Critique of Mainstream Cosmology

[turbo]

My guess is that above the present Cepheid limit of about z ~ 0.1, there is no other known method than the SNe 1a, or is there?

The Tully-Fisher relation can be used as an estimate of distance to spiral galaxies. By observing the velocity dispersion in such a spiral, the mass of the galaxy can be estimated, and using this mass figure, one can compare the observed luminosity of the galaxy with the luminosity expectation value (from the estimated mass) and obtain a distance measure that is independent of redshift. There is a paper on this subject (written by a collaborator on another paper that we submitted recently) that is currently under review, and I will link to a preprint as soon as it is accepted.

 

[Wallace]

Baryon acoustic oscillations can give accurate distance measures to z~1 and beyond. The marginal detection of these already seen in the SDSS galaxy survey agree with the SN distances, though everyone agrees that bigger and deeper surveys are needed to confirm these. Several such surveys are underway (such as WIGGLEZ) and bigger ones are planned (such as PAN-STARRS).

 

[Garth]

Thank you, I shall keep looking out for their results.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Good luck on your paper, Turbo-1. I too look forward to seeing it.

 

[yogi]

Hi Yogi,

Firstly, the present 2002 SCC theory, in which the constant coupling the scalar field to matter, $\lambda$, was fixed at unity, is dead in the water. It was robustly falsified by the first results of the GP-B satellite as I posted here.

Secondly, I am developing a general theory of SCC in which $\lambda$ is left undetermined. This would keep some of the attractive features of the 2002 theory such as a linear expansion rate that would allow about twice the time for structures to evolve in the early universe. (z = 6 would correspond to an age of t ~ 2 Gyr. instead of t < 1 Gyr. as in the mainstream model.) Beyond that I do not want to comment until it is published.

Thirdly, in SCC both G and M vary, however in the 2002 theory the product GM was constant, whereas it appears not to be in the GSCC theory.

Fourthly any determination of G is always convoluted with M, the Cavendish type experiments are able to determine G only because M is known independently.

Garth

H Garth

Somehow the above link to the gravity Probe info doesn't work for me. Is it correct.

Another question - When you say the MG product appears not to be constant, what factors are being balanced. As I have probably let it be known in our correspondence, there is much appeal to me in the idea of a holistic universe where the peculiar coincidences are not coincidences ...but in fact these apparent coincidences are actually telling us something profound. For example, the magnitude of the present MG product approximately 10^42 ... the same number comes up again and again in cosmology - the ratio of the size of the universe to the electron and the ratio of the electrical force of two electons to their gravitational attraction.

I guess my question is, can the experimental data that is altering the trajectory of SCC be taken as the last word? Maybe SCC is a good example of what Thomas Huxley once said: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

 

[Garth]

H Garth

Somehow the above link to the gravity Probe info doesn't work for me. Is it correct.

Another question - When you say the MG product appears not to be constant, what factors are being balanced. As I have probably let it be known in our correspondence, there is much appeal to me in the idea of a holistic universe where the peculiar coincidences are not coincidences ...but in fact these apparent coincidences are actually telling us something profound. For example, the magnitude of the present MG product approximately 10^42 ... the same number comes up again and again in cosmology - the ratio of the size of the universe to the electron and the ratio of the electrical force of two electons to their gravitational attraction.

I guess my question is, can the experimental data that is altering the trajectory of SCC be taken as the last word? Maybe SCC is a good example of what Thomas Huxley once said: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

Hi yogi.

That link, even as quoted in your post, works for me. It takes you to the specific post in the Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B thread.

I naturally considered all the possibilities that might allow the original SCC to pass the first reported GP-B results without success, and I am confident that it has been robustly falsified. That conclusion alone gives it the right to think of itself as a good scientific theory!

But, like you, I am still intrigued by the number of different virtues it has in explaining reported anomalies and coincidences. That is why I am developing a general theory with an undetermined value of $\lambda$, which might yet produce an as yet viable but still falsifiable pair of predictions for GP-B. This general theory appears to retain many of the good features but at the expense of losing GM = constant.

However, this isn't the place to discuss speculative theories!

