Cosmology looks beyond the standard model

Cosmology looks beyond the standard model
Comparison of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and sterile neutrino simulations of Milky Way-like dark matter haloes (the invisible “skeleton" within which the galaxy will actually form). The "Milky Way" would form somewhere near the centre (the yellowish bit), with its satellite galaxies distributed among the many of smaller haloes around it. On the left is a visualisation of the Milky Way environment in a Universe dominated by CDM; on the right is the same object seen in a sterile neutrino dark matter Universe. While there are thousands of satellite galaxies in the CDM model, their abundance is greatly reduced in the sterile neutrino case. The net result is a “smoother” halo in the sterile neutrino case, compared to the “lumpy” CDM one. The simulations were created at the Institute for Computational Cosmology in Durham as part of the Aquarius supercomputing project undertaken by the Virgo consortium. Credit: Aquarius/Virgo/ICC Durham University

What are the mysterious dark matter and dark energy that seem to account for so much of our Universe? Why is the Universe expanding? For the past 30 years, most cosmologists have looked to the 'standard model' to answer these questions, and have had wide-ranging success in simulating formation in the universe and matching observational data. But not everything quite fits the predictions. Are these discrepancies down to the interpretation of observations, or is a more fundamental rethink required? On Tuesday 7th July, a special session at the National Astronomy Meeting (NAM) 2015 has been convened for astronomers to take stock of the evidence and stimulate further investigation of cosmology beyond the standard model.

The most popular candidate for the elusive particles that give the Universe extra mass is Cold Dark Matter (CDM). CDM particles are thought to move slowly compared to the speed of light and interact very weakly with electromagnetic radiation. However, no one has managed to detect CDM to date. Sownak Bose from Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology (ICC) will present new predictions at NAM 2015 for a different candidate for , the sterile neutrino, which may have been detected recently.

"The neutrinos are sterile in that they interact even more weakly than ordinary neutrinos; their predominant interaction is via gravity," explained Bose. "The key difference with CDM is that just after the Big Bang, would have had comparatively larger velocities than CDM and would thus have been able to move in random directions away from where they were born. Structures in the sterile neutrino model are smeared out, compared to CDM, and the abundance of structures on small scales is reduced. By modelling how the Universe has evolved from that starting point and looking at the distribution of present-day structures, such as dwarf-mass galaxies, we can test which model—sterile neutrinos or CDM—fits best with observations."

Last year, two independent groups detected an unexplained emission line at X-ray wavelengths in clusters of galaxies using the Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray telescopes. The energy of the line fits with predictions for the energies at which sterile neutrinos would decay over the lifetime of the Universe. Bose and colleagues from the ICC in Durham are using sophisticated models of galaxy formation to investigate whether sterile neutrino corresponding to such a signal could help zero-in on the true identity of dark matter.

Cosmology looks beyond the standard model
Is this what the night sky looked like billions of years ago? Cosmologists from St Andrews think that the motion of outlying galaxies in the Local Group could be explained by a close encounter between the Milky Way and Andromeda 9 billion years ago.
"Our models show that a sterile neutrino with a mass corresponding to the signal detected would also be able to pass many current astrophysical tests of dark matter," said Bose. "We may have seen the first evidence for sterile neutrinos and this would be hugely exciting."

However, not everyone believes that extra mass from dark matter is needed to explain observations. Indranil Banik and colleagues at the University of St Andrews believe that a modified theory of gravity may be the answer. Banik and colleagues have constructed a detailed model predicting velocities of galaxies in the local group, which is dominated by the mass of our own Milky Way and the neighbouring Andromeda galaxy.

"On large scales, our Universe is expanding – galaxies further away are going away from us faster. But on local scales, the picture is more confusing," said Banik. "We found that running our model in the context of Newtonian gravity did not match the observations very well. Some local group galaxies are travelling outwards so fast that it's as if the Milky Way and Andromeda are exerting no gravitational pull at all!"

The St Andrews group suggests that these fast-moving outliers could be explained by a gravitational boost from a close encounter between the Milky Way and Andromeda about 9 billion years ago. The very fast motions of the two galaxies as they flew past each other, at around 600 kilometres per second, would have caused gravitational slingshot effects on other galaxies in the local group.

Cosmology looks beyond the standard model
Type Ia supernovae, such as supernova 1994D in galaxy NGC 4526 (imaged here by the Hubble Space Telescope), are used as cosmic lighthouses by astronomers to measure distance in the Universe. A team from the University of Cambridge has used the largest sample of supernovae and host galaxies to date to study the relation between host galaxy and the precise brightness of the supernova. Credit: NASA/ESA, The Hubble Key Project Team and The High-Z Supernova Search Team
"This is like the trick spacecraft use to build up speed to reach the outer planets in our Solar System. Essentially, the big object – in this case the Milky Way or Andromeda – is slowed down slightly by the gravity from a passing object – the dwarf galaxy – which greatly speeds up as it's much lighter. This fits our observations – but not predictions with Newtonian gravity. This is just not strong enough to be compatible with such a close encounter between the Milky Way and Andromeda. Thus, we believe that our work favours a modified gravity theory and adds to a growing body of evidence from observations of galaxies," said Banik.

The amount of in the Universe is also a matter of debate. The first evidence for dark energy – an energy field causing the expansion of the Universe to accelerate – came through measurements of Type Ia supernovae, which are used by astronomers as cosmic lighthouses to determine distances. However, there is now increasing evidence that Type Ia supernovae are not 'standard candles' and the precise brightness reached by these exploding white dwarf stars depends on the environment in the host galaxy. Now, Dr Heather Campbell and colleagues at the University of Cambridge have used the largest sample of supernovae and host galaxies to date to study the relation between host galaxy and supernova luminosity.

