Cosmology Notes - Revision history

Johnno: /* Arp's quasars */

2021-09-17T12:01:56Z

Arp's quasars

Johnno at 12:46, 10 September 2021

2021-09-10T12:46:35Z

Johnno: /* Electric stellar models */

2020-12-14T22:18:47Z

Electric stellar models

Johnno at 00:17, 25 June 2018

2018-06-25T00:17:42Z

Johnno: /* Warning: may contain nuts */

2018-06-25T00:15:40Z

Warning: may contain nuts

Johnno at 03:29, 14 February 2017

2017-02-14T03:29:25Z

Johnno at 00:36, 18 October 2016

2016-10-18T00:36:57Z

Johnno: /* Cosmic Microwave Background */

2014-08-28T00:23:21Z

Cosmic Microwave Background

Johnno: /* Cosmic Background Radiation */

2014-08-28T00:22:53Z

Cosmic Background Radiation

Johnno: /* The cosmic rays are too energetic */ add the reason for the GZK limit

2014-08-28T00:17:05Z

The cosmic rays are too energetic: add the reason for the GZK limit

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 == Arp's quasars ==
-Halton Arp, famous for his 1966 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies ''Catalog of Peculiar Galaxies'']. Anomalous redshifts of quasars, and their association with the minor axis of foreground galaxies. Too frequent to be chance associations, too large an area to be lensing (and too frequent).
+Halton Arp, famous for his 1966 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies ''Catalog of Peculiar Galaxies'']. Anomalous redshifts of quasars, and their association with the minor axis of foreground galaxies (e.g. Arp 92 / NGC 7603). Too frequent to be chance associations, too large an area to be lensing (and too frequent).
 == Fractal large scale structure ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 10 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~__NOTOC__~~
	== Gravity Theories ==		== Gravity Theories ==

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 === Electric stellar models ===
-Electric Universe folks (crazy warning!) believe stars are composed mostly of molten iron and are powered like an inside-out electric arc furnace. There is no requirement for "magnetic reconnection" (which is a misunderstanding of fields anyway) to explain the massive temperature inversion from the 6000°K surface to the 2,000,000°K corona, and it can explain low neutrino flux without postulating neutrino flavour mutations because the observed fusion occurs in Z-pinches in the corona, explaining the temperature inversion. No strange convection columns or lengthy radiative transfer are required. Of course, this raises other problems instead: where is the vast electric current coming from? How is the star maintaining itself as a colossal anode for billions of years without going dark? There's only so much H⁺ it can produce. Why is the average density of the sun still only ~1400 kg/m³ and how is it resisting gravitational collapse into something much more dense - especially if it is supposed to be made of Fe + Ni instead of H + He? And so on.
+Electric Universe folks (crazy warning!) believe stars are composed mostly of molten iron and are powered like an inside-out electric arc furnace. There is no requirement for "magnetic reconnection" (which is a misunderstanding of fields anyway) to explain the massive temperature inversion from the 6000°K surface to the 2,000,000°K corona, and it can explain low neutrino flux without postulating neutrino flavour mutations because the observed fusion occurs in Z-pinches in the corona, explaining the temperature inversion. No strange convection columns or lengthy radiative transfer are required. Of course, this raises other problems instead: where is the vast electric current coming from? How is the star maintaining itself as a colossal anode for billions of years without going dark? There's only so much H⁺ it can produce. Why is the average density of the sun still only ~1400 kg/m³ (barely much more than water) and how is it resisting gravitational collapse into something much more dense - especially if it is supposed to be made of Fe + Ni instead of H + He? And so on.
 === No no - it's the neutron reactions ===

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 === Warning: may contain nuts ===
-Sadly, some proponents of these more maverick models are also fans of Velikovsky, or believe aliens influenced ancient societies, or that lightning carved out the Grand Canyon, and other such cobblers, so it's very tempting to dismiss things without evaluating them properly. However, some at least have enough sense of humour to talk about ''"Fairie Dust"'' (Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories).<ref>{{cite web
+Sadly, some proponents of these more maverick models are also fans of Velikovsky, or believe aliens influenced ancient societies, or that lightning carved out the Grand Canyon, and other such cobblers, so it's very tempting to dismiss things without evaluating them properly. However, some at least have enough sense of humour to talk about ''"Fairie Dust"'' (Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories).<ref>Scott, D. E. [http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/descott.htm ''"NASA pseudo-skeptic receives rebuttal from Electric Universe theorist"''], The Thunderbolts Project, 21 March 2009.</ref>
 == References ==

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 === Warning: may contain nuts ===
-Sadly, many proponents of some of these more maverick models are also fans of Velikovsky, believe aliens influenced ancient societies, and other such cobblers, so it's very tempting to dismiss things without evaluating them properly.
+Sadly, some proponents of these more maverick models are also fans of Velikovsky, or believe aliens influenced ancient societies, or that lightning carved out the Grand Canyon, and other such cobblers, so it's very tempting to dismiss things without evaluating them properly. However, some at least have enough sense of humour to talk about ''"Fairie Dust"'' (Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories).<ref>{{cite web
 == References ==