Garth

 

[Garth]

One question about GR is whether it, and Newtonian gravitational theory, actually do predict accurately orbital motion in the solar system. As well as the Pioneer Anomaly there is the "Flyby Anomaly" to consider and resolve.

In today's Physics ArXiv we have this paper: Simulation of the flyby anomaly by means of an empirical asymmetric gravitational potential with definite spatial orientation

During several Earth flybys carried out since 1990, some spacecraft s have experienced an unexpected and until now unexplained anomalous velocity increase. This phenomenon is called the flyby anomaly and looks like the effect of an instantaneous acceleration of the spacecraft at the time of closest approach to Earth. The measured velocity differences could be approximately reproduced by estimation of a sudden change of the velocity vector at perigee [2]. Another approximate simulation was possible by means of estimation of the spherical harmonic coefficients J2, C21, S21, C22 and S22 of the Earth’s gravity field. However, the estimated values for these coefficients were by far unreasonable, and moreover different for the Galileo1 and the NEAR flyby [2]. Many efforts have been made to find a reason for this acceleration, but none of them were able to give an explanation based on known physics.

Hans-Juergen Busack is a German physical engineer who seems to be involved with astronomical optics as a profession. The paper seems well presented and self critical so, is there any mileage in his argument?

Hence it is yet unclear, whether an unconsidered interaction based on known physics is responsible for this mysterious effect, or if the known physical laws, especially General Relativity, have to be modified. After more than 15 years of careful analyses it seems unlikely to find an explanation based on the standard physical laws. Therefore, in this investigation another attempt was made to find an addendum to Newton’s law of gravitation, which could simulate all observed anomalies, at first without any regards to a consistent theory.

i.e. An empirical approach.
He tried to simulate the anomaly with an asymmetric gravitational potential perturbed by the planet's (Earth's) motion relative to the CMB reference frame, without success, but he claims to have simulated the effect by the planet's motion against another gravitational rest frame.

The observed flyby anomaly values of the spacecraft s Galileo, NEAR, Rosetta, Cassini and Messenger could be simulated by assumption of a gravitational potential after equations (1) and (2). According to the simulation, this potential has an asymmetry, determined by the motion of Earth against a reference frame, not coinciding with the CMB reference frame. The orientation of this reference frame to the motion of the Sun and the values of the arbitrary parameters A, B and C of equation (1) could be determined in such a way, that for the flybys Galileo1, NEAR, Rosetta1 and Cassini the nominal values of the measured anomaly were calculated, while for Galileo2 and Messenger plausible results were obtained, compliant with the uncertain measuring data.

Given that the anomaly does exist, and an explanation has not been found, my Machian leanings warm to this idea and I wonder whether the frame of reference that he claims does resolve the anomaly corresponds to a combination of all the local masses in the rest of the universe? i.e. a gravitational frame 'at rest' relative to a combination of the CMB, the Local group, the Milky Way with its halo and the Sun? (i.e. the centroid of the rest of the universe as measured from the Earth)

Or is this work just crackpot?

Garth

 

[turbo]

Here is a 2006 paper on flyby anomalies by researchers at JPL and Los Alamos.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608087v2.pdf

Interestingly, the spacecraft appear to get an anomalous acceleration at closest approach to Earth, even when the flyby orbit is designed to slow the spacecraft .

On 23 January 1998 the NEAR spacecraft flew by Earth (NEGA) at a velocity
of vF = 12.7 km/s and at an altitude in the geocentric system A = 532 km. An
analysis of the tracking data revealed that an orbital energy increase occurred
in the vicinity of closest approach. This was true even though this flyby gave
a negative gravity assist, to reach Eros after the farther-out orbital encounter
with Mathilde.

Here the encounter came from outside the Earth’s orbit, and the peak energy
transfer occurred just before periapsis. Further, the peak was a positive
transfer even though the final transfer was negative. This emphasizes the importance
of the vector orientation of the two orbits.

 

[Chronos]

I have a different interpretation of that paper, turbo. The authors do not assert anomalous acceleration. Such an error would have been quickly noticed in outer planet satellite trajectories.

 

[Wallace]

I have a different interpretation of that paper, turbo. The authors do not assert anomalous acceleration. Such an error would have been quickly noticed in outer planet satellite trajectories.

