The Big Bang never happened

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


<center>Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

Eric J. Lerner


II. Large Scale Structure and Voids</center>


The large scale structure of the universe is inhomogeneous at all scales that have been observed[31]. In particular, galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These void typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[32].


These vast structures pose acute problems for the Big Bang theory, for there simply is not enough time to form them in the hypothesized 14 Gy since the Big Bang, given the observed velocities of galaxies in the present-day universe. Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[33-34]. The well-known smoothness of the Hubble relation also indicates intrinsic velocities in this same range, as do the observation of relatively narrow filaments of galaxies in redshift-space, which would be widened by high intrinsic velocities.


Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[35]. An average particle will have to move d= D/8 Mpc, where D is the diameter of the void. For void diameters of 170Mpc, d=21Mpc. For a final galaxy velocity of 220km/sec, travel time would be 87Gy or 6.3H-1, the assumed time since the Big Bang, taking this to be 13.7Gy. Of course this is a crude estimate, since in the Big Bang theory, distances to be covered would be smaller early in the universe's history, reducing travel time. On the other hand, no physical process could produce instantaneous velocities, so velocities would also presumably be smaller in the past. This is especially true if acceleration is by gravitational attraction, since time would have to pass before substantial gravitational concentrations are built up from assumed homogenous initial conditions of the Big Bang.


An explosive mechanism that rapidly injects energy into the medium could form voids more rapidly than gravitational attraction. For a cold dark matter Big Bang model, the time t in years, of formation of a void R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final velocity V cm/s is[36,1]:


T=1.03n-1/4V-1/2 R1/2


For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming h=6.14), t= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long as the Hubble time.


Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized "cosmological constant" run into the same contradiction, in that they produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc[37], a factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales. In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities[38] which mean that voids larger than 60Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of over 600km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities.


Thus from any standpoint, the production of the large voids observed requires three to six times as much time as that allowed by the Big Bang theory. Again, this clearly rules out the theory.


The plasma cosmology approach can, however, easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts a fractal distribution of matter with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects[10]. This relation flows naturally from the necessity for collapsed objects to be collisional, and from the scale invariance of the critical velocities of magnetic vortex filaments, which are crucial to gravitational collapse. This fractal scaling relationship (fractal dimension=2) has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe[39]. In the plasma model, where superlcusers, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments, a break in the scaling relationship is only anticipated at scales greater than approximately 3Gpc. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.


IV. The Cosmic Background Radiation


Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.


The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.


Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7].


This work was done using an IRAS sample limited to flux of more than 5.24mJy at 60 microns. More recent results, reported here for the first time(and to be published in greater detail elsewhere) extend this demonstration of absorption .


If long wavelength radiation is being absorbed or scattered by the intergalactic medium (IGM), then this effect should be constant for all wavelengths longer than about 100-200 microns. Absorption at one wavelength in this range should be the same, for a given galaxy, as absorption at another wavelength. The recent observations of submillmeter, 850micron, wavelengths by the SCUBA survey[41] is an opportunity to test this prediction.


Using the SCUBA Local Universe Survey(SLUGS) sample and eliminating 16 Seyferts, we obtain 88 galaxies that have 60,100, 850 micron and 1.4Ghx fluxes. If we ignore absorption by the IGM, we find a correlation of log L850 on log L60 of log L850 ~0.61 log L60 with a correlation r of 0.839, where the L's are luminosities at the respective wavelengths. This non-linear relation has been interpreted as a correlation of dust temperature with increasing galaxy size[41].


However, if we use the quantity A1.4 = 1.2log L60 -Log L1.4 as a measure of relative absorption at 1.4 Ghz and calculate the "corrected" or intrinsic L'850, = L850 + A1.4 the correlation of L'850 on L60 improves to r=0.942 and the dependency become linear L850~ L601.00+-0.04, thus implying the temperature of dust in galaxies is independent of the size of the galaxy(Fig. 2). This result is reinforced by the observation that the ratio L850 / L450 is virtually constant for the SLUGS galaxies[42], again implying a constant temperature. In the plasma model, this constant ratio is to be expected, as both wavelengths should be absorbed equally.


Similarly, if we use A850 = L60- L850 as a measure of relative absorption and look at the correlation of L'1.4, = L1.4 + A850 on L60 we find that the correlation improves from r= 0.895 to 0.958 as compared with the correlation of L1.4 on L60. The slope of L'1.4 on L60 is 1.20+-0.04, which is consistent with theoretical work showing that the cosmic rays that generate the 1.4GHz radiation are more efficiently trapped in large galaxies, so have time to produce more radiation[5].


We can then compare absorption at one wavelength, A1.4 with A850, absorption at a 850 microns. We find a correlation of r= .80. The slope of A1.4 on A850 is .80 and of A850 on A1.4 is also .80, so the "true" correlation is consistent with unity, as predicted. (Strictly speaking this shows that the two absorption value are proportional to each other, not equal. To prove equality we would have to look at very nearby galaxies and show that the same proportionality holds to small distances, where absorption can be neglected. The present sample does not contain such nearby galaxies.)


