Alternative cosmology: the arp-narlikar's variable mass theory

  • Thread starter dan74
  • Start date
44
0
If alternative theories are proposed that do a better job than the 'main' theory then they become the prevailing theory and cease being 'alternative'. It doesn't matter who proposes them, if a theory fits it will fly in the end. That's not to say that the modern practice of science is devoid of any sociology, obviously the titles and achievements of someone are not ignored when considering what they have said, but none the less if a complete unknown comes up with something interesting scientists do listen.
That's not true in my case. Over 23 years ago I have explained the accelerating expansion of the universe as an illusion (with Einstein's theory of gravitation). The theoretically predicted Hubble constant and its acceleration (discovered only 15 years later) are observed as Einstein's theory predicts them for a static universe (within a reasonable error of course: H_0 as 70km/s/Mpc for density of the universe 6x10^{-27}kg/m^3 and dH/dt/H_0^2 as -0.5), and yet no scientist, even in my university where I was an astronomy student, never payed any attention to it. I still can't make any of experts to read my paper ("no time" they say). The referees didn't find an error but it was irrelevant for them since all believed that "the universe is expanding". And if proving theoretically with Einstein's gravitation that in the stationary universe of density of ours there must be an illusion of accelerating expansion with observed parameters, not to mention local quasars, and 'anomalous' acceleration of space probes (also discovered later), is not interesting enough then please give me an example of what is more interesting than that. BTW, what is "high metalicity of quasars" and why it seems to be strange?
As a case in point, Halton Arp is still well respected for being a very good observer who has achieved a lot of great science. None the less his cosmological model is clearly unsupported by the evidence and hence is not respected. The cosmological community didn't simply believe Arp because of his reputation, his idea was judged on it's merits, or lack there of.
Arp's cosmological model is wrong but only because thanks to BB experts he thought that those experts excluded Einstein's gravitation as a possible source of cosmological redshift and that's why he accepted Narlikar's theory of flat spacetime (which is the result, following from Einstein's theory as well) and variable mass (which is not supported by Einstein's theory). If he had known that Einstein's theory explains his observations of local quasars, he wouldn't need variable mass theory. So thanks to BB experts we are at least 23 years behind where we could be if those experts had time to read a short one pege explanation by "a complete unknown" how Einstein's theory explains the "cosmological redshift" (which they themselves for a very simple reason couldn't find in Einstein's theory; I hope it is not treated as highjacking the thread, since it is a direct response to your message).

Another question: is there any way of making astronomers aware of the fact that Einstein's theory of gravitation plus the principle of conservation of energy (presently denied by BB experts) are able to produce for the stationary universe a unique value of the Hubble constant coupled only to the average density of the universe and its acceleration coupled only to its value at the observer?
 
Last edited:
44
0
May I remind members that personal theories CANNOT be discussed in way, shape or form on this forum :grumpy:
Can Einstein's theory of gravitation be discussed, even if it happens to predict the redshift in stationary universe (corresponding to the dynamical friction of photons in the Newtonian approximation)? The problem with it is that the dynamical friction of photons in Einstein's theory comes out as inversly proportional to the radius of curvature of space and in the Newtonian approximation there is negligible curvature of space so this "friction" comes out as negligible and as such may be used to hypothesize that it can't be responsible for the cosmological redshift. Not so in Einstein's theory and for the radius of curvature R=4.3 Gpc the Hubble constant comes out as 70km/s/Mpc (theoretically as c/R, where c is speed of light). Which is dengerously close to what is observed and fairly tough to explain within BB theory in which the dynamical friction of photons is assumed to be the same as in Newtonian approximation ("negligible").
 
Last edited:

Wallace

Science Advisor
1,249
0
JJ, an static Universe within GR requires an exact balance between matter density and the cosmological constant. If this was the case, I guess you would get a small gravitational blueshift from distant objects, but certainly not a redshift. Not in Einsteins gravity. I have no idea what you mean by 'dynamical friction of photons' but it sounds like tired light, a theory that has been amply demonstrated to not fit the data.

My point that you claim hasn't been applied to your idea clearly has. You mention a very small subset of the data. What does your idea predict for: the CMB, the observed evolution of structure with redshift (including a prediction of the function form of this), the Lyman alpha forest, the matter power spectrum, the Baryon Accoustic scale in the matter power spectrum, the star formation rate evolution of galaxies, the 'Quasar epoch' around redshift 1... the list could go on for a long time.

The current theory predicts well all of these and more. A better theory has to do better over all available data, not just a very small subset, and your theory fails even for the very basic data you mention.
 
44
0
JJ, an static Universe within GR requires an exact balance between matter density and the cosmological constant. If this was the case, I guess you would get a small gravitational blueshift from distant objects, but certainly not a redshift. Not in Einsteins gravity. I have no idea what you mean by 'dynamical friction of photons' but it sounds like tired light, a theory that has been amply demonstrated to not fit the data.
Wallace, you are right about it sounding like tired light and about the tired light being discredited, but you are wrong about calling it my theory since it is only pure Einsteinian relativity or rather it exact consequesnce that my part of it is that I noticed it in Einstein's theory of 1916, or rather 1917 when he discovred the "static universe").

It is a much deeper issue than I'm allowed to write about here without being thrown out from the forum for highjaking the thread. So if you are interested in details you would need to open a separate thread in which anti-BB Einsteinian physics and all the other things that you mentioned could be discussed, without interference from moderators and I can bet my whole bonus I just got from Bush against just one dollar from you that you won't be able to find a hole in what I claim is pure and exact consequence of Einsteinian physics (not necessarily known to Einstein himself since, as he mentioned, after "mathematicians started explaining his theory to him he stopped understanding it").
 

Wallace

Science Advisor
1,249
0
If what you say above it true, then you should have no problems submitting your work in the https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146" sub-forum. The rules, as enforced by the moderators, for the main part of the forum are there for good reason and I thoroughly support them. I look forward to seeing your submission there (and collecting your bonus ;) ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George Jones

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,229
782
JimJast, as Wallace has said, personal theories are allowed only in the Independent Research Forum. You have been sent a Personal Message with more details.
 

Related Threads for: Alternative cosmology: the arp-narlikar's variable mass theory

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
536
Replies
1
Views
679

Hot Threads

Top