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Gravity Theories ==
-Modern cosmology has a disturbing number of free parameters, and is based on only a small number of observations.<ref>Disney, M. J. [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/ ''"Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?"''], Am. Sci. '''95''':5 p383, September 2007.</ref>
+Modern cosmology has a disturbing number of free parameters, and is based on only a small number of observations.<ref>Disney, M. J. [http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale/ ''"Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?"''], Am. Sci. '''95''':5 p383, September 2007.</ref> An example of where this leads is the increasingly untenable idea that dark matter is responsible for most of the gravitational interaction in the universe. Dark matter is a conjecture, in order to bridge a yawning gap between what theorists predict, and astronomers observe. Most articles about cosmology in the popular and science press routinely express some or all of the following things:
 === Modified Gravity Theory (MOG) ===

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 == Fractal large scale structure ==
-Luciano Pietronero demonstrates a fractal galaxy and void distribution in large datasets.<ref>Pietronero, L.; Coleman, P. H. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(92)90112-D ''"The fractal structure of the universe"''], Physics Reports '''213''':6 p311-389, May 1992.</ref> This is important, because the "average density" of a fractal distribution tends to zero, in the same way that the length of a fractal coastline tends to infinity. A near-zero density for the Ω₀ parameter is in fact what we observe; near-zero at least in relation to the critical density value Ω₀ = 1, which is required for any exploding and expanding spacetime models to make any sense. Because of this, we simply presume that over 96 percent of the Universe is somehow hiding itself in some inconveniently undetectable way in dark matter, and now dark energy too, even though we have absolutely no direct observational evidence for it whatsoever.
+The colour-magnitude diagram is the galactic equivalent of the HR diagram for stars. Luciano Pietronero demonstrates a fractal galaxy and void distribution in large datasets.<ref>Pietronero, L.; Coleman, P. H. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(92)90112-D ''"The fractal structure of the universe"''], Physics Reports '''213''':6 p311-389, May 1992.</ref> This is important, because the "average density" of a fractal distribution tends to zero, in the same way that the length of a fractal coastline tends to infinity. A near-zero density for the Ω₀ parameter is in fact what we observe; near-zero at least in relation to the critical density value Ω₀ = 1, which is required for any exploding and expanding spacetime models to make any sense. Because of this, we simply presume that over 96 percent of the Universe is somehow hiding itself in some inconveniently undetectable way in dark matter, and now dark energy too, even though we have absolutely no direct observational evidence for it whatsoever.
 == Craziness? Okay try these on for size... ==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 == Plasma physics ==
-=== Cosmic Microwave Background ===
+=== Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) ===
 CMB as a local radio fog resulting from plasma scattering.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0263034600005395 ''"Plasma Model of the Microwave Background"''], Laser and Particle Beams '''6''' p456-469, 1988.</ref> This also predicts a long radio absorption with distance, which is indeed observed.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/169167 ''"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium,"''], ApJ '''361''' p63-68, Septemper 1990.</ref>

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 == Plasma physics ==
-=== Cosmic Background Radiation ===
+=== Cosmic Microwave Background ===
-CBR as a local radio fog resulting from plasma scattering.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0263034600005395 ''"Plasma Model of the Microwave Background"''], Laser and Particle Beams '''6''' p456-469, 1988.</ref> This also predicts a long radio absorption with distance, which is indeed observed.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/169167 ''"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium,"''], ApJ '''361''' p63-68, Septemper 1990.</ref>
+CMB as a local radio fog resulting from plasma scattering.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0263034600005395 ''"Plasma Model of the Microwave Background"''], Laser and Particle Beams '''6''' p456-469, 1988.</ref> This also predicts a long radio absorption with distance, which is indeed observed.<ref>Lerner, E. J. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/169167 ''"Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium,"''], ApJ '''361''' p63-68, Septemper 1990.</ref>
-A history of CBR predictions, unexpected results, adding more free parameters, rinse and repeat.
+A history of CMB predictions, unexpected results, adding more free parameters, rinse and repeat.
 === The cosmic rays are too energetic ===

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 === The cosmic rays are too energetic ===
-There is a theoretical upper limit (the ''Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit'' or ''"GZK" limit'') to the energy of cosmic ray particles, of about 5 × 10¹⁹ eV, yet we occasionally observe particles (dubbed ''"Oh My God Particles"'') with energies an order of magnitude higher. We don't currently have a cosmological mechanism for generating these energies, but a local plasma undergoing a Z-pinch, e.g. a planetary nebula or galactic nucleus, can easily generate them.
+There is a theoretical upper limit to the energy of cosmic ray particles of about 5 × 10⁵ TeV (the ''Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit'' or ''"GZK" limit'') due to the interaction with the Cosmic Microwave Background, yet we occasionally observe particles (dubbed ''"Oh My God Particles"'') with energies an order of magnitude higher. We don't currently have a cosmological mechanism for generating these energies, but a local plasma undergoing a Z-pinch, e.g. a planetary nebula or galactic nucleus, can easily generate them.
 === Galactic rotation ===