Arno: I don't know who described the CMB as homogeneous, but I have here on my bookshelf Weinberg's 1972 book, Gravitation and Cosmology, which has an entire chapter devoted to the topic of the CMB, including a detailed discussion of its fluctuations and anisotropies, along with whatever scant early observational data was available at the time.

Then, as early as 1983, there was already a space-based (Soviet) experiment producing a whole-sky CMB map clearly showing the anisotropy due to the Earth's motion and smaller fluctuations (https://web.archive.org/web/20130331094338/http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/nauka-v-ussr/1992/vzglad.html). The experiment was sufficiently sensitive to detect a quadrupole moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELIKT-1).

Ten years ago, the WMAP satellite was already collecting data for three years. Indeed, their first data release took place one year earlier (see, e.g., http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/map/Tegmark/toh_wmap_wiener.jpg). So the suggestion that "ten years ago [...] background radiation was described as homogeneous" seems to me strongly contradicted by the actual, well-documented history of the subject. Indeed, I am not aware of any serious suggestion in physical cosmology that the CMB would be homogeneous; on the contrary, it was understood very early on that the temperature fluctuations of the CMB would be strongly correlated with density fluctuations of matter in the early universe. By 1972, when Weinberg's famous book was published, this was well-established science.

Just to be clear, I like weird ideas. I worked on a few of them myself. But it is not enough for an idea to be weird... it also has to show agreement with observation, be self-consistent, and it must be an improvement over existing ideas in terms of its predictive power. And while the inertia of the "mainstream" and the resistance of a mediocre "establishment" to new thoughts can be annoying at times, all too often, when maverick ideas fail on these counts, their supporters tend to blame some "mainstream" conspiracy instead of doing the right thing, namely revising or discarding a hypothesis that is proven to be untenable.

Just to present again some arguments that have already been presented by Stephen Crothres at his post that is mentioned above in my question:

"The alleged CMB does not exist. It is emission from water on Earth.

Robitaille P.-M.

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.

COBE: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.

The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-02.PDF

Furthermore, when Penzias and Wilson assigned a temperature to their residual signal they violated the laws of thermal emission.

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, ‘On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw "

?

Thanks dear Arno, I found that hypothesis intriguing and I posted it in RG to see if any kind of acceptance will be...I have to read you theories and I will answer next.

>Is there a possibility of CMB to be just a microwave reflection of radiation

>and not the so called cosmic microwave background radiation?

No, there is no possibility.

All of the instruments that have imaged the CMB at sub-Kelvin levels of resolution have been onboard spacecraft at great distances from the Earth and *unable* to point anywhere near the Earth's direction because it is so hot.

One of the more widely reproduced images arose from WMAP. This is at the second Lagrange point - and even at the greatly removed distance it is unable to point at the Earth, and I believe, has never done so.

May I add that the CMB map also shares a remarkable similarity to the topography of the Moon:

http://global.jaxa.jp/article/special/kaguya/img/seika_img02_l_e.jpg

And it also bears a striking resemblance to the current distribution of froth in my french-press cafetiere (after I have remapped from polar to Cartesian coordinates).

Amazing.

A remark about the concept of an RG question:

*When asking a question it is not necessary that you have solved the problem, which is under the question. If it was so, then such a question is rather a rhetorical one and thus, needless.*

So, I appreciate any answer based on the above declaration.

If the answer will definitely be negative, then I have no problem to accept it.

But if there exists even a small probability that something happens, then we have to thoroughly investigate it, since all our modern cosmological building is based on CMB radiation.

Thanks all.

James Garry, you have obviously not read any of the papers by Robitaille or consulted his videoed conference presentations.

Your assertions on CMB detection are patently false. No microwave monopole signal has ever been detected beyond Earth influence. Balloons and rockets were in the atmosphere, Penzias and Wilson observed from the ground, COBE was only orbiting Earth at an altitude of ~950km and without a microwave shield. WMAP, located at L2 some 1.5 million km from Earth, was incapable of detection of a monopole signal because it was strictly a differential instrument. The Planck satellite, also at L2 was capable of absolute and differential detections. It has not reported finding a monopole signal at L2, in fact, its reports prove that there is no monopole signal at L2, and hence that there is no CMB, and there can be no anisotropies in that which does not exist.

