One thing I did notice with my untrained eye, is some mis-representation (and possibly outright nonsense) on what science currently thinks about the heliopause. On page 55, he states that the heliopause is thought to be between 50 - 100 AU while his theory predicts it could be much larger. But Voyager I is already well past 100 AU, so we already know it to be larger than 100 AU. Also, I'm a little confused that he also states that that the interstellar medium may penetrate to withing 30-50 AU... but I think by definition that would mean the heliopause would only be 30-50 AU out... so which is it?
As for why its not picked up on, I don't find it hard to believe at all that reputable physicists would be afraid to stake their careers perusing a controversial theory. In fact, I have a relative that is a physicist at Livermore that was trying to tell me several years ago how he believed the universe was in a steady state, but that at every conference he had been at where someone would raise a suggestion that challenged the big bang, they would essentially be shouted down. I don't think there was any particular theory that led to his belief, rather just a mis-trust of theories used to support the universe as we think we understand it... i.e., expanding. Really, I guess it is him that instilled on me the skepticism of dark matter/energy.
That, or the redshift theory is complete crap. And I don't know enough to even begin commenting on that.
The Standard Model Imploding?
Well, is not an easy read at all.
I am trying to get to the heart of it and find a good objection to his hypothesis.
Meantime we have more holes in our current theory of the universe:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-evi ... ciple.html
@Maui
I wouldn't go so much into details about the heliopause dimension. This is a collateral consequence of the theory. I am trying more to find logical errors right now. Not finding any will make me like this theory even more, even if we have to be objective and remember that is full of theories that makes perfect sense on paper just to fail at the experimental level.
@Aero
Regardless of the goodness of this theory, we have to admit that BB theory is full of issues. This is a fact that cannot be ignored.
The dark matter/energy speculation is something that was invented just to find a way to hold the BB theory true after the first HST observations clearly opposed it.
In all honesty I think is hard to believe that 97% of the universe we live in is made up of matter that we do not see nor sense and that does not interact with the universe itself except in a way to justify the HST data.
That said, I am not supporting this theory as I still know too little about it, but (for the part I have read till now) it gives a much more logic explanation than the BB theory.
I am trying to get to the heart of it and find a good objection to his hypothesis.
Meantime we have more holes in our current theory of the universe:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-evi ... ciple.html
@Maui
I wouldn't go so much into details about the heliopause dimension. This is a collateral consequence of the theory. I am trying more to find logical errors right now. Not finding any will make me like this theory even more, even if we have to be objective and remember that is full of theories that makes perfect sense on paper just to fail at the experimental level.
@Aero
Regardless of the goodness of this theory, we have to admit that BB theory is full of issues. This is a fact that cannot be ignored.
The dark matter/energy speculation is something that was invented just to find a way to hold the BB theory true after the first HST observations clearly opposed it.
In all honesty I think is hard to believe that 97% of the universe we live in is made up of matter that we do not see nor sense and that does not interact with the universe itself except in a way to justify the HST data.
That said, I am not supporting this theory as I still know too little about it, but (for the part I have read till now) it gives a much more logic explanation than the BB theory.
I see what you are saying, but at the same time his support of the theory largely rests upon the fact that it solves problems where accepted theories don't match observations as well as his. But if it turns out he is misrepresenting what accepted theories say about these problems, he is losing a lot of the impact of his supporting data (not to mention credibility).Giorgio wrote:@Maui
I wouldn't go so much into details about the heliopause dimension. This is a collateral consequence of the theory. I am trying more to find logical errors right now. Not finding any will make me like this theory even more, even if we have to be objective and remember that is full of theories that makes perfect sense on paper just to fail at the experimental level.
Also, I'm no expert on the heliopause, but what he wrote still makes me wonder if he doesn't really understand what he is talking about which would undermine credibility. It's probably more likely that he does understand but simply didn't clearly articulate... but I'll still leave this as a mark in my "concern" column.
BTW, I did have my dad (who is an expert on the heliopause) read the relevent portion and his response was:
"Gee, in one sentence he says the ionized sphere around the sun will extend beyond the usually surmized heliosphere, but in the next he says the interstellar medium may reach inward much closer to the sun. The heliopause is the boundary between solar plasmas and interstellar plasmas, so this can't be."
i seem to recall also, super-massive black holes were principally 'invoked' in order to explain the rate of galactic rotation/expansion Cf. their mass.Giorgio wrote:...
The dark matter/energy speculation is something that was invented just to find a way to hold the BB theory true after the first HST observations clearly opposed it.