"Understanding the effect of the properties of the host is critical if astronomers are to make the most precise measurements possible of dark energy," said Campbell. "More massive tend to have fainter supernovae. If the galaxy properties are not accounted for properly, then the amount of dark energy in the Universe is underestimated. This work is crucial for future telescopes and space missions such as LSST and Euclid, which will attempt to make precision measurements of the expansion of the Universe."

The session convener, Prof Peter Coles said, "Although cosmology has made great progress in recent years, many questions remain unanswered and indeed many questions unasked. This meeting is a timely opportunity to look at some of the gaps in our current understanding and some of the ideas that are being put forward for how those gaps might be filled."


Explore further

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

Citation: Cosmology looks beyond the standard model (2015, July 8) retrieved 15 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-cosmology-standard.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
186 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 08, 2015
"However, no one has managed to detect CDM to date. Sownak Bose from Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology (ICC) will present new predictions at NAM 2015 for a different candidate for dark matter, the sterile neutrino, which may have been detected recently.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

However, no one has managed to detect CDM to date.
.....this can't be true according to JeanTate, the reason being that HE already claims to know it's density out to 1.5 light years from our Sun even though the gravity to prove its existence out to 1.5 LYs has never been measured or otherwise detected.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
"On large scales, our Universe is expanding – galaxies further away are going away from us faster. But on local scales, the picture is more confusing," said Banik. "We found that running our model in the context of Newtonian gravity did not match the observations very well. Some local group galaxies are travelling outwards so fast that it's as if the Milky Way and Andromeda are exerting no gravitational pull at all!"


In SQK, tired light dominates in intergalactic space. But in more dense matter regions within galaxies, photon blue shifting occurs instead. And in SQK, gravitational influence is predicted to have a limited range, perhaps generally under around 10K Lyears. Yes, a modified theory of gravity is called for. Thus, the confusing picture need not be so confused.

http://phys.org/n...ior.html

http://phys.org/n...tes.html

Jul 08, 2015
More on MOND. See my comments thereunder.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

And more problems for Dark Matter not agreeing with satellite galaxies.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv


Jul 08, 2015
CDM is quite hardly a "fundamental rethink." I do agree with, "discrepancies down to the interpretation of observations." So much of the standard model rests on the assumption that redshift must only be produced by recessional velocity. If any other conceivable mechanism can redshift light then all of the standard model is wrong.

Jul 08, 2015
If any other conceivable mechanism can redshift light then all of the standard model is wrong


... sure. But "conceivable mechanism" must be able to explain broad phenomena better than GR does. GR explains so many things so well (red/blue shifts of light up/down a gravity 'well', gravitational lensing, electromagnetism, frame dragging, length contraction, time dilation....) It will be quite a feat indeed to do better than GR to explain all those effects in addition to coming up with some other way for light to redshift in a way that seems also to correspond to the age and distance of the object

Jul 08, 2015
@Tuxford:
In SQK, tired light dominates in intergalactic space
So you say. Primary source(s) for this? Nothing objective or independently verifiable, right?
And in SQK, gravitational influence is predicted to have a limited range, perhaps generally under around 10K Lyears.
Again, so you say. Primary source(s) for this? Nothing objective or independently verifiable, right?


@Jean, so gravity did not exist until Newton said so? Did Newton have some independent higher-authority sources for backup? Maybe god was on his side?? You seem more interested in cheerleading science than true understanding. Don't trust intellectual insights? That is science. Stuck in a procedure that allows only very limited step-wise progress. Nature need not cooperate.

Jul 08, 2015
Did Newton have some independent higher-authority sources for backup?

Newton did publish quite heavily so people could see and check his work.

I think JeanTate is quite entitled to demand some form of corroboration - because currently all you are saying is : "It is thus, because I say so - and you should believe me. However I will not give you any kind of way to check whether what I say is true or not"

You have to admit that is a very weak argument (to pe precise: it isn't an argument at all. it's EXACTLY on the same level as "Wanna buy the Eiffel Tower?") . And as with the Eiffel-Tower dude - skepticism is warranted.

Unless you argue otherwise - in which case I would ask you to post your credit card credentials here so I can send you your brand new Eiffel Tower tomorrow. Deal?

Jul 08, 2015
CDM is the same as epicycles were in history.

Jul 08, 2015
@Benni: .....this can't be true according to JeanTate, the reason being that HE already claims to know it's density out to 1.5 light years from our Sun even though the gravity to prove its existence out to 1.5 LYs has never been measured or otherwise detected


Which is not what I wrote. Not a surprise, really; you've been quite consistent in your mis-quoting and otherwise mis-representing what I have written
That's not it at all, you just have this impetuous nature about your explanations written in such linguistics that if the need be you can later redefine them in case you get caught at making up "beyond GR".

I do not know why you do this, but at the very least it damages your cred and no doubt is a factor in why your comments are 'downvoted
Sure you know why, it's your "beyond GR" proclivity for Funny Farm Science in lieu of General Relativity. You just don't like this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer calling attention to it.


Jul 08, 2015
sub: Cosmology in search of origins- Where does subject stand?
I have high regard for this event to think afresh on Cosmology away from standard models. Big-bang, Singularity, Black-holes and even misleading God-particle paraphernalia.
In earnestness ,cosmology needs best of brans trust in search of dimensional knowledge through origins-Vedas. interlinks help East west Interaction.
Out of box think-tanks must evolve means to creative Cosmic Function of the Universe through Invited interaction.
Basic concepts must form a frame work-necessity-demand management function to sustain curiosity
on prime concepts- the essence of cosmic philosophy for benefit of Science advancement.
https://www.scrib...-NANDURI

Jul 08, 2015

Correct, Newton's theory of gravity would not have existed if Newton had only stared at his navel.

