Not surprisingly when extended to galactic rotations and cosmology Newtonian dynamics is found to be wanting, and the fix-up involves introducing dark matter and dark energy, as shown herein. However a different theory of gravity leads to a different account of galactic rotations and cosmology, and does not require dark matter nor dark energy to fit the supernova data. It is shown that fitting the LambdaCDM model to this new model, and so independently of the actual supernova data, requires the LambdaCDM model parameters to be those given above. Hence we conclude that dark energy and dark matter are no more than mathematical artifacts to fix-up limitations of Newtonian gravity. Various other data are also briefly reviewed to illustrate other successful tests of this new theory of gravity.

At first blush this looks a bit "New Age", but it is seems to be coming from a legitimate source and there is a large body of papers related to the author's notion of "Process Physics".

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/ ... ysics.html

I am not sure that in this forum there can be applied enought time and specific expertise to fairly evaluate the work, and this is probably a job for the mainstream journals and the peer-review system.

I am more than a bit puzzled by the authors reference to dark energy as being a problem with classical Newtonian gravity since dark energy is associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and that is not a Newtonian concept at all.

 

[SpeedFreek]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

Oh, that ain't good

 

[DrRocket]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

Thanks for that bit of information. That speaks volumes.

I must agree with MeteorWayne. That bodes ill. IMO Progress in Physics is not a legitimate physics journal, and Crothers is not a legitimate scientist.

If all of this guy's papers have been Published in Progress in Physics it is probable that he has been rejected as a result of the peer review process by journals that are legitimate.

So I guess that the peer review process to which I referred earlier has probably done its job, and this stuff has been evaluated and found wanting. In that case I won't waste time trying to understand and critique it.

I don't know that Crothers has singles out most of the legitimate physics community by name, but only by proxy. If I recall the individuals that he has labeled as incompetent are limited to --'tHooft, Hawking, Einstein, Weinberg, Penrose, Thorne, Kerr, Schwarzschild, and Hilbert (did I forget any ?). Oh, yeah, as a result of this forum I think I joined the club, along with MetorWayne. But then if I get to choose my fellow club members I will take MeteorWayne, Einstein , 'tHooft .... so I don't feel very bad about the label considering the source.

 

[SpeedFreek]

If all of this guy's papers have been Published in Progress in Physics it is probable that he has been rejected as a result of the peer review process by journals that are legitimate.

I do not wish to misprepresent the author of the paper in the OP, so I should stress that it is his papers pertaining to his Dynamical 3-space model that were published in progress in physics, he has other papers posted in Apeiron and a few other places I don't recognise.

http://aps.arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au: ... /0/all/0/1

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Its great to comment on the science within the paper, if possible.

I will come back to the original post that I made later.


The following ABS speaks for itself.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381
Towards A Resolution Of The Vacuum Energy Density Crisis

Authors: R. L. Oldershaw
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The theoretical vacuum energy density estimated on the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics and very general quantum assumptions is 59 to 123 orders of magnitude larger than the measured vacuum energy density for the observable universe which is determined on the basis of the Standard Model of cosmology and empirical data. This enormous disparity between the expectations of two of our most widely accepted theoretical frameworks demands a credible and self-consistent explanation, and yet even after decades of sporadic effort a generally accepted resolution of this crisis has not surfaced. Very recently, however, a discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm based on the fundamental principle of discrete scale invariance has been found to offer a rationale for reducing the vacuum energy density disparity by at least 115 orders of magnitude, and possibly this new paradigm offers a means of eliminating the vacuum energy density crisis entirely.

 

[DrRocket]

The following ABS speaks for itself.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381
Towards A Resolution Of The Vacuum Energy Density Crisis

Authors: R. L. Oldershaw
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2009)

Yes, It certainly does. The overprediction of the effect of the quantum vacuum on the pressure term in general relativity is both well known and profound. But the solution is not some disguised version of a curve fit with various adjustable parameters. That is not physics, it is just another in an endless parade of pseudo-theories by a another wack job., who thinks that with 1% of the story and 0.1% comprehension of the underlying science that he can revolutionize the understanding of mankind and save physics from the abyss. Oldershaw's "self-similar hierarchical order" is a bunch of nonsense and a poor play on curve fitting through adjustable parameters, and another in a long line of delusional theories that seem to maintain life only because of the openness of the internet, with freedom of speech but without the self-regulation of the peer-review system.

"Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk". John Von Neumann as related to Freeman Dyson by Enrico Fermi

I started with an open mind regarding Cahill and now Oldershaw. But a little research quickly reveals that they have no legitimate ideas to offer. I have not interest in pursuing some sort of "cult physics" or debating the merits of what is patently nonsense.

Space Science and Astronomy is a serious science forum and is not place for bastardization of what should be a serious topic for the prurient pleasure of someone or a group of someone's who don't know what they are talking about, see mainstream physics as a giant conspiracy to suppress their "genius", and prowl the internet searching for an audience to feed their ego because they cannot publish their nonsense in legitimate scientific journals. If it "splats" like crap, and smells like crap, its crap.

I am out of here. Any debate would be utterly pointless. I've seen this before. Recently. I don;'t need to see it again.

"I've had all I can stands, I can't stands no more" -- Popeye

Mods: I strongly recommend that, consistent with stated SDC policy this topic be quickly moved to The Unexplained. It is not serious science.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

I'm going to be posting a number of papers. I know that some of you are awear of these papers and some of you are starting out to read up on cosmology.

One of the main issues with the BBT is dark matter and dark energy.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146
The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter

Authors: J. R. Brownstein, J. W. Moffat
(Submitted on 6 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 13 Sep 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: A detailed analysis of the November 15, 2006 data release (Clowe et al., 2006) X-ray surface density Sigma-map and the strong and weak gravitational lensing convergence kappa-map for the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 is performed and the results are compared with the predictions of a modified gravity (MOG) and dark matter. Our surface density Sigma-model is computed using a King beta-model density, and a mass profile of the main cluster and an isothermal temperature profile are determined by the MOG. We find that the main cluster thermal profile is nearly isothermal. The MOG prediction of the isothermal temperature of the main cluster is T = 15.5 +- 3.9 keV, in good agreement with the experimental value T = 14.8{+2.0}{-1.7} keV. Excellent fits to the two-dimensional convergence kappa-map data are obtained without non-baryonic dark matter, accounting for the 8-sigma spatial offset between the Sigma-map and the kappa-map reported in Clowe et al. (2006). The MOG prediction for the kappa-map results in two baryonic components distributed across the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 with averaged mass-fraction of 83% intracluster medium (ICM) gas and 17% galaxies. Conversely, the Newtonian dark matter kappa-model has on average 76% dark matter (neglecting the indeterminant contribution due to the galaxies) and 24% ICM gas for a baryon to dark matter mass-fraction of 0.32, a statistically significant result when compared to the predicted Lambda-CDM cosmological baryon mass-fraction of 0.176{+0.019}{-0.012} (Spergel et al., 2006).

 

[MeteorWayne]

Interesting it was submitted and revised in 2007, but has not been accepted or published.

I know, it's a conspiracy

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Oh no!!!!!!! It's a conspiracy.

Oh my God where is the back door.

Smile.

==========================

 

[drwayne]

"I'm going to be posting a number of papers."

*Moderator hat on*

This is a discussion based forum. Simply posting papers without discussion gets into the category
of spam and we strongly discourage that sort of posting behavior.

If you have specific comments / ideas about the papers you post, then we encourage you to
discuss them, within the rules of the forum.

*Moderator hat off*

Wayne

 

[harrycostas]

G'day drwayne

I understand

Next post will be with a discussion.

 

[noblackhole]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

Oh, that ain't good

Up to his old tricks again - MeterorWayne resorts to ridicule instead of science.

