What Are the Best Forums for Discussing Non-Mainstream Cosmology Theories?

[Wallace]

Ooops sorry, submitted accidentally before I had finished my post, then timed out for edit (and lost the edits I made, GRRRR).

Anyway, the concise version of what I said is this:

SN1A have a light curve of a common width. That is to say, all SN1A are observed to last for the same amount of time (roughly 2 weeks I think). In the relativistic interpretation of redshift it can be understood to be a time dilation, so if the frequency of light is observed to be halved by redshift then we see that there is a time dilation factor of 2 between the frames of emission and reception. We would then expect that the light curve would also be increased by this factor, i.e. 4 weeks instead of 2. This is precisely what is observed. The width of the light curve increases in lockstep with redshift precisely as predicted by this theory. Tired light can only explain the redshift, not why the light curves increase with it.

Also "the normal interpretation of redshift" generally limits its cause to "relative radial velocity" although perhaps in some branches of SM theory it may include "gravitational redshift".

This is simply wrong. Gravitational redshift is an important and significant contribution to the observed redshift of distant galaxies. They are not simply modeled as Doppler shifts, the GR equations include the effects of gravitational redshift already.

However, there is much laboratory evidence of the impact of significant electric and magnetic fields upon light. Recall the "Zeeman effect, the faraday effect, etc. etc."

The Zeeman effect relates to the way magnetic fields alter the energy levels of electrons in atoms. You see that difference in energy levels via the light emitted but this is not due to the fields acting on the photons. Faraday rotation in the Inter Stellar Medium is an important probe of the properties of this medium. However Faraday rotation alters the polarisation of light, it doesn't induce redshift. Also realize that at the photon level, Faraday rotation is caused by scattering from electrons. We can measure the optical depth to the CMB and know the amount of scattering that has occurred and this is consistent with known physical phenomenon. The effect you are talking about bears absolutely no resemblance to any known phenomenon.

 

[Chronos]

I disagree, you definitely advocated Cahill. Denying it now is evasive.

 

[lonestone]

Chronos, please don't insult me... I made reference to Cahall, author of "Integrated Field Theory". I have no idea who the R. Cahill is that you keep mentioning.

 

[cristo]

Chronos, please don't insult me... I made reference to Cahall, author of "Integrated Field Theory". I have no idea who the R. Cahill is that you keep mentioning.

Give a reference to this paper/article (if it is a published, peer-reviewed article), otherwise stop talking about it. I've asked you more than once for this reference; this is the final time.

 

[lonestone]

Wallace, I appreciate your response which shows that you have a firm grasp on the SM interpretations of these phenomena, however, my perspective is also based upon years of study not merely a hunch and the bottom line is that I do not believe that there is any rational basis for "assuming that the photon is not redshifted" during (due to)extended travel through the EM fields of intergalactic space... and this is a forum for discussing non-mainstream cosmology. As you know HEP is driven by the need to try to find a reasonable explanation as to a cause for the theoretical expansion and my studys have led me to believe quite fervently that HEP is a "house-of-cards" ...and if you read "God Particle" you will note that even Leon Lederman has serious concerns about the viability of SM theory.
"Pause, to Question, & Discover" (a pet phrase of author Cahall)

 

[lonestone]

Cristo, It is a book, not a periodical. What more do you want? Remember that I am new to this forum. The only reason I mentioned it again today is because Chronos keeps insisting that I am referring to a different author whom I know nothing about.
Have a good day!

 

[cristo]

Cristo, It is a book, not a periodical. What more do you want?

I would like a proper reference. One includes the following information when citing books: author, title, date of publication, publication info (location and publisher's name), page number. Just giving a name and a title is not sufficient, especially when a google search doesn't return anything.

Furthermore, I should emphasise that, whilst you are free to discuss non-mainstream theories, they must be theories that have been peer-reviewed. Any work that has not been peer-reviewed may not be discussed here.

 

[MiltMeyers]

Lonestone, you are maybe right about the tired photon but the background radition is surrounding us to the point that anywere we point we go to this. If this is not older and smaller a universe than we are in now the whole house of cards as you say would fall down. At least my house of cards and I would spend more time cooking. Do you like baby back ribs?

milt

 

[Freezeezy]

I am sorry to go off on a tangent with this, so here it is:

Is Modified Newtonian Dynamics a "non-mainstream" theory? Because it seems VERY convincing. Not only does it explain the galactic rotational-constant that Dark Matter has tried to do for so long, it also fits right in with normal Newtonian Dynamics... Plus I personally believe that Dark Matter doesn't exist. Plain and simple: I think we just have the gravity-equation wrong again (as always). I mean, I have seen the tests to detect Dark Matter, but their results have all been too vague and over-glorified. The a0 property of Modified Newtonian Dynamics, the addition of gravity to the acceleration-equation, is a perfectly fine theory to look at more deeply.

Thanks for your time. I hope I haven't offended someone (again).

 

[nicksauce]

While MOND may be a "non-mainstream" theorem in the sense that not many people accept it, it seems to be a well researched theory, as far as I can tell.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+MOND/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

[Wallace]

Wallace, I appreciate your response which shows that you have a firm grasp on the SM interpretations of these phenomena, however, my perspective is also based upon years of study not merely a hunch and the bottom line is that I do not believe that there is any rational basis for "assuming that the photon is not redshifted" during (due to)extended travel through the EM fields of intergalactic space... and this is a forum for discussing non-mainstream cosmology.

Tired light was a topic of great interest for many years. A lot of people spent a lot of time looking at this idea. As I have said, this idea has been abandoned because it simply was unable to explain more recent data. If in your years of study you have not looked at the significant amounts of literature about this, including the papers that essentially defeated this as a viable hypothesis I urge you to do so. What I meant about a 'hunk' is that you do not backup you statements along the lines of "I do not believe that there is any rational basis for ..." without saying why. The only reason we have arrived at the current best guess theory is through observation and rational thought, so such motherhood statements are meaningless without addressing the significant literature on this topic, which you have not done.