What an idiotic statement, not worth even a single cent. Gravity has existed since your fabled Bang. Newton has nothing to do with it. So many are lost in procedure, publication, and recognition; all very human concerns. Nature is eternal.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
The standard model is generally a case of theory developed (understandingly) without sufficient data to be verified in precise consistent ways. It's data deficiency that drives all those theoretical constructs such as dark matter, Energy etc., that are everything to everyone since they are hopelessly imprecise, with working definitions. Again all of it due to quantitative and qualitative data deficiency and very little experimental constrains.

I welcome however discussion questioning classical Newton's laws which provide basis for all advanced simulation but not in a way Newton wanted i.e. as many body problem. Instead at best this are billions of two body problems solved separately what amounts to a version of solution based on linear perturbation methods .

An interesting discussion of inherent problems of theories vs verifiable realities I found at:

https://questforn...reality/


Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
Cosmology looks beyond the standard model


But not gravity, that would be heresy!

Jul 08, 2015
HI cantdrive. :)
Cosmology looks beyond the standard model


But not gravity, that would be heresy!
Like I have been reminding everyone, it's a combination of all the forces/processes that bring about the observed phenomena/processes....it just depends on which aspect/phase/scale of the complete process one is concentrating on. The whole picture involves all the forces; including gravity...which is a ubiquitous/amorphously distributed/acting force of energy-space per se, as distinct from the self-organized/resonant forces/entities/structures which arise from and recycle back through that gravity 'background' field/state. Can't say more before I publish complete. Cheers.

Jul 08, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

This is what I have been giving everyone a 'heads up' about for years now; and more lately, you. :)

Note where they now acknowledge the 'standard candle' assumptions were unreliable basis for distance/axpansion 'interpretations'.

Note also where the Dark Energy/Dark Matter 'interpretations' of observed light from distant process/features are no longer as tenable as was assumed.

Note further where the Gravity model is not as clear cut as previously applied to 'interpret' data/observations in Big Bang etc models involving GR.

PS: FYI, my ToE indicates Gravity is a multi-layered thing, having different effects/outcomes depending on proximity/scale in both structure and distance. This 'layered' effect has three main 'domains' wherein the gravity has different strength/direction and distribution/action depending on those scaling/proximity/distance etc parameters in the range of processes/features from atoms/solar systems/galaxies/groups etc. Cheers. :)

Jul 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 08, 2015
Hi docile. :)
my ToE indicates Gravity is a multi-layered thing, having different effects/outcomes
You're at least two hundred years after http://www.mifami...urve.jpg with this insight...;-) And he was pretty specific about it - he derived the number of these "layers", for example.
No no no. That Josiph Boscovich model/algorithm involved 'repulsion' as well as 'attraction'. My ToE indicates gravity has 'attractive' and 'neutral' interactive effects on/between features depending on mass/distribution scale/topology and intervening/surrounding energy-space distance/conditions. Can't say more before I publish it all complete. Thanks for that reference, though, mate; it's all grist to the mill, as they say. Keep up the good work researching/discussing. Cheers. :)

Jul 08, 2015
.. Gravity is a multi-layered thing, having different effects/outcomes depending on proximity/scale in both structure and distance. ..


It is up the alley of philosophy of "scalism", stating that discoverable "laws of nature" depend on scale in which knowing entity (here human) exists. Hence law of gravity as we discovered it may manifest differently in subatomic scale vs universe scale.

According to scalism we "exist" within our scale range where and when we can understand as much as to allow us to survive and thrive, while we do nor exists, in common sense we understand it, in microcosm scale and wider cosmos such as universe. In other words, our structure, a result of entropy fluctuation, has no meaning in microscale and is too transient in macroscale of universe.

Jul 08, 2015
Hi PhysicsMatter. :)
Gravity is a multi-layered thing, having different effects/outcomes depending on proximity/scale in both structure and distance.


It is up the alley of philosophy of "scalism", stating that discoverable "laws of nature" depend on scale in which knowing entity (here human) exists. Hence law of gravity as we discovered it may manifest differently in subatomic scale vs universe scale.

According to scalism we "exist" within our scale range where and when we can understand as much as to allow us to survive and thrive, while we do nor exists, in common sense we understand it, in microcosm scale and wider cosmos such as universe. In other words, our structure, a result of entropy fluctuation, has no meaning in microscale and is too transient in macroscale of universe.
Unlike mere philosophy/abstract physics, my ToE also identifies/explains real physical mechanisms/processes involved in the observed near/far gravity/other forces/phenomena. Cheers. :)

Jul 08, 2015
What we have here is utter confusion. Observations do not match up with accepted theories. Theoretical tweaks like CDM, spun to explain the discrepancies, aren't backed up by evidence despite a couple of decades of furious searching.

We're missing something.

I have fifty cents which says part of the problem is in Special Relativity's reciprocal time dilation. SR tells cosmologists that they don't need to adjust spectra observations for time dilation to obtain actual velocities. But there doesn't seem to be any experimental evidence for reciprocal time dilation. If time dilation isn't reciprocal, but directional (as it is for GR), then we are hugely miscalculating velocities, with implications for *everything* we have concluded about the cosmos.

I'd bet a whole dollar if I was more certain that SR is incorrect. I'm not that certain, heh.

Jul 09, 2015
This discourse about variability of so-called "fundamental laws of nature" in philosophical plane meets the discourse about intelligibility vs believability of the theories in context of metaphysics of reality. Can we reconcile discoverable "laws of nature" spanning different space-time scales into one single unified framework, as it is our desire.

An interesting historical take on these issues I found at:

https://questforn...ibility/

Jul 09, 2015
Nope; 'cosmological redshift' is quite different from 'recessional velocity', as I think you well know


It is not "quite different" unless you're referring to a redshift other than what Hubble interpreted. It's nearly identical to recessional velocity, only the underlying dogma requires that the space between us and a distant galaxy is expanding, producing the redshift.



