Re: Physicists attack cosmological model

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:04:05 -0500

Dear John,

    It is instructive to look at the reasons why all this "phantom"
matter/energy was postulated to exist in the first place! IIRC, it started
when it was noticed that the radial (?) momentum distribution of galaxies
did not follow the predictions of a gravity only model.
    Alternatives using plasma physics have been proposed but have received
little serious attention even though they predict distributions that fit
very well and do not require strange forms of matter. The con against them
is that they require the existence of magnetic fields at all cosmological
scales and an acknowledgement that all that "glowing stuff" out there is
electrically charged - not neutral as the gravitational models require.
    From my own point of view, the predilection for gravity and fancy
particle based models is more of a political phenomenon than an attempt to
find a better predictive model. A lot of academic tenure is tied up in
gravity based models.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
To: "CMR" <jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>; <InfoPhysics.domain.name.hidden.com>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Physicists attack cosmological model


> Just one question and one remark.
> Q:
> >>...a group of astrophysicists in the UK has found that this radiation -
> >>the microwave 'echo' of the big bang - may in fact have been modified
>>or
> `corrupted' as it passed through galaxy clusters on its way to
>>Earth....<<
> Where from?
> (and please, spare the Euclidean geometry in explaining cosmology)
>
> Rem.:
> >>the universe is dominated by cold 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - a
> >>view that has been confirmed by recent
> > > measurements on the cosmic background radiation.<<
> (At least assigned to it and believed so, supported by zillions of theory
> laden measurements and mathematical congruences).
> I assign those 'discrepancies' which led to the 'dark' content to our
> lack of omniscience: our 'not-omni' assigns ALL to the so far discovered
> cognitive inventory - and it is not enough. I like the 'dark', not because
> of its physical meaning as non-radiant, but because understanding it will
> require more 'enlightenment' in the topics of the wholeness.
> Cosmo-physicists don't like to confess to ignorance in explaining data.
> If the darkness is 'dominant', then so is our ignorance. We know little.
>
> Concerning the quote in the question:
> if radiation could be 'corrupted', changed, by passing features in the
> cosmos, a similar phenomenon could be assigned to the redshift as well and
> we can start re-thinking the science of our expanding universe.
> But what can be done with so many calculations, dissertations, awards,
> (incl. Nobels), theories and tenures - all based (and successfully
included)
> in all of these? Not to speak about the 2-3 generations of so brainwashed
> scientists who imbibed all that with the nursing milk of their Alma Mater.
>
> John Mikes
>
snip
Received on Sat Feb 07 2004 - 12:21:37 PST