Put a glass of water in a microwave oven and turn it on. Does the water reflect or absorb the microwaves? What about a block of ice instead? Since water absorbs microwaves it emits microwaves. That's also why microwaves are not used for communication systems on submarines. There is a lot of water on Earth and in its atmosphere. Earth is therefore not microwave silent. The fact that COBE-FIRAS did not report any interference from Earth is precisely because Earth is the source of the signal.

Furthermore, when Penzias and Wilson assigned a temperature to their residual signal they violated the laws of thermal emission.

I suggest that you actually study Robitaille's papers before you comment again.

Demetris,

I've covered this question in depth here (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_big_bang_cosmic_microwave_background_a_farce?).

The central proof that the CMB is not due to water on Earth arises from the S-Z effect (30+ independent experiments/results). In short, we directly observer the CMB being influence by the hot gas in distant galaxy clusters. Due to scattering with high energy electrons, the CMB signal becomes slightly boosted in temperature. This proves that the CMB is a background source (behind distant clusters and galaxies) rather than any local origin.

Does water on Earth contribute a negligible amount of anisotropy to the CMB? Without a doubt. Can the Big Bang interpretation of the CMB be wrong? This is appearing more likely. However, thorough investigations have properly taken water into consideration and the effect is minimal. When someone has concrete evidence stating otherwise, then I would take the possibility into consideration (but no one does). The biggest issue is galactic contamination, which strongly affects less than 10% of the sky. Obviously one cannot disregard 90% of the sky for a small region that is obscured locally.

Articles on contamination:

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/272/3/551.full.pdf (atmospheric issues like water vapor are a much greater concern than water in oceans and does not affect space based observations)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991A%26A...249..299A (more on water vapor and galactic contamination).

We are used of serial downvoting, whenever we express a view out of the mainstream orthodoxy...

Speaking from experience as someone who did some work outside "mainstream orthodoxy"... it's not enough to think outside the box. You also have to be right. Some of the stuff I've seen here on RG is hair-raising nonsense. While this particular thread was initiated by a question that was itself highly speculative (to say the least), all too often I see folks promoting their pet "unorthodox" ideas on RG in response to perfectly sensible, genuine questions about facts and established theory. That, in my opinion, is just wrong and unethical. There are many forums where unorthodox ideas can be promoted... answering a student's or a young researcher's legitimate questions about mainstream science is not the right place.

Arno: I don't know who described the CMB as homogeneous, but I have here on my bookshelf Weinberg's 1972 book, Gravitation and Cosmology, which has an entire chapter devoted to the topic of the CMB, including a detailed discussion of its fluctuations and anisotropies, along with whatever scant early observational data was available at the time.

Then, as early as 1983, there was already a space-based (Soviet) experiment producing a whole-sky CMB map clearly showing the anisotropy due to the Earth's motion and smaller fluctuations (https://web.archive.org/web/20130331094338/http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/nauka-v-ussr/1992/vzglad.html). The experiment was sufficiently sensitive to detect a quadrupole moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELIKT-1).

Ten years ago, the WMAP satellite was already collecting data for three years. Indeed, their first data release took place one year earlier (see, e.g., http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/map/Tegmark/toh_wmap_wiener.jpg). So the suggestion that "ten years ago [...] background radiation was described as homogeneous" seems to me strongly contradicted by the actual, well-documented history of the subject. Indeed, I am not aware of any serious suggestion in physical cosmology that the CMB would be homogeneous; on the contrary, it was understood very early on that the temperature fluctuations of the CMB would be strongly correlated with density fluctuations of matter in the early universe. By 1972, when Weinberg's famous book was published, this was well-established science.

Just to be clear, I like weird ideas. I worked on a few of them myself. But it is not enough for an idea to be weird... it also has to show agreement with observation, be self-consistent, and it must be an improvement over existing ideas in terms of its predictive power. And while the inertia of the "mainstream" and the resistance of a mediocre "establishment" to new thoughts can be annoying at times, all too often, when maverick ideas fail on these counts, their supporters tend to blame some "mainstream" conspiracy instead of doing the right thing, namely revising or discarding a hypothesis that is proven to be untenable.

Arno: Weinberg is referring to what most people refer to when discussing the CMB: thermal (blackbody) radiation presumed to have been emitted by hot, mostly hydrogen gas that filled the observable universe at the end of the recombination era. Its observed (small) temperature fluctuations are consistent with small density perturbations in the gas. In particular, the angular power spectrum of these fluctuations confirms some very precise predictions of the concordance model involving detailed physics of the expanding gas, setting the bar very high for alternate explanations. Indeed I am very doubtful that an explanation involving discrete, compact sources could come even close to matching what has been observed by Planck, WMAP and earlier experiments.