 

[noblackhole]

I had a look at the authors previous papers on this subject, to see if any had been published. All his papers on "Dynamical 3-Space" have only appeared in the journal "Progress in Physics", associate editor - Stephen J. Crothers, he who refutes the Schwarzschild solution and says that most of the modern scientific community is wrong about General Relativity.

Thanks for that bit of information. That speaks volumes.

I must agree with MeteorWayne. That bodes ill. IMO Progress in Physics is not a legitimate physics journal, and Crothers is not a legitimate scientist.

If all of this guy's papers have been Published in Progress in Physics it is probable that he has been rejected as a result of the peer review process by journals that are legitimate.

So I guess that the peer review process to which I referred earlier has probably done its job, and this stuff has been evaluated and found wanting. In that case I won't waste time trying to understand and critique it.

I don't know that Crothers has singles out most of the legitimate physics community by name, but only by proxy. If I recall the individuals that he has labeled as incompetent are limited to --'tHooft, Hawking, Einstein, Weinberg, Penrose, Thorne, Kerr, Schwarzschild, and Hilbetrt (did I forget any ?). Oh, yeah, as a result of this forum I think I joined the club, along with MetorWayne. But then if I get to choose my fellow club members I will take MeteorWayne, Einstein , 'tHooft .... so I don't feel very bad about the label considering the source.

The ever artful Dodger of science, DrRocket, true to form, also again resorts to ridicue and insult instead of scientific argument. DrRocket was cornered and exposed in another thread (on black holes) as a fellow who ignores scientific facts and instead thinks that ignorance and insults are scientific method. So instead of your usual old tricks DrRocket, tells us what YOU think is objectionable, and why, in the paper cited by harrycostas. And, DrRocket, should we all dismiss you right now, outright, by applying to you your own 'scientific methods', in view of your previous gross technical failings demonstrated on this forum ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Why does it matter whether we can refute your theory in a way you can understand or not, when the theory has been refuted by some of the most prominent physicists on the planet?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land ofozzzzzzzzz

So! Was there an Origin, a Big Bang or no bang with an eternal evolution?.

 

[dragon04]

Unless or until a more plausible explanation for the Universe comes out, I'm cool with a Big Bang. Observational data points towards a Universe that is NOT cyclical due to an accelerating expansion.

While one might say that the Universe could still be cyclical on a larger time scale, there's the pesky issue of particle decay. Based on current data, we're fairly certain what will happen during the next 100 billion years.

I'm not a physicist, so I can't properly articulate my thoughts, and since I'm not a Physicist, I may not even be right. All I know is that for the Universe to be "closed" (and thereby cyclical), there has to be a "Great Attractor" of some sort that has sufficient mass to reverse the accelerating expansion of the Universe, and bring all matter back to a point of focus prior to that matter decaying.

IMO, that's a pretty tall order.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

When we look out into the "FAR"

What do we see?

News Release - heic0616: Hubble yields direct proof of stellar sorting in a globular cluster
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0616.html

The image shows a clustering effect, not an expansion.

also

News Release - heic0406: Hubble's deepest view ever of the Universe unveils earliest galaxies
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0406.html

In most links you will find an assumtion that the BB is a fact than they proceed to put words into their discussion such as early universe.

If you look at the images you will find a variety of galaxies in various stages of evolution. It gives no indication of a big bang.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

OMG noblackhole, do you ever quite whining? Either you ARE Mr. Crothers and don't like the ridicule of Crother's being completely obliterated from a PhD in his field, or you have a fascination with him. Either way, this is not your No Black Hole topic. We do NOT want to revisit your Schwarzschild solution debate again. You can complain about how much knowledge we as members of this site have or don't have about the theories, however you forget all too easily it is the biggest minds in the field that have discredited Crother's and your futile arguments. Please by all means complain about my lack of knowledge of physics, have a temper tantrum about others who discredit you with multiple references... but don't forget your arguments should be in fact taken up with the names such as The Royal Astronomy Academy, 'Hooft, Hawking, Einstein, Weinberg, Penrose, Thorne, Kerr, etc... instead of insulting us. (Did I forget any Dr. Rocket? lol) IF your arguments are legitimate, I'm sure the proper people will pull out their ear plugs to listen to your rantings. Let me tell you why you come here to complain, because I'm sure everyone else but you has realized this: The minds at hand won't hear your complaints because you failed miserably at physics, while having a strong foundation you failed to understand some necessary concepts so you come here to ridicule everyone else who follows them, knowing we cannot possibly do anymore but refer to their work. So you take satisfaction in this. It feeds your hatred for them, and your despise for us. The more you complain the more you annoy people, and the more you get satisfaction. I've heard less whining out of my 5 year old. So do us all a favor and make your complaints to the right people, and if they won't hear you, what makes you think we will?