Let's see ... "if any other conceivable mechanism [than macroscopic-scale electrical currents] can cause magnetic fields, then all of plasma physics is wrong" ... that has the same logic, right?

Yes, the foundation of plasmic physics states only the movement of charge can produce a magnetic field. If that were found to be untrue, all of plasma physics would require an actual "fundamental rethink." Fortunately, observations of a bar magnet for example do not require [macroscopic-scale?] "dark currents" or "dark charges" or any other imaginary substance to keep the old theory afloat.

Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 09, 2015
Hi docile. :)
That Josiph Boscovich model/algorithm involved 'repulsion' as well as 'attraction'
This symmetry also looks better than the "attractive or neutral" model, don't you think?....of curved space-time as an elastic sheet, just deformed in the "opposite" direction....we need a symmetry of time dimension of space-time metric...
Understood, mate. However, that is the same seductive 'elegance/symmetry' and 'abstract space-time' *trap* mainstream mathematical-physicist speculations/postulations/modeling analysis/techniques/interpret have fallen into! That's why they keep hitting a brick wall when trying to unify all the observable/deducible forces/phenomena into one consistent-across-the-board theory. For Gravity, there is NO 'symmetry' of 'charge', simply because it is a state/effect of the underlying space-ENERGY field (not space-TIME field) ITSELF, from which evolve all other energy-space features/phenomena like matter/charge/motion and 'symmetries' etc. :)

Jul 09, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Have a look at the downvoters on my page for comments on this Cosmology thread. Passing strange, is it not, that those downvoters, who bemoan that others ignore the scientific facts in order to 'keep to their religion/crackpottery etc beliefs', are themselves STILL doing just that in my case? For example:

- recent Planck-Bicep joint study results confirmed me correct regarding all prior CMB analyses/interpretations being unwittingly biased and hence suspect unless all factors are (actually, not just assumed to be) known and taken into account before claiming 'gravity waves', Big Bang etc 'confirmation/evidence;

- now this article from Royal Astronomical Society ITSELF confirms what I have been pointing out re those things I noted in my post to you yesterday.

Yet those bot-voting trolls who pretend to respect scientific method, evidence and scientists, are still ignoring all that evidence supporting my observations. Why? Seems hypocritical/prejudiced, hey? :)

Jul 09, 2015
PS: @JeanTate. Here is the link to the page I alluded to in my previous... https://sciencex....k/?v=act

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for them. Poor things. It must be difficult to pretend relevance when they make themselves so obviously irrelevant by such anti-science and hypocritical behavior skewing the metrics on a science site for purely personal and hypocritical motives have nothing at all to do with defending science. Science can well do without such characters as these pretending to defend it, especially since they understand neither the mainstream nor the alternatives being discussed in any depth of logic or meaning/interpretation in reality, let alone in abstraction.

PPS: Will get to that list as soon as I find time. Meanwhile, I hope your health holds up and you enjoy the science/discussions here and elsewhere. Bye for now. :)

Jul 11, 2015
The shielding model of cold dark matter predicts the formation of dark matter filaments along connection lines of collinear galaxies - which is http://i1.wp.com/...nail.jpg of dark matter appearance - but also something, which no existing mainstream model of dark matter is capable to explain.


That's because there needs to be more than one type of dark matter particle. I've tried visualizing and theory-crafting it myself and reach the conclusion that at least two types of Dark Matter are needed, and one of them is self-repelling. Without this aspect, the Dark Matter would just collect in black holes, the same as ordinary matter.

Selt-repelling Dark Matter can explain the existence of filamentary structures suspended between co-linear galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Need at least 6 months on a super-computer to model it, and you have to model different ratios of attractive and repulsive forces to get it right.

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
Photons are massless even though they carry energy.

The gravity equation we use cannot convert "energy" to gravity. It associates gravity with a mass.

"Dark Energy" is a misnomer, as the fundamental units of the substance, whatever it is and if it exists, are NOT equivalent to Joules. This can be shown rather easily via dimensional analysis.

Jul 12, 2015
Docile raised much the same point I did, in that some of the expansion of the universe can be explained by the gravity wells of stars decreasing as they burn off their mass.

The Sun will have burned away about 0.7% of its mass by the time it exhausts its hydrogen supply, as that is the mass difference of the more efficient nuclear bonds of He4 vs H + He3. This difference is not counting the amount of particle ejecta from CMEs and solar wind which drive away some of the mass into deep space.

Thus the gravitational curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is always decreasing as a general rule, except where collisions with things like comets and asteroids may add back a small amount of mass.

As the curvature decreases, the space-time flattens out, producing the effect of an expansion. The flattening of the space-time moves at the speed of light, or the same speed as the massive particles ejected. Either way, the more a star burns it's fuel, the flatter space-time becomes.

Jul 12, 2015
Photons have zero rest mass:

https://en.wikipe...i/Photon

This is in every encyclopedia and every physics book I have ever seen.

Rest mass is what is associated with gravity according to well known equations.

"E =Mc^2" does not mean that "energy" and "mass" are the same thing. It means that mass can be converted to energy according to that relationship. "Energy" does not have gravity.

Jul 12, 2015
The gravity equations do not relate "energy" to gravity. They relate "Mass" to gravity.

Mass and Energy do not even have the same fundamental units.

When a Star, or any process, converts mass to energy, the gravity field weakens. It cannot be any other way.

Jul 12, 2015
Chances are that not a single person who has ever looked at a novelty plasma globe's long-lived filaments which are attracted to and twist around one another without combining, has likely ever remarked at how much it looks like a fluid.