By the way, in "superstring", the prefix "super" is not just there for decoration; it indicates that the theory is supersymmetric (i.e., invariant under a transformation that takes bosons into fermions and vice versa.)

1. Although LCDM is for the most part able to fit CMB observations, the theory is highly tunable and recent additions that have been tacked on such as inflation are unfalsifiable.

“The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi-verse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.”

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

2. Much of the foundations for LCDM lack direct experimental confirmation including gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, inflatons, ect.

3. There are many anomalies and issues with LCDM's interpretation of the CMB; these include hemispherical power asymmetry, alignment of quadrupole/octupole, the cold spots, the sigma_8 parameter predicting 2.5x more clusters than observed in optical/x-ray surveys, ect.

4. LCDM has serious issues with angular diameter-redshift observations and the volume element; two of the most basic cosmological tests.

5. A solid explanation for the CMB is a sink-source universe with global gravitational potential. Here, there would be a central object that emits black body radiation, which undergoes gravitational lensing to local observers (hemispherical power asymmetry and B-mode polarization). The black body spectrum is preserved under gravitational redshift and IMO this is the only other reasonable explanation for the CMB. Many CMB predictions of this theory have already been confirmed, i.e. it predicts the observed large-scale B-mode polarization with zero parameters, explains hemispherical power asymmetry and the large-scale structures expected in such universe are consistent with the CMB anisotropy.

Dear Matts Roos,

First of all I'd like to congratulate you for your success in your scientific field.

But, the fact that you are so absolutely sure about your view really scares me...

Since we are talking about Cosmology, please allow me to express some remarks-questions:

1)Isotropy of the universe in the long scale: Where did we really notice such a thing? By Voyager II? By what means?

2)Homogeneity in the long scale: Again how did we confirm such a strong hypothesis? From CMB again? Don't you think that we have many arguments based on a simple 'observation'?

3)CMB itself: How are we so sure that it is about a universe's global property and not for example just a solar or a local galactic property? OK, we went at Lagrange point, but then the only thing that we achieved is the neutralization of gravity. Who guarantees us that CMB is not a local property?

4)Are you proud of a theory (GR) that:

i)cannot solve the two identical mass body problem?

ii)has deterministic fatal errors (Tmn=0 does not imply Gmn=0)?

iii)has so many point singularities, that quantum theories seem so 'innocent' compared to it?

iv)don't you feel a little bit uncomfortable to work with a theory which predicts gravitational waves, but, even after 100 years, they have never been detected?

After all, why are you so absolute sure and proud for the current cosmological model?

Because you have the success of: "Price: $89.34 "?

I can ensure you from personal experience that, professional success is something very variable in our life...

So, my friend, please don't be so absolute, based on your current success story.

Finally:

"Εν οίδα ότι ουδέν οίδα"["I know that I know nothing"-Socrates]

Dear Toth, since your arguments are more reasonable and 'grounded on Earth', I'd like your opinion about a less 'speculative question'. On the contrary I'd say that it is a rather strictly technical question, related to Cosmology, see here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_somebody_solve_the_next_problem_by_using_only_general_relativity

As for CMB, maybe its source would not be the ocean water, but we cannot in certainly

argue that, from measurements inside our (isolated) solar system, it is a global feature of the universe. Let's keep small the hopes, because otherwise there exists the danger that we will be disproved later with 'crash'...

Dear Arno, can we claim, according to your view of Cantor universe, that this infinity can be applied also to the number of universes?

[Or Local Universes, see a definition here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263104630_A_simple_definition_of_Time?ev=prf_pub ]?

Thank you.

Article A simple definition of Time

Michael Peck,

You reiterate the same falsehoods here as you did on the other RG forum concerning the CMB fantasy:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_big_bang_cosmic_microwave_background_a_farce#view=5366753dd3df3eec228b45d5

The alleged anisotropies have no signal to noise (S/N) and the S-Z effect have even less. You have disregarded the principles of signal analysis and the importance of reproducibility. Before you speak about the S-Z effect you need to show that the anisotropy maps are stable. However, that in itself is futile since the alleged anisotropies are in fact nothing but noise and image processing artefacts. It is the monopole signal that is important. No monopole signal has been detected beyond Earth influence. The Planck satellite reports have already proven that there is no monopole signal at L2 and hence that there is no CMB.