We find, as expected by the plasma model, that the measures of absorption at both wavelengths increase with increasing distance. The slope of A1.4 on D(in 100Mpc units) is 0.408+-0.040 while the slope of A850 on D is 0.359+-0.046, which are consistent with each other. It should be emphasized that, since the distribution of the filaments should follow the distribution of matter generally, and thus follow a fractal pattern, this level of absorption will not be expected to extend out indefinitely in distance, but the rate of absorption should itself fall with increasing distance from any point, as does matter density.


Together with the previous work, these results further confirm that long wavelength radiation is absorbed or scattered by the IGM. This entirely contradicts the Big Bang hypothesis that the CBR is primordial and is observed unchanged from a redshift of several thousand.


The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the plasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect. Tegmark et al [42] have shown that the quadruple and octopole component of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part.


This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Big Bang theorist have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.


However, the plasma explanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will be needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in qualitative agreement with the new observations..

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Found at www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>SELECTED REFERENCES ON COSMOLOGY DEBATE



General</center>


H. Alfven and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic Electrodynamics, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963

H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma, Driedel, Holland, 1981

H.Alfven, "Cosmology and Recent Developments in Plasma physics", The Australian Physicist, vol. 17, pp.161-165, Nov., 1980

E.J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, Viking Press, New York, 1992.

E.J. Lerner, "The Case Against the Big Bang", in Progress in New Cosmologies, H.C.Arp, C.R. Keys, Eds., Plenum Press, New York, 1993, pp.89-104

"Universe: The Cosmology Quest", DVD, www.universe-film.com/

E. J. Lerner, "Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang", IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci. 31, p.1268-1275

www.bigbangneverhappened.org

www.cosmologystatement.org

Light Element Formation



E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.

P. Debourg-Salvador, J. Audouze and A. Vidal-Madjar, Astron. Astrophys., vol. 174, p365, 1987.

R.H. Cyburt, B.D. Fields, K.A. Olive, "Primordial Nucleosynthesis in Light of WMAP", arXiv:astro-ph/03022431, 20 Feb, 2003.

S.Ryan, J.E. Norris, T.C. Beers, Astrophys. J., vol.523, p.654

S.G. Ryan, et al, "Primordial Lithium and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. J., vol 520, pp L57-L60, Feb. 20, 2000

T.K. Suzuki, Y. Yoshii and T.C. Beers, "Primordial Lithium as a Stringent Constraint on the Baryonic Content of the Universe", Atrophys. J., Vol540, pp99-103, Sept.1, 2000

A. Coc et al, "Constraints on Wb from the Nucleosynthesis of 7Li in the Standard Big Bang", arXiv:astro-ph/0111077, Nov.14, 2001

J. Melnick, M. Heydari-Malayeri and P. Leisy, "The Metal-Poor HII Galaxy SBS 0335-052 and the Primordial Helium Abundance", Astron. Astrophys, vol. 252, pp16-20, 1992

N.H. M. Crighton et al, "D/H in a new Lyman Limit Absorption System at z=3.256 towards PKS1937-1009" , arXiv:astro-ph/0403512

S, K. Pandey and D. Lohiya, "Synthesizing Deuterium in Incipient Pop II Stars," ", arXiv:astro-ph/0406678



CBR



E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

.E.J. Lerner, "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, pp. 63-68, Sept. 20, 1990.

E.J. Lerner, "Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, pp. 935-938, Dec. 1992

E.J. Lerner, "Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26, 1993.

E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81

D. N. Spergel "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters", arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

M. S. Turner, "The New Cosmology: Mid Term Report Card for Inflation", arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

M. Tegmark and A. de Oliveira-Costa, "High Resolution foreground cleaned CMB map form WMAP", Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 68, P.123523

C-G. Park, "Non-Gaussian signatures in the temperature fluctuation observed by the WMAP", MNRAS, vol. 349, p. 313 (2004)

C.J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G.D. Starkman, "Multipole Vectors-- a new representation of the CMB sky and evidence for statistical anisotropy anor non-Gaussianity at 2&lt;l&lt;8", arXiv:astro-ph/0310511,

L-Y Chiang, et al, "Non-Gaussianity of the derived maps from the first-year WMAP data:, arXiv:astro-ph/0303643

J.P. Ralston and P. Jain, "The Virgo Alignment Puzzle in Propagation of Radiation on Cosmological Scales", arXiv:astro-ph/0311430

V.G. Guzadyan, et al "WMAP confirming the ellipticity in BOOMERanG and COBE CMB maps" arXiv:astro-ph/0402399



Large Scale Structure



E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.

F. Sylos Labini et al, "Evidence for fractal Behavior up to the deepest scale", Physica A226 , pp.195-242, 1996

M. Joyce and F.Sylos Labini, "Luminosity Density Estimation from Redshift Surveys and the Mass Density of the Universe", ApJ, vol. 554, p.L1

E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002)

P.J.E Peebles, "The Void Phenomenon", Astrophys.J., vol 557, pp495-504, Aug. 20, 2001

C.R. Mullis et all, "The 160 Sq. Degree ROSAT survey: The revised catalog of 201 Clusters with Spectroscopic Redshifts", arXiv:astro-ph/0305228



Galaxies and Quasars



E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.