Yet, there remains an obvious bias towards asking such questions about the models that are said to account for 99% of the universe's observable matter. It is typically a normal, healthy aspect of science to question scientific models, but in the specific instance of the cosmic plasma models, and even as astrophysicists have started to recognize that the galactic spiral arms guide electric currents, there remains a social stigma associated with questioning these particular models.

What is it about these models which makes them so special, compared with the models we routinely question? They're not even based upon laboratory observations.

Huge red flag, people.

Jul 12, 2015
Aha. So you do not know the equations of GRT !
That is why you arrive at such obviously wrong conclusions.
See L&L, Field Theory, Eqs. 95,11 or ANY OTHER textbook on GRT.


I can read, the same as the next person, and there is nothing in General Relativity to suggest that the curvature of space-time within a given sphere remains the same even as stars in that sphere burn off mass. That makes no sense.

The oldest photons are 13.7 billion light years away from the point in space-time from which they originated, not counting cosmic expansion. When you count cosmic expansion is currently believed to be 45.5 billion light years radius.

The density of the universe is drastically less now than at any point in it's past, therefore the curvature of space-time must be drastically less.


Jul 12, 2015
Why no gravitational waves detected (directly) even though existing detectors are supposedly about 100 times more sensitive than theory says they need to be in order to detect such waves?

This implies either something is wrong with GRT (highly likely) or that the Gravitational Waves are somehow converted to some other form of energy before they reach us (no obvious mechanism).

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 12, 2015
@Returners:
Why no gravitational waves detected (directly) even though existing detectors are supposedly about 100 times more sensitive than theory says they need to be in order to detect such waves?
Really? That's news to me! Do you have, perchance, a reference for this? I sure would like to read it ...


Try wikipedia.
You lazy ass.

Jul 13, 2015
I don't live in illusion, that my ideas would get some appreciation, if no social demand/support would exist already
@ZEPHIR
the social demand/support for religion far outweighs even your own pseudoscience, therefore, per your own definitions, you are saying that religions have more validity than your own aether beliefs.
I've online backups of online backups of all my posts at all forums
you also have links and quotes from studies that were retracted because of bad science or blatantly false conclusions, which i pointed out to you already (did you make sure those got into the backups and backup backups?)

this is not validation of your conclusions any more than standing in a garage makes you a toyota
I'm not doing any revolution myself
no, you're not. you are a preacher of pseudoscience

you are seeking acolytes, not promoting anything scientific, otherwise you would provide validated or reliable reputable studies supporting your claims

Jul 13, 2015
The gravitational wave formula correctly predicts the decay of a binary neutron star system's orbits, however, it does nto correctly predict gravitational waves. Now why should that be?

Because something materialy fundamental in the universe is not properly described by GRT.

I can explain why this happens.

Any wave moving through an actual material has internal friction, which robs energy from the wave and converts it to heat.

In fact, I propose that Gravitational Waves aren't being produced at all, but rather friction between the orbiting bodies and the background media, whatever it may be, is what causes the decay of the orbits. The energy escapes as EM radiation, but because this energy is so much less than the base luminosity of the objects, it is not detected.

Jul 13, 2015
This finding jives with another proposal I had to explain certain other orbital phenomena. I had proposed that space was in fact filled with a fluid, but not quite as Newton proposed. I proposed that this fluid tends to collect around matter, and therefore the fluid is more dense around more massive bodies. In such a scenario, if the orbital decay is indeed caused by friction with a fluid, which grows in density the closer you get to a massive object, then the relationship would also be according to an inverse cubed function.

So I propose that space-time is non-ideal (which is different than Newton and Einstein) and that space-time does not "curve" near massive objects, it is instead "denser" near massive objects. This produces the same effects for light passing through the region, because it behaves as a mechanical lens anyway.

My hypothesis can explain why the geometry of the gravitational wave theory is correct for decay prediction, but no waves are produced.

Jul 13, 2015
This is an important finding for the study of the Dark Matter and Dark Energy phenomena, because if there is a background media which collects more heavily near massive objects, then this media alters the orbital dynamics of every object in the system, particularly for very large and extended masses such as galaxies.

I had proposed that the "fluid" may or may not have internal forces of its own.

This fluid is not an ideal fluid, although I suppose it would be the closest thing to ideal fluid in the universe.


Jul 13, 2015
Re: "More 'conspiracy theory' science, eh?"

Actually, with the advent of the IPCC and the entrenchment of the Astrophysical Journal, advocacy-based science is today normal science. Whatever you call it, it is hardly an exotic phenomenon requiring some label that would ridicule the person pointing it out.

Re: "Here's your chance to be famous (if not rich), HA: instead of write silly comments in PO, spend that time on developing a good, plasma-based model - of galaxy-wide velocity fields, of both neutral species (e.g. H atoms) and ionized ones (e.g. O^2+), say - downloading all the (free!) astronomical data that is relevant, crunching, write up your results in the form of a paper, and get it published."

The peer-review system has been made a mockery of. It must be reconstructed on the basis of the observed problems.

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "C'mon, be honest here HA, you have no idea how to take Alfven's publications (say) and turn them into a quantitative model, one suitable for testing using astronomical data."

I know at least as much on the subject as any AJ expert in galactic simulations, actually, who freely admit that they do not even read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science.

The first step is not to dive into the creation of models; the first step is fix the way we communicate with one another about ideas in science, and to collect into a single location all of the debate which has happened over the years on this topic. That first step involves a tremendous amount of work that cannot simply be ignored.

Hard problems are hard because they involve diverging/re-framing from the mistakes which got us here, to a more thoughtful approach. And the will to make change always starts with critiques.

Jul 13, 2015
The more that I study the situation, the more that I see that the will to create new models will originate with an increased focus upon the Sun's electrical influence on Earth's climate through the polar regions. This is a subject which the public is already familiar with. They already know that the polar vortex, for instance, is related to wild weather patterns. They just don't get why it matters that there are vortices at the poles which occasionally split.