There is another reason to support the steady state sink-source interpretation of the CMB. In the model that I have proposed, there is a continuous flow from and to the sink-source. Although thermodynamics proceeds as normal after the source (hot metal poor gas -> cold high metallicity matter), once it falls back into the sink a loophole arises in the laws of thermodynamics. If we take such universe as a whole, it is clear that entropy on the largest scales is constant. Therefore, although a central object is responsible for reducing entropy on a local scale, the laws of thermodynamics are not violated because the entropy of the system as a whole is constant. However, there are some complications in terms of properties of the central object and black hole information paradox. This is why I spent a large amount of time rewriting general relativity on a per particle basis, because event horizon no longer form (and the temperature of the CMB rules out the interpretation of Hawking radiation, where temperature is inversely proportional to mass). If we stick with the standard model however, matter falling onto such a massive object will be compressed into various states of quark matter (along with superfluidity, superconductivity and a near perfect black body spectrum). So the only way to have a steady state or even cyclical universe is through a perpetual machine, i.e. superfluidity and superconductivity fed by the momentum of objects accelerating into a global gravitational potential. The problem with a big bang followed by collapse is that the system is not preserving entropy on the largest of scales. It is instead slowly losing energy and thus the universe must have an infinite amount of initial energy for the present state to exist, i.e. it must be able to lose a finite amount for each previous cycle (an infinite amount of cycles up to the present).

Support:

- CMB, hemispherical power asymmetry, large-scale B-mode pattern and S-Z effect.

- Outperforms LCDM in SNIa distance modulus vs redshift with a linear gravitational potential and relativistic Doppler effect.

- Matches observed angular diameter distance and volume element.

- The "dark flow" (large-scale flow of hot x-ray emitting gas) and local distance modulus-redshift anisotropy in SNIa.

- Is in agreement with the observed evolution of galaxies and clusters, i.e. distant objects are actually much older than local varieties.

- Is possibly the only cyclical steady state that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Stephen,

“The presence of the SZ effect indicates the existence of a cluster of galaxies as their high masses and the energetic electrons present in the cluster gas are responsible for creating distortions in the cosmic background.”

http://astro.uchicago.edu/sza/overview.html

Please stop arguing against proven science without (1) mathematical definitions and (2) direct reproducible measurements and results.

V. Krasnoholovets

The astrophysical and cosmological observations which needed the introduction of

dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with the metric chosen, nor are they sub-parameters of the metric.

Cosmology is by far not so well understood as the standard model of particle physics, yet that model also has some 20 parameters which are not understood.

All the scientists who are interested in the development of science are honest, or they would quickly disappear from the pages of the scientific journals.

Matts,

That is not entirely true. Indirect evidence for “dark matter” originates from lensing of background sources by cluster mass. However, I have shown that the angular diameter distances for all discrete objects (extent of gas in clusters, separation between BCG, 90% light radii of galaxies, similar luminosity radio lobes, ect.) are fully consistent with a static metric. The consequences of applying incorrect angular diameter distances to interpretations of cosmological data are substantial:

1. Lensing mass can be overestimated by an order of magnitude, similar to the amount of additional mass required in clusters relative to LCDM.

2. Cluster studies and expected completeness are varied (this relates to the sigma_8 cluster deficiency, which is likely due to incorrect cosmological assumptions). S-Z studies specifically are missing a significant amount of smaller clusters due to various bias, as rich cluster counts closely follow a static metric.

3. BAO measurements become biased due to both completeness and the recently proposed “local hole” (to alleviate the local volume element issues in LCDM). These bias show up through several anomalies and inconsistencies within BAO tests.

What the big bang community has done over the past few decades is to ignore all objects that are least likely to be biased (and also contradict the theory), while relying on strongly model-dependent and highly tunable observations that support the theory; i.e. ones that turn out to be plagued by anomalies, unsolved problems and cannot rule out false positives (or be falsified in some cases). It has turned into a science of endless problem solving through fudge factors rather than trying to find the most simple solution.

Michael,

There are groups formed by a small number of galaxies which are enveloped in a large cloud of hot gas visible by its X-ray emission. The amount of matter in the form of hot gas can be deduced from the intensity of this radiation. Adding the gas mass to the observed luminous matter, the total amount of baryonic matter, M_b, can be estimated.

