# No dark energy

1. Dec 19, 2007

### wolram

Dark Energy and the Hubble Constant
Authors: H. Arp
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Dark energy is inferred from a Hubble expansion which is slower at epochs which are earlier than ours. But evidence reviewed here shows $H_0$ for nearby galaxies is actually less than currently adopted and would instead require {\it deceleration} to reach the current value.
Distances of Cepheid variables in galaxies in the Local Supercluster have been measured by the Hubble Space Telescope and it is argued here that they require a low value of $H_0$ along with redshifts which are at least partly intrinsic. The intrinsic component is hypothesized to be a result of the particle masses increasing with time.
The same considerations apply to Dark Matter. But with particle masses growing with time, the condensation from plasmoid to proto galaxy not only does away with the need for unseen dark matter'' but also explains the intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts of younger matter.

2. Dec 19, 2007

### marcus

Wolram what do you mean by dragging in a paper by Halton Arp!
You are not supposed to do that. Naughty fellow!
Halton Arp is not mainstream.
It wastes the moderators' time and patience because the ideas go far afield and are exhausting to pursue and destroy. I propose to ignore this.

BTW your other recent find---the Structure Formation paper by Richard Ellis and Joe Silk---was excellent. It more than cancels out this minor sin of Arpery.
Here is Wolram's Silk/Ellis post in case anyone didn't see it

Last edited: Dec 19, 2007
3. Dec 19, 2007

### wolram

Every one deserves to be heard, if the paper does not meet posting rules throw it out.

4. Dec 19, 2007

### marcus

Well OK. I imagine it does meet posting rules and I don't have anything to do with throwing stuff out.
But I balk at the idea that particle masses increase over time (compared to what?)
And that seems to be his big idea here. He is using particle masses increasing over time to explain a portion of observed redshift. So I can see nothing for me to do but shut up.

It's off the deep end, Wolram. In my humble, it would not be publishable in a hundred years. now I will kindly hold my peace, and wish you the best.

Last edited: Dec 19, 2007
5. Dec 19, 2007

### Wallace

6. Dec 20, 2007

### wolram

Only that i find it more and more difficult to think along the lines that our universe is composed mainly of dark matter and energy, OK it fits the theory, but that does not mean
that it is right, i would change my view at the drop of a hat if some physical evidence
was found for a CDM particle, but M stream view seems to be if a WIMP is not found then there is x,y,z particle in reserve, i am not a scientist, just a man in the street trying to understand, it is you guys making things difficult.

7. Dec 20, 2007

### Wallace

Do you find it more likely that fundamental particles, like electrons etc, were changing there mass by a significant amount over time, with no good theoretical reason for them to do so?

Not only that, but that the masses change at such a rate as to perfectly mimic the signal of an expanding universe?

I make no apology on behalf of scientists that science is difficult. To paraphrase Fred Hoyle, if it was easy we would have worked it all out all ready!

8. Dec 20, 2007

### wolram

No i do not, but the same could be said for dark energy and matter, you have no physical evidence for dark matter, i guess it was proposed because it fits observation and is all most impossible to disprove, at least short term.

9. Dec 20, 2007

### Chronos

Arp's variable mass hypothesis is logically inconsistent. It conveniently explains a few curiousities at the expense of an abundance of contradicting observation.

10. Dec 20, 2007

### wolram

That may be, but could you give some bounds for the CDM particle, if that fails the HDM particle, or some thing in between? AFAIK there are a multitude of candidates that could take decades to dis prove.

11. Dec 20, 2007

### Garth

We should not forget that Arp is an accomplished observer, even if puts a 'maverick' interpretation on those observations. (But even then science needs its mavericks to have theories against which the standard models may be tested.)

If he is an accomplished observer what do we then make of his Figures 1 & 2?

They suggest that the local measured value of H0 is less than the cosmological one. In the local supercluster they suggest a value of around 50 km/sec/Mpc instead of 72 km/sec/Mpc.

There has been a lot of controversy about the value of H0 over the years, which has been more or less settled by the fit to the CMB anisotropy power spectrum, however, that by its nature is cosmological in nature.

Apart from his variable mass interpretation, a local value of H0 that is lower than a global value would also be evidence that we happen to be sitting in a local void.

If this is so then the interpretation of the apparent magnitudes with red shift of SNe Ia at local and cosmological distances would then give the illusion that the universe is accelerating under the influence of DE..........

Just a thought.

Garth

12. Dec 20, 2007

### Janus

Staff Emeritus
Locking for now.