Now, back to the topic. harrycostas on the smaller scales there is a clustering affect of close together galaxies like our Local Group (contains approx. 40 galaxies) by gravity pulling them together while space itself expands. The clusters are known as Gravitationally-bound objects. Two different concepts that alter the look of the universe. The gravitationally-bound objects also plays a role in showing how the forces of gravity also affect the universe. Our best tools for observing these forces right now are the Keck Telescope and Hubble Space Telescope.

As we peer deep into space we are actually looking back in time. We say this because it takes so long for the light of these objects to reach us, we are actually viewing them as they were many years ago.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

Please do not for one sec think that I know very little of cosmology.

I'm exremely well read and always smiling.

So! What is you point when you say:

As we peer deep into space we are actually looking back in time. We say this because it takes so long for the light of these objects to reach us, we are actually viewing them as they were many years ago.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

G'day

When we look out into the "FAR"

What do we see?

News Release - heic0616: Hubble yields direct proof of stellar sorting in a globular cluster
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0616.html

The image shows a clustering effect, not an expansion.

also

News Release - heic0406: Hubble's deepest view ever of the Universe unveils earliest galaxies
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0406.html

In most links you will find an assumtion that the BB is a fact than they proceed to put words into their discussion such as early universe.

If you look at the images you will find a variety of galaxies in various stages of evolution. It gives no indication of a big bang.

Good evening harrycostas. You asked the questions, I merely answered. I actually thought you were quite new to cosmology to ask these questions, my apologizes.

G'day Raven

Please do not for one sec think that I know very little of cosmology.

I'm exremely well read and always smiling.

So! What is you point when you say:

As we peer deep into space we are actually looking back in time. We say this because it takes so long for the light of these objects to reach us, we are actually viewing them as they were many years ago.

It was just that, a reply to your question:

G'day

When we look out into the "FAR"

What do we see?

It didn't sound like you understood why we see what we do. Your questions are then quite confusing if you know quite a bit about cosmology. I could have swore you were asking why we see clustering of galaxies, and stating that there doesn't seem to be an indication of a "big bang". Again, I apologize.

Also, your question:

G'day from the land ofozzzzzzzzz

So! Was there an Origin, a Big Bang or no bang with an eternal evolution?.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with asking these questions, it doesn't sound like you have a background in cosmology at all. Before that you were simply posting quotes from articles. If you have such a background, what is meant then by asking these basic questions if you do not wish to have them answered?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

I think you read my words out of context. It's OK.

Fogive me for sounding whatever.

My questions are open for discussion.

I remain open minded.

Although I'm well read, its amazing that the more I read the more I find myself knowing very little.

If my words and sentences sound like I'm dislexic, it's beause I am.

 

[yevaud]

Up to his old tricks again - MeterorWayne resorts to ridicule instead of science.

[...]

The ever artful Dodger of science, DrRocket, true to form, also again resorts to ridicue and insult instead of scientific argument.

/Mod Hat On

Those comments were not acceptable. Please stick to debating the subject matter, and leave determining when other SDC members have crossed lines to Moderation staff.

Thank you.

/Mod Hat Off

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Thank you yevaud

aaahh, okay harrycostas. My oldest son too has a learning disability. Now that I understand, I will keep it in mind and be more careful with the interpretation when I am reading your posts not to make the same mistake again.