A.L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992

A.L. Peratt, , "Evolution of the Plasma Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-70



Expansion Effects

M.R.S. Hawkins "Time Dilation and Quasar Variability", arXiv:astro-ph/0105073

D. Burgarella et al, "The UV visibility and quantitative morphology of galactic disks at low and high redshift", Astron and Astrophys, vol.369, p.421

A.E. Nelson et al, "Constraints on the Size Evolution of Brightest Cluster Galaxies", arXiv:astro-ph/0110582

H.C. Ferguson et al, "The Size Evolution of High Redshift galaxies", arXiv:astro-ph/0309058

R.J. Bouwens et al, "Galaxy Size Evolution at High Redshift and Surface Brightness Selection effects: Constraints from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field", arXiv:astro-ph/0406562



Evolved High Z Galaxies

H-W. Chen and R. O. Marzke, "Discovery of Massive Evolved Galaxies at z&gt;3 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field", arXiv:astro-ph/0405432

A. E. Shapley et al, "Evidence for Solar Metallicities in Massive Star-forming galaxies at z&gt;2", arXiv:astro-ph/0405187


Found at www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tommy,

I think I'm going to start deleting posts like the ones just above.

If you want to post a comparison of Plasma vs Meta Model cosmologies, I'm sure won't object. If you want to post a comparison of Big Bang vs Meta Model cosmologies, that is also fine.

But a comparison of &lt;something other than Meta Model&gt; vs &lt;something-ELSE other than Meta Model&gt; just isn't the sort of thing that we relish. Certainly not in the volume that you seem interested in.

===

Comments about this proposed course of action (from you in particular, but also from others) are solicited. If you think this is not "fair", I'd like to know why.

LB

Found at metaresearch.org/home

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Meta Research is dedicated to bringing some common sense back to this field. Here <b>we challenge ideas </b>that have consistently failed to make successful predictions, <b>examine new paradigms,</b> and <b>advocate the ideas found to be most worthy </b>of further consideration and testing.

Intuitively, <b>most of us understand that an idea's popularity is no more an appropriate measure of its validity </b>today than it has been at any other time in history. Yet those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, <b>and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse.</b>

Meta Research does not claim to have all the answers. <u><i><b>But here at least it is safe to ask the rude questions... and to make a case for alternative hypotheses.</b></i></u><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps, Larry, you would like to retract your letter, hmmm? Otherwise I am sure your big bang friends will cheer your every elimination.

tommy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Perhaps, Larry, you would like to retract your letter, hmmm?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm inclined to agree with Larry. There is nothing wrong with the content of your post, and the information may be valuable to others somewhere. But so might instructions for performing CPR. It's just that it is off-topic for this Message Board. Short off-topic messages might be overlooked. But yours are lengthy and, frankly, inconsiderate of those with only dial-up connections, who have a difficult time with formus containing many long messages.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Otherwise I am sure your big bang friends will cheer your every elimination.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That shot is completely out of order, and betrays that you don't seem to have a clue what sort of cosmology we are supposed to be discussing here. Let's stay on topic and keep posts of a modest length. This is not a place to store archival material about cosmologies in general. As Larry says, show the advantages and disadvantages of any alternative cosmology you favor versus MM. Or stick to what's wrong with BB. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That shot is completely out of order, and betrays that you don't seem to have a clue what sort of cosmology we are supposed to be discussing here. Let's stay on topic and keep posts of a modest length. This is not a place to store archival material about cosmologies in general. As Larry says, show the advantages and disadvantages of any alternative cosmology you favor versus MM. Or stick to what's wrong with BB.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You guys are serious! Do you know what you are doing?

First of all I cannot see how a summary of the book The "big bang never happened" is off topic when the topic is the "big bang never happened". If you would have taken the time to read what I posted you might realize that it is an overview of all the alternative cosmologies. Seems that, of all the websites touting alternative cosmologies, none of them have gathered all the evidence together, almost all of them are specialized with a particular slant/spin. The big bangers love to see this unorganized presentation. I can tell by their laughter.

Can't you see you are doing the very same thing that the big bang refs are doing to our alternative theorists? You threaten the suspension of support unless I write the paper the way you want to see it. You are threading on mattters of principle here. How can you Tom, write about matter of principles, tell me to read Kuhn's book, and then chide me for doing too good of a job?

How is scientific research, and I am assuming that research here is scientific, how can scientific research be done unless one goes beyond one's own caccoon? How can you tell them that they ought to consider alternative theories when you do not permit alternative theories yourself?

"De the change you want to see happen..."

As far as MM cosmology is concerned. I have yet to find it. I have looked several times for the MM cosmology but where is it? I see a lot about planets but not cosmology. And if there is a MM cosmology, i sure hope that plasma is part of it.

Finally, I was acting under the advise of Halton Arp who wrote me saying, "don't worry about polishing, marshall alll the evidence and state your conclusions."

Now I know only too well why he is in Germany...