—– Original Message —–
From: John Hartnett
To: Hilton Ratcliffe
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2011 4:12 AM
From your investigations for your book and since, what would you say are the best lines of evidence for a static universe?
Professor John Hartnett
School of Physics, M013
University of Western Australia
On 14-Apr-11, at 08:17 PM, Hilton Ratcliffe wrote:
My position is that universal expansion is an extraordinary hypothesis (we do not observe expansion), and that therefore the burden of proof lies with those who propose it. Both redshift (Hubble Law) and CMBR are specious. We have a situation that is analogous with the proposal of Copernicus – from Earth, we observe that the Sun passes around the Earth, which appears to be at rest and central. Copernicus made an extraordinary proposal, that the Earth in fact rotates about its polar axis and creates the illusion that the Sun passes overhead. The burden of proof rested with him, and those who supported him. They succeeded, and now we have a proper understanding of the dynamics of the Solar System. No such verification of the expansion theory has been forthcoming and we therefore must continue to believe what we see (a static Universe) until we are shown otherwise.
To answer your question more directly: The best lines of evidence for a static Universe are those that falsify the expanding Universe – namely, exposing the myth of the Hubble Law (proper motion of quasars is a powerful argument against cosmological redshift) and showing that the fit of the CMBR to the model is extremely loose and heavily contrived. In this respect, I have not developed my arguments much since my book. I have been absorbed by what I regard as increasing certainty that there is design, and therefore a Designer, behind everything we can see in the cosmos. I see order emerge from chaos, time and again, and to my mind, that requires design. The Universe, as I see it, is not decaying to higher entropy. On the contrary…
From: Cliff Saunders
To: Hilton Ratcliffe
Subject: Re: question
Thanks for your explanation.
I have a slightly different topic. I know from our conversations that you are convinced that Physics as it is currently practiced is misleading itself spectacularly.
Specifically you point out that there has been a shift over the last century and a half from an ‘observe first, develop mathematical model second’ style of Physics and Cosmological enquiry to today’s approach of ‘develop mathematical model first, observe second’.
Subtle but crucial.
I’m reading in New Scientist an article entitled “Dark matter no-show at sensitive underground lab”. Its interesting because the article illustrates your concern perfectly. Here we are looking for something because our mathematical model hypnotizes us into ‘knowing’ WIMPs must exist.
But one comment took my eye, “Dark matter is needed to explain where the gravity comes from that stops spinning galaxies from flying apart.” Hilton what does stop the galaxies from flying apart? Don’t we need dark matter or something like it?
On 15-Apr-11, at 03:47 AM, Hilton Ratcliffe wrote:
Attached please find:
1. Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem by James T. Dwyer
2. A Thin-Disk Gravitational Model for Galactic Rotation by C. F. Gallo and James Q. Feng.
Good question. We need to take into account the difference between dark matter and Dark Matter, between unseen baryonic matter and unseen non-baryonic matter. My friend and compatriot Gerrit Verschuur (author of the highly recommended popular science book “Interstellar Matters”) went a long way to explaining what dark matter is and how to quantify it. It’s a fairly old term in astronomy and refers to stuff for which the radiant image is too weak by the time it gets to us for whatever reason, and for which we don’t have instruments powerful enough to acquire and resolve the picture. An examples is molecular hydrogen which exists in vast interstellar clouds but which until fairly recently could not be seen. Verschuur (a professional observational astronomer and professor of astrophysics) realised this from the early 20th century work of pioneer astro-photographer E. E. Barnard. There are dark patches in the Milky Way (eg, the Coal Sack near the Southern Cross) which were long thought to be holes or voids because we could see nothing there. Advancing technology brought us redemption from that ignorance however, and we now know from observation that the “voids” in fact contain lots of normal baryonic matter. We just couldn’t see it for a long time. That’s dark matter. Normal, everyday atoms and molecules. I urge you to read Verschuur’s book. It’s a fine example of space science without hocus-pocus.
What stops anything we can see from flying apart? Gravitation. In the Solar System, which is close enough for us to see most of the stuff affecting gravitation, Newtonian Mechanics quantifies it pretty much exactly, and we can make stunningly accurate predictions based upon those laws (eg, the flight path of interplanetary space craft). When we move further afield however, things are not so clear (the Spatial Credibility Factor – uncertainty is proportional to remoteness). The nearest spiral galaxy in our study is M31 (Andromeda), about 3 million LY away. At that distance we have only fuzzy detail and much of what is there cannot be seen. Based on what we can see, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies seem to be anomalous. The way that they rotate does not align with the observed distribution of mass within the galaxy disk, and this is true whether we use the formulae of Newton or Einstein. Something’s missing from the equation.
Here is where East and West part company, and the twain look set upon doing astronomy independently. Both Newtonian camp and Einsteinian camp do agree on one thing however, and that is that we are missing some mass in there somewhere. However, the solutions proposed are radically different. In the classical, mechanical view, if we know enough about the initial conditions, we can safely predict the outcome. Therefore, if the outcome that is observed doesn’t fit, we’ve missed something up front. The common analogy is a roulette wheel – if we know the initial conditions, eg the weight and and size and velocity of the ball, the rotational speed of the wheel, the starting point, etc etc, then we could with confidence predict which number it will land up in. If we try to calculate the result but leave a significant mechanical influence out of the equation (eg, ignoring the Sun’s shifting barycentre when calculating the orbit of Mercury) we get to some degree a wrong or inaccurate answer. The system we are using is not defective; we have just not used it properly.
The Big Bang Model, and its forebear, General Relativity, require some tuneable factors in the equation to work properly in the mathematical sense, and included in these are both Dark Mtter and Dark Energy (which actually work against each other by attracting and repulsing respectively). The theory is so weak in fact, that these dark things would comprise over 96% of the model, and the stuff we observe, experiment with, and analyse in detail less than 4%. The model urgently needs observational support, and desperation sires rose-tinted spectacles. So the rotational anomaly in galaxies filled the need. By adding arbitrary, adjustable quantities of Dark Matter (a supernatural substance), and by awarding Dark Matter just the properties in needs for the job, they get galaxies to work in terms of their model, and consequently imply that their model has received observational support. It’s tragically funny.
This is in my considered opinion extremely weak science. The Newtonian solution is crucially different in concept and execution. Electrophysicists Chuck Gallo and James Feng have shown that by simply reorganising the distribution of normal mass in the galaxy disk, there is no problem. It works. It’s dark matter, not Dark Matter. There is no need to change the laws of physics (see attachments).
The crucial point to remember is that we have seen the development of mathematics from a set of formulae to return quantities, to become an arcane language that returns concepts. Those in the latter school will argue with some merit that their conceptual interpretations are often aligned with later observation; I reply that the former always aligns with observation since it is derived from observation. Where it appears not to, it is in my view simply a case of weak eyesight.
Thank you for asking the questions you do.