Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: Fits to SNLS Data & Implications

[wolram]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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

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

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

 

[SpaceTiger]

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.

 

[wolram]

Well hey, i can not pick (all) the good ones.

 

[Nereid]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.