Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

No big bang

  1. Feb 24, 2006 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500

    Authors: Ari Brynjolfsson
    Comments: 8 pages, 4 figures, presented at APS April 2006 meeting

    We have previously shown that the type Ia supernovae data by Riess et al. match the prediction of the magnitude-redshift relation in the plasma-redshift cosmology. In this article, we also show that the recent SNLS data, which have a slightly narrower distribution as reported by Astier et al. in 2005, match the predictions of the plasma-redshift cosmology. The standard deviation of the SNLS-magnitude from the predicted curve is only about 0.14. The data indicate that there is no cosmic time dilation. The big-bang cosmology therefore appears false. The plasma redshift, which follows from exact evaluation of photons interaction with hot sparse electron plasma, leads to a quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting universe. It does not need big bang, dark energy, or dark matter for describing the observations. It predicts intrinsic redshifts of galaxies consistent with what is observed. The Hubble constant that best fits the SNLS data is about 63 km per sec per Mpc. This corresponds to an average electron density of about 0.0002 per cubic centimeter in intergalactic space. This density together with the plasma redshift heating to an average plasma temperature in intergalactic space of about 3 million K explains the observed isotropic cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the cosmic X-ray background.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 24, 2006 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I hate to tell you this, but the 2006 APS April meeting hasn't occured yet.

    I know you copied that off the arxiv page, but (i) one doesn't present a "paper" at either the March or April meeting, so what this "paper" here is supposed to be is a mystery (ii) there are no conference proceedings at those meetings (iii) this person has a lot of explaining to do on where he intends to submit this for publication.

    Zz.
     
  4. Feb 24, 2006 #3

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As ZZ already implied, it's unlikely this would accepted to respectable journal. Unfortunately, there's only so much arXiv can do to filter out crackpot submissions.
     
  5. Feb 24, 2006 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well hey, i can not pick (all) the good ones.:redface:
     
  6. Feb 24, 2006 #5

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ari has been 'on' PF's astronomy section before; his plasma cosmology idea (I doubt that it's sufficiently well developed to call it a model yet) is not entirely novel. The amount of 'unexplaining' he will have to do is huge - just about all of extragalactic astrophysics (and much of stellar astrophysics no doubt too).

    Let's wait and see if he can even get this published.
     
  7. Feb 25, 2006 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Arxiv appears to have lightened up on what/who has been granted preprint priveleges over the past few months. Eric Lerner and Halton Arp, to name a couple, have graced the archive recently after rather lengthy absences. A kinder, gentler Arxiv? Some of the 'mavericks' in theoretical circles mounted a campaign against Arxiv 'censorship' last year which garnered some sympathy. And I think that is a good move. It is not good science to exclude ideas not decisively refuted - albeit I think speculative papers should be held to a higher standard than mainstream material [e.g, make reasonably falsifiable predictions]. Besides, it's great fun for us unwashed masses to have stuff upon which even we can inflict puncture wounds.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: No big bang
  1. Big Bang (Replies: 2)

  2. Big bangs? (Replies: 6)

  3. The Big Bang (Replies: 17)

  4. The Big Bang (Replies: 2)

  5. The Big Bang (Replies: 38)

Loading...