Such as the Pioneer probes?

 

[Chronos]

Are you suggesting this paper explains the 'Pioneer Anomaly', Wallace? I disagree.

 

[Garth]

Are you suggesting this paper explains the 'Pioneer Anomaly', Wallace? I disagree.

I read Wallace's question "Such as the Pioneer probes?" to be rhetorical, i.e. that the PA might indeed be the same effect as the Fly-by Anomaly (FA) revealing itself in the outer solar system.

However, I don't think it is. Even if these anomalies cannot be explained by normal physics there seems to be no natural connection between them, no single modification of the Newtonian potential that could explain both.

The FA is a short lived effect that is different for each fly-by, whereas the PA is a long term effect that is consistently the same for both Pioneers over a large range of distances from the Sun.

Garth

 

[Wallace]

I'm not suggesting the Pioneer and Fly-By anomalies are related, nor am I suggesting the paper in question explains either of them. The paper merely reports the data as accurately and as free from systematics as possible. They do make the point strongly though that there is a component of the measured acceleration that is not explained by the theory of Newtonian N-body gravitational interactions.

My point was that there are other anomalies that haven't been sufficiently explained that relate to 'in outer planet satellite trajectories', which you suggested were okay in your post.

We may be simply mis communicating with each other as it appears you are well aware of the pioneer anomaly.

 

[LeBourdais]

The residual Pioneer Anomaly, after allowing for 'normal physics' from on-board systematics, and the residual spinning up of the Earth, after allowing for tidal braking, both can be explained by a clock drift between ephemeris and atomic clocks equal to the Hubble parameter.

But we may ask, "Is the PA to be seen in the orbits of the outer planets?"

Generally the answer given is no, but as I have pointed out we cannot explain Uranus' orbit, after allowing for Neptune, by the perturbations of Pluto and other 'http://www.iau.org/iau0601.424.0.html ', the masses of the trans-Neptunian planets are 2 OOM too small. So, what about Neptune itself?

It appears there is an unexplained residual in its orbit as well, consider Rawlins' 1970 paper: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1970AJ...75..856R&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf .

Now that Lalande prediscovery observation of Neptune (he recorded it but did not recognise he had discovered a new planet! ) was made in 1795 and the -7" arc corresponds to a 7/15 seconds of time discrepancy which equals 0.467 secs. over 1968 - 1795 = 173 years.

This corresponds to a time discrepancy, or annual clock drift in which the atomic clock is speeding up relative to the ephemeris clock, of 0.467/(365.25x24x3600) per 173 years, which equals 8.55 x 10^-11 yr^-1 and this is equal to Hubble's parameter if H = 84 km.sec⁻¹Mpc⁻¹!

So within the bounds of error of the observation it seems that the Hubble parameter turns up again!

These 'Hubble Parameter' clock drifts are getting to be a bit of a habit, perhaps the universe is trying to tell us something!

Just more food for thought.

Garth

Hi Garth.

There is another thing that could be related to Hubble parameter. It is not as clear as it is in the examples you provide, but it could be worth examining it. You will find the thing there : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608202

The drift rates in today's Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillators (CSO) is reported to be linear over many years and in the same direction. The magnitude of the drift ranges from one part in 10^14 per day to a few parts in 10^13 per day. Hubble parameter is 2 parts in 10^13 per day. But this one could of course be accidental.

PS : I mean that the probability that this one is accidental is much higher than for the other ones.

Paul

 

[LeBourdais]

PS : there is an exceptionally simple quantitative hypothesis that seems able to account for all of those phenomena apparently related to the Hubble parameter.

 

[Garth]

PS : there is an exceptionally simple quantitative hypothesis that seems able to account for all of those phenomena apparently related to the Hubble parameter.

Which is?BTW I agree that the drift rates in the Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillators are more likely to be 'accidental' and not cosmological in nature because they do vary so much between CSOs around that value of the Hubble rate.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

An improbable explanation, Le, instrument error is unlikely based on current data.

 

[LeBourdais]

Which is?

Hi Garth.

I will put it on the arXiv one of these days. At least I guess I will.

Concerning the "exceptionally simple", I was joking of course

Paul