In all honesty I think is hard to believe that 97% of the universe we live in is made up of matter that we do not see nor sense and that does not interact with the universe itself except in a way to justify the HST data.
...
as to your second point - my belief is actually the opposite - that we will always be left with some form of 'hidden variable' theory, since it is fundamental and common to the languages of both mathematics/algebra and phenomenology - just another example of 'duality' as a basis/axiom.
i have only given the paper a quick scan though and i am not qualified to comment on it technically. But if this guy is correct, there's an awful LOT of astronomical data out there, needs to be totally recalculated, a lot of existing theory put straight in the garbage, and a whole lot more to rethink - starting all over again in many cases, careers wasted.
his starting point certainly seems very well founded and deserve at least a proper response, ie. peer review, perhaps a review too of the state of astronomical metrology in general.
the argument in this case, seems to hinge on whether it is 'reasonable' or 'prudent' to approximate or ignore certain (higher) terms during the Fourier expression of velocity/acceleration metrics, given the medium/context (sparse plasma and its distribution). this point at least seems clear to agree and important to answer, either way.
The mighty edifice once called 'science', has turned into a Tower of Babel; we watch it start to crumble and fall about us; plucking out the good bits from the rubble and hurriedly trying to repair it faster than it falls down upon our heads.
Interesting times.
If that's what he said than your dad is 100% right.Maui wrote:BTW, I did have my dad (who is an expert on the heliopause) read the relevent portion and his response was:
"Gee, in one sentence he says the ionized sphere around the sun will extend beyond the usually surmized heliosphere, but in the next he says the interstellar medium may reach inward much closer to the sun. The heliopause is the boundary between solar plasmas and interstellar plasmas, so this can't be."
I am still way behind that page, so I really can't argue.
Maybe by the time I will reach that chapter I will have found a lot more of logical glitches too.
I do not recall that, but I wouldn't be surprised of it. Since the introduction of the Lambda CDM model I have seen all sort of funny attempt to try to reconcile our observation with the exhistence of dark energy/matter.rcain wrote:i seem to recall also, super-massive black holes were principally 'invoked' in order to explain the rate of galactic rotation/expansion Cf. their mass.
I agree. As I said, I still didn't read enough of his work to support his claims, but from a logical point of view it makes more sense than the current theory.rcain wrote:i have only given the paper a quick scan though and i am not qualified to comment on it technically. But if this guy is correct, there's an awful LOT of astronomical data out there, needs to be totally recalculated, a lot of existing theory put straight in the garbage, and a whole lot more to rethink - starting all over again in many cases, careers wasted.
his starting point certainly seems very well founded and deserve at least a proper response, ie. peer review, perhaps a review too of the state of astronomical metrology in general.
I am holding my best shots for when the James Webb Telescope will be functional. His data should clarify many points.rcain wrote:The mighty edifice once called 'science', has turned into a Tower of Babel; we watch it start to crumble and fall about us; plucking out the good bits from the rubble and hurriedly trying to repair it faster than it falls down upon our heads.
Interesting times.
Sometimes I wonder what will happen if it will show objects quite beyond the supposed beginning of space and time. Maybe they will adjust the BB/Lambda CDM model by introducing also a "dark time" term.
Interesting times ahead as you said.
But isn't the definition of a duality that it is valid to describe the subject in both ways? I highly doubt it will turn out that we can describe the universe both as expanding from a BB and as steady state.rcain wrote:as to your second point - my belief is actually the opposite - that we will always be left with some form of 'hidden variable' theory, since it is fundamental and common to the languages of both mathematics/algebra and phenomenology - just another example of 'duality' as a basis/axiom.
So what is the "hidden variable"? Is it that there is an unobservable form of energy and matter that when present in the right quantities make our equations work? Or is it that there is something fundamental about our observations and measurements of the universe that we don't understand?
Doesn't the later seem more likely? To me the former seems akin to measuring a rock in January, then measuring it again in July, then concluding that there must be an as yet undiscovered "dark energy" that is causing it to expand over time.
If light passing through intergalactic plasma were red shifted, what are the chances different wavelengths would be red shifted in the correct proportion to mimic velocity? What are the chances spectral lines wouldn't be blurred by a large amount as individual photons hit or miss the red shifting plasma interaction?Henning wrote:As you are on it: I've read about a "plasma redshift", which generally says the cosmic redshift isn't a result of the Doppler effect, but some kind of friction effect of ultra hot sparse plasma: http://plasmaredshift.org/Abstract.html