The temperature of the gas depends on the strength of the gravitational field, from which the total amount of gravitating matter, M_grav, in the system can be deduced. In many such small galaxy groups one finds M_grav / M_b >3, testifying to a dark halo present.

This indirect information on dark matter is completely independent of lensing or of the other objections you had.

Another proof of dark matter which is independent of lensing is the clear correlation between mass-to-light ratio and the luminosity of dwarf spheroidal galaxies, such that the faintest dwarfs require the largest fractions of dark matter to remain bound.

This is to be expected, as the fainter a galaxy is, the less luminous mass it will contain, therefore the higher its dark matter content must be to prevent its disruption. Dwarfs are more easily influenced by their environment than more massive galaxies.

Over a wide range of scales there appears to be a universal relation between density and size of observed dark matter halos, from dwarf galaxies to galaxy clusters. Such a universal property is difficult to explain without dark matter.

And so on...

V. Krasnoholovets ,

Dark matter was never expected nor derived. It was an astrophysical discovery in virial systems. There are now lots of discoveries in different astrophysical systems. These discoveries show many general, common properties, but also unexplained contradictions. It is fascinating to follow this field and to try to complete the common picture and to explain the contradictions. That's how science progresses in all fields and develops.

Michael Peck said: "Stephen, “The presence of the SZ effect indicates the existence of a cluster of galaxies as their high masses and the energetic electrons present in the cluster gas are responsible for creating distortions in the cosmic background.”

http://astro.uchicago.edu/sza/overview.html

Please stop arguing against proven science without (1) mathematical definitions and (2) direct reproducible measurements and results."

Peck, your claims are no better than those for BICEP2, COBE, WMAP and Planck, none of which detected a CMB and hence no anisotropies therein either, as the case may be. I reiterate: - The alleged anisotropies have no signal to noise (S/N) and the S-Z effect have even less. You have disregarded the principles of signal analysis and the importance of reproducibility. The alleged anisotropies are in fact nothing but noise and image processing artefacts. It is the monopole signal that is important. No monopole signal has been detected beyond Earth influence. The Planck satellite reports have already proven that there is no monopole signal at L2 and hence that there is no CMB.

Matts Roos said: "All the scientists who are interested in the development of science are honest, or they would quickly disappear from the pages of the scientific journals."

That's precisely why the 'scientific' journals are dominated by black holers and big bangers and Higgs bosonians and higgsinonians etc. - the honest scientists have been long ago expelled.

Matts,

Depending on the assumptions made, determining group or cluster mass through x-ray temperature can still be biased. LCDM requires virial systems, while other cases such as dynamic systems are still possible. Galaxy and stellar dispersion increases with ICM temperature, along with correlations to several other properties. Since the ICM is of primordial origin (cannot be from galaxies, stellar kinematic energy is too small, ect.), it is very possible big bang assumptions in these regards are wrong. For example, what if currently dense and hot regions of space formed in even hotter, more turbulent regions (such as the “dark flow”)? Thus there would be a correlation between bottom heavy IMF and ICM temperature as observed. This would also explain the increased dispersion with temperature and unstable dynamics, because larger varieties formed in over-dense, turbulent primordial (hot) gas that later expands and cools. With proper time increasing with redshift, things make a lot more sense under sink-source angular diameter distances: hot dense gas -> early type galaxies and globular clusters -> hot gas begins to cool with formation of HI disk, followed collapse along spin plane (observed with many ETGs and motion of stars in the Milky Way) -> ICM becomes neutral hydrogen and intense star formation begins -> Ly-Alpha blobs dominated by massive central objects containing O and B stars.

There are also many problems with dark matter halos, as numerical simulations are unable to form them without a central cusp. Although one can get things to make sense in various frameworks, there is no way to guarantee that they are all correct. This is the central reason why I support finding the simplest model, because all of these observations can likely be explained in a different cosmological framework without “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “a local hole”, “disappearing galaxies” and “inflation”. Yes, dark matter is required in LCDM through many observations, but there is no guarantee that it is correct. The problem with the current system is that very simple alternatives previously supported by data are not being explored as possible fits. For example, I have not found a single cluster lensing study that determines the mass relative to a static metric. Although I agree that previous steady states violated basic laws of physics, that doesn’t mean the metric cannot be static (the only other alternative).