The association of electrical currents with winds will happen through additional study of these polar regions.

I do not advocate for starting with the largest or most remote objects for study; we should unravel the plasma universe, in my own view, by exploring the relationship between the Sun's plasma and the Earth's climate. This is where there is the most opportunity to make accurate predictions which can actually have an effect upon regular people's lives.

Jul 13, 2015
expert ... who freely admit that they do not even read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science
@hannes
actually, you got that wrong... even here we've had physicists tell you they don't read IEEE on ASTROphysics, but they DO read about plasma physics (just not that eu engineers speculations BS on astrophysical conjectures from electrical engineers who ignore far too many factors re: astrophysics)
the first step is fix the way we communicate with one another about ideas in science
that is why primary sources are required when discussing scientific data
evidence as well...

what you are REALLY saying, above, is that you want your particular brand of pseudoscience to be validated by scientists because you THINK it is correct (sans evidence)

there is some validity to your thought process re: above, as we can see cross disciplines in biology, medicine, evolution etc...
but you are mixing apples & truck tires with your eu pseudoscience and calling it all citrus

Jul 13, 2015
The more that I study the situation, the more that I see that the will to create new models will originate with an increased focus upon the Sun's electrical influence on Earth's climate through the polar regions
@hannes
that is because you IGNORE studies like Francis, Vavrus et al, as well as the BULK of environmental science, just like your other eu counterparts

just because you can make a claim, and you have engineers saying it must be true, doesn't mean it actually IS true... just like being in a church doesn't make you a pew
by exploring the relationship between the Sun's plasma and the Earth's climate
why do you think no one has thought of this before? like i've said elsewhere: i've posted studies on the relationships between the sun and the climate, which you've ignored... why did/do you ignore those over your engineers? they are SPECIFIC to the climate, using all the latest technology...
So?

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "actually, you got that wrong... even here we've had physicists tell you they don't read IEEE on ASTROphysics, but they DO read about plasma physics (just not that eu engineers speculations BS on astrophysical conjectures from electrical engineers who ignore far too many factors re: astrophysics)"

You seem to want to say that an expert can meaningfully judge a debate without learning what the other side has to say. I leave it to others to observe that you're not actually disagreeing with my claim.

The recent 2009 observations by Herschel vindicate a foundational Plasma Universe claim that the universe is filamentary. The problem is that there is so much noise today online that nobody actually remembers anymore that this was a necessary claim for that paradigm.

Claims that Herschel saw dust, not electricity, really emphasizes the failure/refusal to grasp the endgame of cosmology. It's clear where this is heading now.

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "that is because you IGNORE studies like Francis, Vavrus et al, as well as the BULK of environmental science, just like your other eu counterparts"

You are pathetic. History will be unforgiving to this era. The efforts to ignore the solar plasma's effect upon temperature, weather and climate are already failing. The IPCC has worked themselves into a corner. The damage they've done will be very serious when it comes, and there's a very good chance that it will extend to the astrophysical community, because the tactics have been much the same.

Far too much effort has gone into scaring the public, and yet the solar cycle will take the temperatures into the exact opposite direction. The AGW community has missed its deadline, and they have to resort to ever-more-scandalous tactics to keep people scared.

Jul 13, 2015
You seem to want to say that an expert can meaningfully judge a debate without learning what the other side has to say
@HA
nope. in fact, this particular physicist DID read those eu links and then tore them apart with actual physics and evidence, something cd is still smarting over: Tim Thompson
you're not actually disagreeing with my claim
the claim is that they ignore plasma physics, right? THEY DON'T... they ignore your engineers SPECULATIONS on how it applies to astrophysics - please also note that plenty of actual physicists/astrophysicists have also read up your "material" and tore it to pieces as well
the biggest problem with the eu clan is that you don't follow the evidence: you make broad claims and "predictions" that are proven false, then you delete your "failed" predictions and assert conspiracy from science

making unsubstantiated claims that then saying it's someone else's fault it's not right... that is RELIGION, not science!

2Bcont'd

Jul 13, 2015
@HA cont'd
really emphasizes the failure/refusal to grasp the endgame of cosmology. It's clear where this is heading now.
and i can see where you are going... i have some studies i think you should read

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

http://journals.p....0075637

every one of these specifically applies to you and your eu arguments above
You are pathetic. ...The efforts to ignore the solar plasma's effect upon temperature, weather and climate are already failing
like i said, read those studies... INCLUDING Francis/Vavrus et al

apparently you think no one has ever thought of the sun... which brain/thought process is that? reptilian or logical? think hard, because i can prove my comments with studies, whereas you have absolutely ZILCH

just sayin

Jul 13, 2015
Don't pretend that you are teaching me who Tim Thompson is. I spent ten years studying every single critic, and even running the claims against the EU theorists, where it seemed that a valid point was being made. To my knowledge, and extraordinarily, I'm so far the only person who took the time to actually do that. I am deeply fluent in this debate. If I have a question, I pose it to the theorists -- the process which you would be doing if you were treating this debate with the seriousness that it deserves.

Instead, you guys send me juvenile papers about conspiracies. Watch my video, already viewed by 12k+, on why people who make scientific claims are called conspiracy theorists when they disagree with textbook theory here ...

https://www.youtu...rLKIWbBg

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "and have no clue as to what "AJ experts" read (or don't read)."

I know what galaxy experts read because this person you guys think you just taught me about explained it to the world back in 2009 ...

From http://www.intern...tcount=8

"As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored ..."

"... If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business ..."

"... My last position at JPL before retiring was with the Evolution of Galaxies Group. Based on my experience with those astronomers & astrophysicists and their collaborators, I am quite certain that most of them do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all ..."