As you know HEP is driven by the need to try to find a reasonable explanation as to a cause for the theoretical expansion and my studys have led me to believe quite fervently that HEP is a "house-of-cards" ...and if you read "God Particle" you will note that even Leon Lederman has serious concerns about the viability of SM theory.
"Pause, to Question, & Discover" (a pet phrase of author Cahall)

Indeed, we do not know why the Universe began to expand in the first place and as you say answering this why is one of the goals of HEP. However, regardless of this, the empirical evidence that the Universe is expanding is overwhelming. We don't need to know why apples fall to believe that they do, since we can simply see that they do!

 

[Wallace]

I am sorry to go off on a tangent with this, so here it is:

Is Modified Newtonian Dynamics a "non-mainstream" theory? Because it seems VERY convincing. Not only does it explain the galactic rotational-constant that Dark Matter has tried to do for so long, it also fits right in with normal Newtonian Dynamics... Plus I personally believe that Dark Matter doesn't exist. Plain and simple: I think we just have the gravity-equation wrong again (as always). I mean, I have seen the tests to detect Dark Matter, but their results have all been too vague and over-glorified. The a0 property of Modified Newtonian Dynamics, the addition of gravity to the acceleration-equation, is a perfectly fine theory to look at more deeply.

Thanks for your time. I hope I haven't offended someone (again).

MOND is roughly as good as dark matter at explaining rotation curves of galaxies and dispersion velocities of galaxy clusters. However MOND fails to describe gravitational lensing results and has not been successfully generalised to a theory that can explain the large scale structure seen in the Universe. For these reasons, to name a few, MOND isn't the most popular theory. However modified gravity theories in general are an active area of research.

 

[Freezeezy]

MOND is roughly as good as dark matter at explaining rotation curves of galaxies and dispersion velocities of galaxy clusters. However MOND fails to describe gravitational lensing results and has not been successfully generalised to a theory that can explain the large scale structure seen in the Universe. For these reasons, to name a few, MOND isn't the most popular theory. However modified gravity theories in general are an active area of research.

I am curious (spoken like an academic). What "large scale structure" are you speaking of?

And I do know of the gravitational lensing issue... I'm just stubborn to trust Dark Matter. Seems to me like the crackpot Æther that Aristotle created (trying hard not to offend). Another example is Einstein refusing to believe that the universe is expanding... so he tried creating a variable, Einstein's Missing Piece, to try and make up for this..

 

[Wallace]

I am curious (spoken like an academic). What "large scale structure" are you speaking of?

Everything! Galaxies, clusters of galaxies and their statistical distribution. Starting from an almost homogeneous Unvierse with small perturbations (as seen in the CMB) if you evolve this Universe under MOND without dark matter (something that has been done in the literature) you don't get anywhere near the level of structure in the Universe that we see. On the other hand doing the same thing with dark matter does re-produce what is seen in the real Universe.

If you like, MOND can explain galaxy rotation curves but fails to actually form those galaxies in the first place (at least not the number, size, distribution etc of galaxies that we see).

And I do know of the gravitational lensing issue... I'm just stubborn to trust Dark Matter. Seems to me like the crackpot Æther that Aristotle created (trying hard not to offend).

Nobody 'trusts' dark matter. It is simply a theory that explains the data better than any other theory that has been proposed. Where by 'the data' I mean all the data.

 

[Chronos]

Chronos, please don't insult me... I made reference to Cahall, author of "Integrated Field Theory". I have no idea who the R. Cahill is that you keep mentioning.

Apologies, the subject matter is similar to Cahill, a controversial figure in the scientific community. It appears you are referring to James 'Scott' Cahall, an invited speaker at:The New Natural Philosophy: Introduction to 21st-Century Physics and Cosmology - hosted by some rather notorious personalites - Paul Marmet, Thomas Van Flandern and Halton Arp. Cahall presented this discussion: Revised Applications of the Inverse Square Law as a Foundation for Integrated Physics. I am unable to find any published material credited to him on arxiv, or in the popular press.

 

[lonestone]

Wallace! The only way a photon can interact with an electron is to interact with the electromagetic field of the electron. The interactions which we can readily observe in the laboratory provide a logical basis for anticipating that there are more subtle interactions with the electromagnetic background fileds that we can not observe in our laboratory because they are too subtle. You seem to assume that because you do not agree with me that my viewpoint is not legitimate. I thought you were a scientist and it is my understanding that scientists are by nature sceptics who continue to investigate new points of view. I believe that nonexpansionist cosmology should be given much more attention, however, in this era it seems that scientists are largely dogmatic about their current belief systems. I have tried to make a contribution to this "non-mainstream" thread but it seems that no one is interested in hearing a non- "standard model" point of view. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying to find others who know of non-SM literature since the such literature can not get past the dogmatic bias of the reviewers. I am interested in teaching non- SM theory because in doing so I believe that I am enhancing scientific attitudes and aptitudes. We need more progresssive scientists and a lot less dogmatic sensoring of what gets published.

 

[cristo]

I have tried to make a contribution to this "non-mainstream" thread but it seems that no one is interested in hearing a non- "standard model" point of view. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying to find others who know of non-SM literature since the such literature can not get past the dogmatic bias of the reviewers.

I'm afraid that such discussions, of unpublished theories, is not permitted at PF. It's one thing seeking articles, but you do not appear to be doing this: you appear to be intent on discussing theories which are not published, and refuse to provide reputable links when requested to do so.

Thus, this thread is done. If anyone has anything useful to add to this thread, feel free to PM me.