What needs to happen is a focus on aspects that contain the least amount of bias and assumptions. Fitting the CMB anisotropy with a bunch of parameters is a poor test (and has had recent problems). Predicting a pattern in say large-scale B-mode polarization with little or no parameters is a good test. Assuming all systems are virial and thus need dark matter is a poor test, comparing all discrete objects for angular size or volume deviations is a good test (unless doing so by very model-dependent means). In other words, we need to reintroduce falsifiability and stop assuming that all simple tests fail due to drastic evolution rather than incorrect cosmological assumptions. Because there are tests that can be constructed, where the required data has already been published, that rule out metric expansion as a mechanism for cosmological redshift.

Michael,

have yo written or published any text on this?

Matts,

I began writing a book on special relativity, general relativity and the cosmological aspects before graduating and was basically told that I should have no problem uploading it to arXiv by several of my professors. It took me several months after graduating before I finally sent for arXiv endorsement and moderation decided to stop the submission and black list my account. After inquiry, I was told that I would have to first submit it to a journal for proper feedback (which later evolved into needing a prior publications record). So I sent it to as many mainstream journals that I could find, all of which refused to peer-review it until I tried a relatively newer journal. I then spent 3 – 4 months waiting for the peer-review, being told everything was on time for the up-coming quarterly edition. Then on the last day I was told I would have to resubmit and change the topic to a review of current theory instead of the additional cosmological aspects (because the paper was essentially derived from classical electrodynamics and the equivalence principle). At this point, I realized my initial purpose for the book (to be made freely available to the scientific community) was impossible to achieve beyond alternative archives or non-reviewed journals.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0138v1.pdf

So then I began writing another article that focused only on the cosmological aspects and submitted to several journals before it was finally accepted for peer-review by JCAP. Unfortunately, the review was completely biased and claimed that my arguments were flawed; however, only one example was provided. The reviewer claimed that lyman alpha blobs cannot possibly be galaxy clusters. I refuted this claim with objects such as the “spider web galaxy” and recent observations by ESO VLT that show the Ly-alpha emission is due to various massive galaxies contained within (there were other arguments such as the extent of gas in 2z x-ray clusters being equivalent to the extent of gas in ly-alpha blobs and other comparisons to the size of massive galaxies at similar redshift). Their editorial board decided that I was correct and allowed me to either submit the same manuscript or revise within the next month. I decided to revise and include stronger arguments, reinforcing measurements from clusters. I received another review within a few days, saying that it was unknown if the clusters were fully relaxed, when the uncertainty this adds to the measurement being made is less than 5%. So I then refuted the claim, except I was told that I had already been given two chances so I could not resubmit. Both of these papers can be found on ResearchGate or online, although I might revise the 1st and remove the 2nd due to other aspects I had overlooked (these were not mentioned in the review(s)).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0236v1.pdf

Well I was really fed up with the censorship and year or so wasted by incompetence of others, so I went all out in my most recent article. Essentially I used ~240 of the largest clusters available and measured their extent of gas. I also derived various merger related fractions such as double peak phase, minor merger/disturbed and relaxed. Combined with recent cluster merger simulations, I produced maximum merger models for both my theory and LCDM. This is a strong test because the gas in clusters is primordial and thus can only significantly grow through mergers with other clusters. Even without considering that most local clusters are relaxed (>50% for the largest and >70% for mid-sized) with relaxation times being on the order of the Hubble time, the evolution of extent of gas in clusters is inconsistent with LCDM (and largely any universe with metric expansion). I also determined very precise luminosity functions for BRIHK-bands, fitted to redshift distributions in optical and near infrared (there is another conclusive test within this). By using all major galaxy surveys, I was able to derive area weighted magnitude counts for BRIHK-bands, where the average volume versus redshift plot is fully consistent with rich clusters and a static metric. In fact, I can guarantee that current galaxy counts are not finished rising by 28B or 20K due to angular scale limitations (~0.050" FWHM resolution is required for most of the missing galaxies). This article also includes the B-mode test, hemispherical power asymmetry and discussion of galactic/cluster formation/evolution.

If you want a copy of my most recent article, I can send a private copy. It was initially submitted to A&A, who found the results “not substantially new enough” (whatever that means for a completely new theory). So I’m currently waiting for peer-review to finish with another journal instead.

