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

[81+]

Hi everyone. This is my first post so at this point I want to thank all of you for your terrific and interesting and informative forum on cosmology.

I understand, and agree with, not getting into non-mainstream theories not published in peer-reviewed journals in this discussion group that covers cosmology . But I find these areas are also of interest to me along with everything in this cosmology forum.

Can anyone tell me what forum, that is composed of members who are as knowlegeabe as you guys here, that more or less covers (or at least allows) non-mainstream theories like Andrei Linde's proposal that there may have been (and may continue to be) areas in already existing universes that sprout new universe (big bangs) from older universes, etc., etc.?

Thanks.

Frank

 

[Wallace]

I think you have misunderstood the nature of this forum. I don't speak with any authority here, but my understanding is that discussion of 'non-mainstream' scientific theories are perfectly permissible here. For instance there are many discussion of MOND, a non-mainstream alternative theory to dark matter. Non-mainstream theories are perfectly welcome, what we don't bother discussing here are poorly formulated personal theories that are not rigorously developed.

In order to avoid subjective judgement the rules are clear, if the theory appears in a scientific journal then it is fair game. Appearing in a journal doesn't make an idea correct, but it does mean it has passed some level of scrutiny in terms of it being a sensibly formulated idea. There are probably as many journal articles about 'non-mainstream' cosmology as there are ones about the 'mainstream'.

For the ideas you mention, do you know what papers they appear in? If you have never searched for journal articles before, just ask as plenty of people around here can help you learn how to do this, it is surprisingly easy.

In any case welcome to PF!

 

[marcus]

You are attracted by multiverse speculations, it looks like

I don't know of a forum where they discuss such ideas intelligently but I have an idea for you.

There is a book about different multiverse ideas, with about 20 different authors. I would suggest that you read the book, so you are not stuck on just ONE person that you heard about, but instead know 5 or 6 or 7 different ideas that grab you

and then start writing email.

Maybe 5 out of 6 won't answer. But keep trying. If you come across as reasonably articulate and sensible, someone will answer.

You may not find a forum, but if you make one or two email contacts you will eventually find a BLOG where some people discuss things like "eternal inflation" scenarios.

I am thinking how to proceed in worst case. There might be a great forum for this right around the corner and I just not know about it.

but even in the worst case you can
1. educate yourself about several different ideas
2. write email to several authors asking questions (authors like being asked questions about their writings by intelligent readers)
3. learn about good webites (if any exist) from your email contacts.
===================

So the book I would recommend is expensive, with many authors represented, and I hope you can persuade the local library to order it, so you don't have to buy it yourself, unless you a rich old dude.

Universe or Multiverse edited by Bernard Carr
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521848415/?tag=pfamazon01-20

read what the reviewer Jill Walter says. The list of authors and chapter titles is impressive. I can find it at the Cambridge Press website for you if you want. Amazon does not have a table of contents chapter listing

Like wallace says, you also might get a conversation started here about multiverse. I personally don't think it is science because no connection with observational data. Pure fantasy. But people differ. A lot of people entertain multiverse notions because they previously bought on to string theory and then discovered that string apparently does not predict a unique version of physics. It predicts a haystack. the choice is to drop string and look for something better, or keep string and start believing in an infinity of more or less equal likely versions of physics (which might be concretely imagined as an infinity of distinct universes) or as all eternally sprouting from random fluctuations as per Andrei Linde.

It doesn't interest me personally because I see it as too likely that we can find a better more predictive fundamental theory that WILL make unique predictions. so I take the first choice I mentioned. discard string and watch the ongoing development of newer approaches.

But that is just my personal view and I encourage you to follow the multiverse idea if it fascinates you. Always best to follow what you find exciting and stimulating.

 

[81+]

Thanks Wallace and Marcus. Your comments are of help and I'll try them all.

Frank

 

[marcus]

Thanks Wallace and Marcus. Your comments are of help and I'll try them all.

Frank

You sound interested. I did a search and found the page at Cambridge Press with the Table of Contents

http://cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521848411

You can see there are a couple of Nobelists, and many authors, and scientists on both sides of the issue...