How many times do I have to demonstrate that you've not done even basic research on this topic?

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "Claims that Herschel say electricity, not dust, really emphasizes the sterility and non-science nature of "plasma cosmology" ... doubly so as there's no published objective (etc) connecton between Herschel's observations and "electricity" "

I feel sorry for the people of physorg who actually believe this nonsense: Nobody is arguing that plasma is not the FUNDAMENTAL state of observable matter. And neither is anybody arguing that plasmas are not observed in the laboratory to form filaments. Yet, once it was recognized that plasmas were pervasive, it was immediately speculated through simplistic equations that they did not behave as laboratory plasmas (with an EMF, electrodynamically) -- but that they could be modeled as fluids.

... the obvious difference being that fluids do not exhibit long-lived filaments which observably twist around one another.

The inventor of these MHD models used the occasion of his 1970 Nobel lecture to distance himself from this approach.

Jul 13, 2015
How much more obvious does the situation need to be? Let me reiterate the fact that you are a pathetic person, and that you make everybody else around you who listens to your nonsense pathetic simply by association.

You're not an expert on this debate, because you're so utterly hostile to these ideas that you cannot even convince yourself to take the time to run arguments back-and-forth between these two sides. Yet, what you WILL do is spread this garbage in these comments on physorg day-in and day-out, in defense of this knowledge whose time has long ago passed, in apparent attempt to dilute any sort of wisdom that might come this way.

If your point was to prove that you've effectively memorized the textbooks, I'll be the first to agree. But, what you've not done is studied this debate. So, stop confusing people into imagining that you have, because people don't have time for this noise.

Jul 13, 2015
Watch my video, already viewed by 12k+, on why people who make scientific claims are called conspiracy theorists when they disagree with textbook theory here ..


Hooyeei, now that is something Skippy. 12,000 and some more. (Add in one more, Ira-Skippy watched him too.) Sounds like a lot of crankpot double talk to me. You aren't the conspiracy guys, but all the real scientists have stacked up the deck against you and your truth.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Those aluminum wrap hats look good on you, make em your self?

Oh yeah, another thing I almost forget. How many of those 12,000 plus some more peoples just looked at it to make fun with you? I know at least of one Skippy who did. (I give you the hint, he's from Louisiana and his name starts with the I.)

Oops. And one more oh yeah about one more thing I almost forget. What in the heck is a Discourse Technical-Skippy?

Jul 13, 2015
The problem is that each time that I demonstrate that the two of you are wrong, you simply move on to the next misconception. I don't have time for this, and you're not doing anybody else here a service by learning in this publicly awkward manner. To my eye, you're simply taking advantage of the failure of this communication medium to value critical, creative discourse. In the public relations industry, it's called "crowding out".

This is why we have to redesign the way we talk with one another -- because of people like yourself who take advantage of the failure of this medium to support actual thinking like a scientist.

This is also why you are pathetic -- because you invite those around you to be closed-minded on what is truthfully the application of empirical science to the astronomical context. There is nothing at all that is unscientific about that process.

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "The consistency of the PC papers has been debated at great lengths ..."

How is dark matter issue NOT a consistency problem of the worst magnitude? You're in denial.

You've got branching filaments which are now plainly observed to create stars, and which exhibit self-similarity over scales of magnitude.

You've got critical ionization velocities associated with these filaments by Gerrit Verschuur, indicating ongoing ionization in interstellar space -- in contradiction to the textbooks taught to all graduate students.

You've got magnetic fields as large as galaxies, which are as of recently admitted to be associated with electric currents flowing through those arms.

We've got NASA now studying sudden stratospheric warming events associated with the polar vortex.

Lightning is today observed connecting Earth to space, and depleting the Van Allen's inner belt, not to mention extraordinary, unexpected energies/particles.

Jul 13, 2015
The trends are very clear: There has been a consistent historical DESIRE amongst astrophysicists to infer closed systems each time that evidence for electricity is observed in space. This approach wasted 50 years of research on the aurora, but having failed there, it's being tried again today with Earth's climate and weather.

From the same group that once claimed radio waves from space must either be a hoax or a mistake ...

From this scientific community who once claimed that space-borne rockets were just ridiculous ... at least until they started raining down upon London ...

Much like how the leading quantum theorists once told us that the maser, the laser's precursor, was just completely impossible, even though the prototype was already made ...

This same approach of calling laboratory science preposterous is now used to distract people from the larger trend in the astronomical sciences towards E&M and plasmas.

Waste of everybody's time.

Jul 13, 2015
Again, pretending that you are teaching me who Tom Bridgman is. You can view my conversations with him on his site, jerk.

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "You might like to re-read his latest paper on this (arXiv:1302.4308 is the preprint), it's not as clear-cut as you seem to think"

That's not a rejection of Marklund convection. He's clearly in uncharted territory, and apparently the only theorist who is doing the hard work of picking apart the all-sky surveys by hand -- a necessary approach in light of the fact that the features at vast distances are overlapping.

To his credit, he is following leads from the laboratory. In other words, he has no inherent bias against the classical notion of electricity in space. And I've yet to see him so far pin the blame for his observations on any of this metaphysical nonsense that has come to dominate the astrophysical domain.

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "But hey, it's clear - from what he has written - that he has done just what you claimed to have done (and which you also claimed to be unique to you)."

Actually, no, Bridgman does not routinely communicate directly with the EU theorists. What is remarkable is that he feels compelled to associate the EU with a religious cause. When somebody goes to his site, that is their very first impression of the EU.

Why do you think he does that? Have you asked him yet?

Jul 13, 2015
Re: "For those interested, here is the (long!) ISF thread on PC: http://www.intern...t=112661 Is HA Zeuzzz perhaps?"

