Sunday, May 10, 2009

Study Recognizes Crisis In Standard Cosmology

Above: The biggest clown in the history of science.

Eureka Alert: Study plunges standard theory of cosmology into crisis.

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous "dark matter" to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now. Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton's theory of gravitation. "Maybe Newton was indeed wrong", declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). "Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity".

This is a problematical hypothesis that has nevertheless gained increasing ground in recent years, especially in Europe. Two new studies could well lend further support to it. In these studies, Professor Kroupa and his former colleague Dr. Manuel Metz, working in collaboration with Professor Dr. Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis from the University of Vienna, and Dr. Helmut Jerjen from the Australian National University, Canberra, have examined so-called "satellite galaxies". This term is used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars. According to the best cosmological models, they exist presumably in hundreds around most of the major galaxies. Up to now, however, only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.

A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: "First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution", Professor Kroupa explains, "the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found". More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way – the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies – lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way – like the planets revolve around the Sun.

Contradiction upon Contradiction

The physicists do belief that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies. "The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies", explains Dr. Metz, who has recently moved across to the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center). But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, "theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter". This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. "The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter", Manuel Metz states.

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. "The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation", says Pavel Kroupa. "We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter". Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.

It would not be the first time that Newton's theory of gravitation had to be modified over the past hundred years. This became necessary in three special cases: when high velocities are involved (through the Special Theory of Relativity), in the proximity of large masses (through the theory of General Relativity), and on sub-atomic scales (through quantum mechanics). The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a "modified Newton dynamic" must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories. Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: "The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite."


Anaconda said...

What these jokers will not admit is that their theories have been falsified.

Interestingly enough Plasma Cosmology goes along way to explaining these dwarf galaxies.

The relevant passage from the post:

"First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution", Professor Kroupa explains, "the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found". More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way – the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies – lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky."

A torus or "donut" of dwarf galaxies around the main galaxy.

Will they consider that possibility.


Nothing that throws their so-called "big bang", "black hole" paradigm out the window.

Plasma Cosmology explains the organization of these dwarf galaxies, but it doesn't need "dark" matter and displaces gravity from its throne, and does away with the "big bang" and "black holes".

This can't happen.

There is a crisis in "modern" astronomy.

So-called "modern" astronomy is like a man frozen on the tracks in front of an on rushing freight train, but all he can do is stand and stare.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, Thinking is a biochemical process and like any similar process physical process, such as bicycle riding for example, can become habituating with incessant repetition.

Usually described as practice, riding a bicycle, once the principles become mastered, becomes subconscious.

So too the physical activity of thinking. Dogma is nothing other than a constantly repeated pattern that, with practice, becomes subconscious.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Glad you're surviving the Outback, but, of course, you have plenty of practice.

Which brings up a thought: Normally, practice, a habit of thinking and reacting is a good thing -- it has been an essential "tool" of survival for Man.

But in Science, as you point out, Louis, there is a need to be able to be counter-intuitive, as well as intuitive.

Or possibly more accurate: Be able to set aside established ideas in the face of conflicting observation & measurement.

So-called "modern" astronomy has a real problem with that.

As you point out, Louis, a very hard thing to do, particularly when those ideas form the basis of your world-view, which "modern" astronomy has "drummed" into it's acolytes' heads from the beginning of their schooling and on through their professional careers. And, any deviation is likely to result in "punishment" or even outcast from the "community".

Habitual patterns of thought or action are the hardest to break, that is why parents try and raise their children not to have "bad" habits.

Perhaps, that is why people who are new to astronomy are more able to accept the observations & measurements that compel an electromagnetic interpretation of the structures of the Universe, whether in the solar system on in deep-space.

And why it's so hard to organize them, they come from all walks of life and disparate backgrounds.

No inbred thinking there -- which points to the over all "soundness" of the logic and reason, it's not dependent on "my way or the highway" indoctrination.

It truly is a result of "freedom of inquiry".

Louis, on a nother note: You made the analogy of deep-space structures being like eddies in a stream.

I thought about that, what do eddies do?

Eddies "come and they go" or in other words, they build up and then they dissipate.

Or to go in a spiral metaphor, spirals being so often noted as associated with electromagnetic phenomena: Electromagnetic structures "windup" and then eventually "wind down".

To this end, it seems the "reversal of polarity" might be an important concept in electromagnetism.

A quasar is a highly "woundup" electromagnetic structure, thus with a high 'redshift', usually "young", while highly mature galaxies and stars are in a state of winding down and have lower 'redshift'.

There is predominate current flow during the "windup" and a predominate opposite current flow during the "wind down", although, like AC power generation and transmission there is always a level of back and forth, fluxuation of polarity.

What would a nearly completely "wound down" galaxy look and act like?

Or a star for that matter?

Just thinking out loud.

Anaconda said...

Postscript on eddies:

There is one other thing an eddie does, it tends to move down stream in the over all current from where it first formed.

There does seem to be evidence that whole bodies of deep space structures move as if in a larger current.

There is so much that we don't understand and will never understand.

And the hard part is to accept that we will never understand.

But what we can do is work to understand what is, here, before us.

The Earth, the planets, comets, the Sun, and the heliopause, are all within Man's ability to make in situ observations & measurements (the heliopause is at the edge of that cabability).

And what if all those objects are animated by electromagnetism, does that provide evidence that electromagnetism has a significant role beyond the solar system?

Generally, that would be the reasonable hypothesis.

Will "modern" astronomy accept that reasoning?

Hard to tell.

In situ observation & measurement has confirmed the pervasive presence of electromagetic forces in the solar system.

That argument has been decided.

The new "line in the sand" appears to be at the heliopause -- as in "modern" astronomers say, "yes, the solar system is bathed in electromagnetism, but beyond the solar system, gravity still is predominate."

The "yes, but" argument of those that have already lost a round or two of the argument.

Still, what is apparent from my involvment in this debate is that "modern" astronomers and their "hangers on" fought like hell about whether electromagnetism even existed in space at all.

And you know what?

It seems the most dogged are the "hangers on" who don't actually do anything, but follow along.