But the thing costs $85 and I worry about suggesting anything that expensive especially in this case. Multiverse speculations are ultimately a pretty wild goose, I fear.
But there it is. Only you can know what's right.

=========================
In case other people read this, and are interested, the link above gives the names of the chapters, and I will list the various authors here who contributed. A lot of eminent people were involved in the book

Bernard Carr, Steven Weinberg, Frank Wilczek, Martin J. Rees, S. W. Hawking, Max Tegmark, Andrei Linde, Alexander Vilenkin, James D. Bjorken, Renata Kallosh, Savas Dimopoulos, Scott Thomas, Craig J. Hogan, John F. Donoghue, Leonard Susskind, V. F. Mukhanov, James. B. Hartle, Brandon Carter, Lee Smolin, Anthony Aguirre, George Ellis, Don N. Page, Nick Bostrom, William R. Stoeger, Robin Collins, John D. Barrow, Paul Davies

 

[marcus]

Oh, you can often find free preprints of people scholarly writings at either arxiv or spires.

http://arxiv.org/
http://arxiv.org/multi?group=grp_physics&/find=Search

you see the search tool? type in any of those authors names (last name, or last name and initial) and see what is available in PDF to download free.

narrow the search by selecting "comments" from the pulldown menu beside the box, and typing in Multiverse, some other keyword like Carr ---the editor's name

If I type Smolin in for author, and Multiverse Carr in for comments, I get
a free copy of the chapter that Smolin contributed to the book
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/AND+au:+smolin+co:+AND+multiverse+carr/0/1/0/all/0/1

I could also just not put any author in the box and only just select "comments" in the menu beside the box, and type in Multiverse Carr, then I would probably get several free chapters, like this

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/co:+AND+multiverse+carr/0/1/0/all/0/1

yes, that gives 7 free chapters by various people including Nobel laureate Frank Wilzcek. So that's an easy way to get a taste without spending 85 bucks. You can download and print out any of those. Or just scan and decide you arent interested.

the actual book can be better than the preprints of contributed chapters, which often get revised and edited, but still the preprints give some idea

 

[intel]

Marcus - can observational data from particle accelerators not be used to support or disprove a multiverse theory?

 

[cristo]

Marcus - can observational data from particle accelerators not be used to support or disprove a multiverse theory?

What sort of observational data do you mean? Have you read something suggesting that this may be the case?

 

[Chronos]

Marcus - can observational data from particle accelerators not be used to support or disprove a multiverse theory?

I'm not marcus, but, I give that notion a resounding 'Yes'. Particle physics and cosmology go hand in hand, IMO.

 

[lonestone]

I am new to the forum. I am looking for opportunities to link with others who recognize that much if not most of the mainstream cosmology has an underlying fatal flaw.. namely their dependence upon a definition for Doppler which contains a "presumption of exclusive cause".
I do not have ready access to major educational centers/libraries so I will be happy to receive your suggestions re: websites or (books by authors that are in print)
I wish to review any published nonmainstream theories which do not assume that that the universe is expanding or that it began in a hot/condensed state. I personally do not consider the peer review process a sufficiently objective process... I believe that it fails to fairly consider new paradigms and nonexpansionist cosmologies.

Also, please advise..is it safe to give out my E-mail address? I do not wish to be overwhelmed by lengthy responses but it would be good to be able to receive some concise "references" and "links".

 

[Chronos]

There is no 'fatal flaw' in modern cosmology. It is very solid. Where did you get that idea?

 

[lonestone]

Chronos responded, "There is no 'fatal flaw' in modern cosmology. It is very solid. Where did you get that idea? "
No disrespect to your perspective on this matter.. however, modern cosmology is dominated by expansionist theory and expansionist theory is completely dependant upon its ignorance of other causes of Doppler including gravitational redshift which Einstein admitted was essential for the validity of his General Relativity theory. This flaw was pointed out by Cahall in Integrated Field Theory (c) 1995 and I feel that it is good science to recognize that non-expansionist theory is a valid alternative perspective.
__________________

 

[Chronos]

I believe you meant Cahill. He is, to put it mildly, not credible. Try Ned Wright's web page as an alternative source.