Yes, because everybody is going to right away just drop what they are doing so that they can spend the week analyzing a 91-page thread whose purpose is to collect every single reason to validate peoples' inherent laziness to avoid checking up on claims.

I greatly enjoy how such communities pretend that they are servicing peoples' need to be informed of scientific controversies, when in fact the point all along was to show why the textbook theories are correct.

There is some discourse value to these conversations, but the problem is that the ideas discussed there are never actually given a chance to succeed. The point is to deconstruct them. It's emblematic of the university physics culture today, which values legacy theories over observations that lend credence to competing ideas.

I assume you already know this.

Jul 13, 2015
Hi guys,

@JT or @Stumpy
Can Type Ia as "standardizable candles" be reconciled? ie: accounting for the environmental factors/progenitor metalicity adjusting the final measurement. Perhaps Ia SN distances can be corroborated with Cephids or some other candles?

I do recall the article last year about there being 2 distinctive populations of Ia SN but it left me without a warm fuzzy for distance measurements.
http://phys.org/n...ast.html

I also recall:
http://phys.org/n...ces.html
Which seemed to indicate there was a way to discern age via UV light.

If we've been "abusing" the Ia SN as candles how far off are our distance measurements? Is orders of magnitude off or is it minor corrections?
Thanks in advance for your responses.

Jul 13, 2015
@JT
I'll dig up a link, if you're interested

If you do get around to it I'd love some good reading on the subject.

Jul 13, 2015
Watch my video
@ha
so... wait a minute: your argument is it can't be conspiracy because youtube? like JT says
you are avoiding the hard stuff, the crunchy bits about equations, about data, and about being objective, and independently verifiable
so, it is really you making a debate where none exists- science trumps pseudoscience
this person you guys think you just taught me about
you forgot to add the cogent part, ha, From your own link:
but have zero knowledge or experience in topics relative to the astrophysics of galaxies
this actually validated exactly what i said, BTW. THANKS
How many times do I have to demonstrate that you've not done even basic research on this topic?
how many times do i have to demonstrate your cherry picking and blatant lies? distractions? lack of evidence? lack of anything quantifiable? lack of objectivity? argument from absurdity?

plenty more... i'll be back later to continue ha
sharpen up


Jul 14, 2015
Let me reiterate the fact that you are a pathetic person, and that you make everybody else around you who listens to your nonsense pathetic simply by association
@ha
so, what you are saying here is: anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply pathetic?

JT is giving you a sound, logical argument with sources, whereas you are being "economical with the truth" (proven) so it is everyone else who is pathetic?
Tell everyone: which thought process decided that- reptilian fast thinking or logical slow thinking?
each time that I demonstrate that the two of you are wrong, you simply move on to the next misconception
actually, you have that backwards. each time you GET proven wrong, you move on... like JT said: NO sources for eu... and you have YET to be able to prove, with sources, your "interpretations" of science (much like jvk)
2BCont'd

Jul 14, 2015
cont'd@ha
just like your continued posting of "thought processes" and your ad hominem attacks because everyone isn't running to join your cause: why is it so important to you? the answer lies in your interpretations - you are following eu like a religion, not like a scientist with objective views of data. science follows the evidence, it doesn't form opinion and then try to justify it (see those links i left re: conspiracy ideation: they describe people like you who, when confronted with reality, state things like "why you are pathetic" or "you invite those around you to be closed-minded" or even "you're simply taking advantage of the failure of this communication medium to value critical, creative discourse" to "crowd out" )

I am sure there will be more to come as i read your further speculations and "crowding out" of legitimate science with your pseudoscience posts... i had to stop and post about the above whining

THANKS @JeanTate for logical posts

Jul 14, 2015
{lots of words about history} Waste of everybody's time
@JeanTate
you know... every time i see this particular argument, it is almost comical, because - it demonstrates how the scientific method actually works (follow the evidence) so i then wonder: what is actually the point of the "historical waste of time" posts?

another point ha makes
...associate the EU with a religious cause
More like CULT, really
this is actually more realistic that he thinks... as any basic science student can see (and every psych student)- the argument style is no different from religious arguments: circular and sans evidence/sources

then, he even gets his "interpretation" wrong leaving out the actual details re: bridgeman
it is truly fascinating from a psych perspective... and i've gathered a lot of those posts, especially his posts on "Kahneman" where he tries to argue that we simply aren't thinking correctly, and the eu is...

quite a funny demo of infer vs Rationalise IMHO

Jul 14, 2015
one last point to @ha
Yes, because everybody is going to right away just drop what they are doing so that they can spend the week analyzing a 91-page thread whose purpose is to collect every single reason to validate peoples' inherent laziness to avoid checking up on claims
some of us, who value actual science, WILL go through this thread and also check references... i can't speak for anyone else, but i know that i will

i also know it will take longer than a week (especially to check references and validate the claims)

just because you are too lazy, doesn't mean we all are: that is called transference, much like your above vitriol about those who post refute to you

Jul 14, 2015
I wonder if anybody even stops to consider that GRT produces a continuum which is operating in non-linear time (curved that is), but it is modeled on computers which are programmed in linear time.

How do you explain this? The computer model is not capable of truly emulating the theory, because the model can only operate in linear time.

Jul 14, 2015
@JT

Hi what's CQ? I googled "CQ forum cosmology/physics" and got some EvE Online stuff and PF as returns.
I peruse the Physics Forums when I see interesting topic and despite the space available I find the exchange that goes on there is often less fulfilling than here.

Jul 17, 2015
Both Einstein & Newtons theories assume a value for gravity based on a unidirectional force, their use is no doubt unquestioned and yet both theories ultimately fail. There are some interesting observations here.
As a separate observation that may help, chaos theory can determine the clumping of matter on large and small scales. This can & is modified by environment, one of those environmental factors can be a wall or wall like 3 dimensional structure in space,

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more