Michael,

I looked at the reference you gave, but I'm not willing to indulge into it. I have just spent 6 months on rewriting my book which is mainly the concordance model, so I want a break now. To go through somebody else's presentation is tedious and I am very old.

Just as well I could ask you to go through my entire manuscript of some 260 pages and ask you to tell me where I go wrong, and motivate it.

Matts,

That is understandable. My latest article contains 209 references in about 13 pages (A&A formatting), so I’ve thoroughly gone through at least 4,000 pages of literature in the last half year. Most of this was based upon the concordance model, but I mainly focus on observational data, analysis and current problems relative to LCDM. Therefore, the latest article is an in-depth discussion on modern issues in several subjects (bright galaxy counts, BAO, cluster properties, angular size-redshift relations, observed evolution, ect.) and how these problems relate to one another.

The sink-source model comes into play because instead of needing 5+ independent and non-classical mechanisms to explain these observations in LCDM, they arise classically in a sink-source universe with linear gravitational potential. In addition, there are several unique predictions made by the sink-source universe which are verified through recent observations; i.e. over the last decade.

I also have a short power-point (pdf) if you wish to at least consider a paradigm that more likely than not will replace the big bang theory.

Michael,

The ppt version I could have the time and interest to look at.

Let me note that I am neither an astronomer nor an astrophysicist although work on cosmology has taught me some.

James G. wrote 

'All of the instruments that have imaged the CMB at sub-Kelvin levels of resolution have been onboard spacecraft at great distances from the Earth and *unable* to point anywhere near the Earth's direction because it is so hot.'

what is that heat attributed to?

does that not contradict the CMB black body uniform temp distribution?

why can it not indicate we are by the approximate center from which the universe expanded from? 

Roger,

My sentence was, it seems, ambiguous. The 'it' is the Earth in the earlier sentence.

Instruments designed to look at the CMB (3K) would be damaged by the radiant flux if they pointed at the Earth.

>why can it not indicate we are by the approximate center from which

>the universe expanded from? 

Because there is no reason for that to be true. On what grounds would the Earth be accorded this (unphysical) status?

Hi James,

My misunderstanding your description of the CMB to have meant it was hotter around the Earth than elsewhere could have been an indicator, but that is not the case.

As to why there may be empirical evidence we are by the center of the universe:

The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis, if valid, would mean:

the Earth/Sun Ecliptic is the center of the observable universe, and 

the entire universe is visible (a static universe up to 13 B LY radius).

thus we are the approximate center of the entire universe.

if valid it would also mean the continued expansion of the 'visible' universe as hypothesized under under the Hubble expansion hypothesis,  from the up to 13 B LY to the 46 +/- B LY did not happen.

which would require going back to the drawing board on what process led to the current CMB temp and black body spectrum. 

On my profile I have a question posted asking for possible solutions for under what process the CMB black body and temp could occur if The Pearlman SPIRAL is the actuality.

best, r

Roger,

A hypothesis must be challenged by falsifiable data. To the best of our knowledge the universe is expanding - cosmic bodies show a redshift that appears to correlate with distance.

This (as I am sure you know) is interpreted as a recession - as there are no credible data to gainsay it - or, none that I know of. And you suggest that there is no expansion.

So, briefly, what is the experimentally demonstrated mechanism that reddens starlight as a function of distance?

(I've heard quite a few 'tired light' hypotheses in my time)

Hi James,

To the best of my knowledge I am the only one who has proposed this alternative cosmological redshift hypothesis. So i am not surprised you have yet to even hear about it, never mind consider it.

aside from the laws of probability making it a better explanation than cosmic expansion, The Pearlman SPIRALL cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model explains why there was no continued expansion, and or no resumption of expansion, subsequent to an initial expansion and inflation from an initial singularity to up to 13 B LY radius.

In it the speed of light is limited to the speed of light ;) and it does not invoke time dilation.

the work does make testable predictions that would validate it, and invalidate the current standard expanding universe hypothesis assumption upon which much cosmology theory is based.

below i provide the links for anyone interested.

if you (or any other credentialed scientist) are willing to 'peer review' and spend some time figuring out (if) how it is consistent with all factual evidence such as CMB black body distribution and Temp. contact me at rmp@

torahdiscovery.org

best, r

 'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'

the new title for the third review edition of 'The Pearlman Spiral' cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model.

link at:

kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0181C4Q1W

paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205