 

[Wallace]

..modern cosmology is dominated by expansionist theory and expansionist theory is completely dependant upon its ignorance of other causes of Doppler including gravitational redshift which Einstein admitted was essential for the validity of his General Relativity theory. This flaw was pointed out by Cahall in Integrated Field Theory (c) 1995 and I feel that it is good science to recognize that non-expansionist theory is a valid alternative perspective.

Gravitational redshift is an important phenomenon and its effects are observed in a variety of astronomical observations. Gravitational redshift however could not lead to the observed Hubble law unless gravity operates in a way that is very different to General Relativity.

Any theory you want to imagine is a 'valid alternative perspective' and 'good science' is then the process of confronting different perspectives (or theories) with the data. Doing this shows that a model in which the Universe is expanding and General Relativity describes gravity is a good fit to the data. Other models are not so good, but any new model proposed is just as valid and would become the 'mainstream' model if it did better when confronted with the data.

A theory that simply suggests that the Universe is not expanding and redshifts are caused by gravitational redshift is clearly ruled out by the data, for more reasons than I can think to list. If you have a reference (that conforms to PF guidelines) that demonstrates otherwise then please share it with us. I think you will struggle to do this however.

 

[lonestone]

I thank Wallace for his comments but as a point of clarification, "Integrated Field Theory" by Cahall (not Cahill) considers "transit" Doppler (due to the interaction of the photon with the electromagnetic fields) to be the primary cause of the apparent excess of redshift observed in the spectra of extragalactic sources. It seems like a far more credible understanding of excess redshift that the unexplainable sudden expansion of the early Universe.

 

[Wallace]

Any interaction between photons and any thing else show up observationally through a variety of mechanisms. Therefore if cosmological redshift was caused by such a mechanism it would be immediately obvious. It would be 'the' theory. The absence of any such observational evidence makes this a bad model.

 

[MiltMeyers]

Sorry as I didn't realize that you all were that far ahead of me to the point you didn't want to take the time to point out the errors of my ways. I will leave the forum and go elsewere.

milt

 

[cristo]

Sorry as I didn't realize that you all were that far ahead of me to the point you didn't want to take the time to point out the errors of my ways. I will leave the forum and go elsewere.

milt

I'm confused: where has this comment come from? You haven't posted in this thread before

 

[MiltMeyers]

No, no post to this thread but I posted to 4 other threads and shut them down so I felt that it was due to posting my own theorys. Maybe I should find a good book on beginning cosmology but the problem with that is when I disagree there is no one to talk to. This group sounds very well educated and maybe I'm just not in their league but if I just post one post a day and keep it simple could someone take the time to educate me or point out the error of my ways? Maybe I should try another forum.

 

[Chronos]

Championing Reginald Cahill's views will not get you much traction here.

 

[lonestone]

Championing Reginald Cahill's views will not get you much traction here.

Cristo, please note that I have made no reference whatever to a "Reginald Cahill" and I have no idea why you made that assumption.

 

[lonestone]

Any interaction between photons and any thing else show up observationally through a variety of mechanisms. Therefore if cosmological redshift was caused by such a mechanism it would be immediately obvious. It would be 'the' theory. The absence of any such observational evidence makes this a bad model.

I appreciate your expression of your opinion, Wallace, but you have missed the obvious, namely that the excess redshift observed in extragalactic spectra may well be caused by a subtle interaction between photons (an electromagnetic wave) and the electromagnetic fields of intergalactic space during the extended travel time. I find this interpretation of the cause far more credible than the popluar "expansion" theory.

 

[Garth]

I appreciate your expression of your opinion, Wallace, but you have missed the obvious, namely that the excess redshift observed in extragalactic spectra may well be caused by a subtle interaction between photons (an electromagnetic wave) and the electromagnetic fields of intergalactic space during the extended travel time. I find this interpretation of the cause far more credible than the popluar "expansion" theory.

In a non-expanding universe explain the primordial relative abundance of hydrogen, helium and deuterium and the CMB.

Garth

 

[lonestone]

In a non-expanding universe explain the primordial relative abundance of hydrogen, helium and deuterium and the CMB.Garth

I doubt that my explanation will satisfy anyone who has their mind already made up, however, it is quite simple. The simplest elements are naturally those which formed first in the very early evolution of the universe from a cold background of nonrelativistic neutrinos.
The CMB is the accumulation of the extremely transit redshifted photons from the very remote regions of the universe. The longest wavelengths tend to accumulate because they are the least interactive (i.e. they redshift less)and more interactive wavelengths redshift toward these CMB wavelengths. The CMB is strong evidence in support of a view of the universe which is indefinitely (if not infinitely) vast in its dimensions.

 

[Garth]

I doubt that my explanation will satisfy anyone who has their mind already made up,

My mind is not already made up, but you cannot ignore evidence.

however, it is quite simple. The simplest elements are naturally those which formed first in the very early evolution of the universe from a cold background of nonrelativistic neutrinos.

But how do you get a relative abundance by mass of ~3/4 H and ~1/4 He? BBN explains this very nicely.

The CMB is the accumulation of the extremely transit redshifted photons from the very remote regions of the universe. The longest wavelengths tend to accumulate because they are the least interactive (i.e. they redshift less)and more interactive wavelengths redshift toward these CMB wavelengths. The CMB is strong evidence in support of a view of the universe which is indefinitely (if not infinitely) vast in its dimensions.

But where is the background radiation from the 'intermediate' red-shifted photons?

Garth

 

[lonestone]

No, Garth, we can not ignore the evidence! Why do you think I hold the opinions that I hold? Give my comments some time to sink in and you will (hopefully) be able to answer your questions based upon what I already said in my last response. Keep in mind that the interactivity of any photon is a function of its frequency with the lowest frequencies being the least interactive. The relative abundance of any element is obviously a function of the abundance of the element from which it is derived but abundance is also influenced by several other factors including relative stability of the element, its predecessor, and the products of fission of the heavier elements.

 

[MiltMeyers]

Here is my one post a day. Lonestone, I agree with you and I also think neutrinos had a hand in normal matter. I also think Gravity was canceled by mater antimater mix and spread into flat space or faster than light is now in "Normal" space. I feel however that the CMB is from a finite space and time and since it is visible(Microwave) there is no horizon till that point but there could be on the way to the singularity.

Garth---That went over my head I'm afraid.Photons are invisible in normal space arn't they? We may find protogalaxies at below light frequencies.

Sorry to be jumping in the middle of these posts and the above is the way I've figured it out so please straighten me out.

 

[Wallace]

Lonestone, what you are advocating is a 'tired light' theory. That is, the idea that for whatever reason, photons lose energy as they travel, causing redshift.

As a class of theories, tired light has been thoroughly ruled out by a variety of observations, the clearest being the redshift - light curve width relationship of supernovae type 1A. This is consistent with the normal interpretation of redshift which is effectively a time dilation between the frames of emission and observation. Tired light cannot explain this relationship.

That is before we get into any discussion of the fact that this supposed process hasn't been observed in the laboratory.

 

[lonestone]

Wallace brought up the notion of "tired light" theories and asserts that they have been thoroughly discounted, however, I do not think it is reasonable to assert that any such subtle long term effects (as I suggest) of electromagnetic fields on the photon could ever be discounted by a laboratory experiment.
I am not sure what he means by "redshift - light curve width relationship". 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". 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."

 

[Wallace]

Wallace brought up the notion of "tired light" theories and asserts that they have been thoroughly discounted, however, I do not think it is reasonable to assert that any such subtle long term effects (as I suggest) of electromagnetic fields on the photon could ever be discounted by a laboratory experiment.

I'm not asserting that tired light has been thoroughly discussed, do a quick search on ADS and you will find more papers to read than you have rainy days to read them. People have done a lot better than having a gut feeling about how such effects might manifest themselves.

I am not sure what he means by "redshift - light curve width relationship".

SN1

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". 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."[/QUOTE]

 

[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.