New Challenge to LCDM on Arxiv (edited version)

Title: The Small Scatter Of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation

AUs: Lelli and two others

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf

Bottom Line: The intrinsic scatter is significantly lower than LCDM expectations.

Time for new ideas?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
(because absolute scale is an absolute disaster)

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Title: The Small Scatter Of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation

AUs: Lelli and two others

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf

Bottom Line: The intrinsic scatter is significantly lower than LCDM expectations.

Time for new ideas?

It's always time for improved ideas. What specific, quantitative
predictions does "Discrete Scale Relativity" make regarding the
Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation, to help reconcile this issue?

[Mod. note: This post arrived at my moderation inbox containing a
lot of non-ASCII characters; I have made educated guesses as to what
these are and replaced the non-whitespace ones with their LaTeX
equivalents. -- JT]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 4:35:09 PM UTC-5, Craig Markwardt wrote:
It's always time for improved ideas.

-----------------------------------------------

Here is something highly relevant. A very detailed review of a conference d=
evoted to evaluating the LCDM model, generated by a large group of astrophy=
sicists.

Title: Beyond the LCDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05356

One botton line: "As Tom Shanks once said, there are only two things wrong =
with $\Lambda$CDM: $\Lambda$; and CDM".

Yes it is time.

RLO
Discrete Self-Similarity

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Title: The Small Scatter Of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation

AUs: Lelli and two others

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf

Bottom Line: The intrinsic scatter is significantly lower than LCDM
expectations.

This is nothing new. However, this is something which obviously depends
on baryonic gastrophysics, so this in itself doesn't mean that LambdaCDM
is wrong.


[[Mod. note -- "gastrophysics" is slang for the (complicated and not
very well-understood) physics involved in the formation of galaxies.
-- jt]]

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Note: In my previous two replies, I was wondering whether I should
remind readers here of your obviously out-of-context quote from an arXiv
paper a few weeks back. With that in mind, people will need to read the
paper first to even see if your remark creates the impression the
authors intended, even if it is a direct quote.

Here is something highly relevant. A very detailed review of a conference
devoted to evaluating the LCDM model, generated by a large group of
astrophysicists.

Title: Beyond the LCDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead

I was there.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05356

One botton line: "As Tom Shanks once said, there are only two things wrong
with $\Lambda$CDM: $\Lambda$; and CDM".

Tom Shanks was not there. His picture was. The quote (which is
correct) was, in the context of the presentation, a joke. It got a good
laugh. Wish I'd thought of using it.

On 12/17/15 1:09 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Title: The Small Scatter Of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation

AUs: Lelli and two others

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf

Bottom Line: The intrinsic scatter is significantly lower than LCDM expectations.

Time for new ideas?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
(because absolute scale is an absolute disaster)

Essentially the
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf
figure 2 BARYONIC TULLY-FISHER RELATION relationship
Baryonic mass M ~ (galactic rotation v km/sec)^4
must be explained
with no observed relationship to galactic radius (R).

One possible dimensional explanation is:

(a*t)^2 = v^2 = G*M/R = G*M/(v*t) = G*M/(v*v/a)

then

M = v^4/(a*G)

where a is a deceleration within galactic time-frame (t)
due to a drag like force (m*a)
on baryonic objects of mass m (dark matter?)
m*a ~ vacuum mass density * object crossection
optically unseen due to their
small size and diffuse distribution.

The drag like force (m*a) could be analogous
to the Pioneer 10 & 11 decelerations
as similarly sized objects
as previously discussed on this newsgroup.

Richard D Saam

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:22:47 PST, "Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)"
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Title: The Small Scatter Of The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation

AUs: Lelli and two others

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf

Bottom Line: The intrinsic scatter is significantly lower than LCDM
expectations.

This is nothing new. However, this is something which obviously depends
on baryonic gastrophysics, so this in itself doesn't mean that LambdaCDM
is wrong.


[[Mod. note -- "gastrophysics" is slang for the (complicated and not
very well-understood) physics involved in the formation of galaxies.
-- jt]]
Would it not be the end of the LCDM model if it could be shown that
dark energy does not exist, nor the cosmological constant? There is
the temptation to compare it with phlogiston. After all, the
cosmological constant and acceleration were never observed, only an
anomalous dimness of supernovae with red shift. (in equations that are
clearly intractable, thus immune to analysis and criticism, and laden
down with hypothesis).
The scientific attitude should be "there can't be dark energy",
followed by vigorous efforts to disprove it.
I have done that, with the conclusion there is no dark energy, but a
much more logical reason for the dimness.
John Polasek

[[Mod. note -- Three comments:
1. The "L" in "LCDM" stands for "Lambda", the usual symbol for the
cosmological constant. So if you don't have Lambda, or dark energy
(which behaves similarly or identically), then you don't have LCDM.

2. This says nothing about the overall hot-big-bang model.

3. A great many things in physics are not observed directly, but
"just" inferred. A famous example is the Earth's iron core.
-- jt]]

In article ,
writes:

This is nothing new. However, this is something which obviously depends
on baryonic gastrophysics, so this in itself doesn't mean that LambdaCDM
is wrong.

[[Mod. note -- "gastrophysics" is slang for the (complicated and not
very well-understood) physics involved in the formation of galaxies.
-- jt]]
Would it not be the end of the LCDM model if it could be shown that
dark energy does not exist, nor the cosmological constant? There is
the temptation to compare it with phlogiston. After all, the
cosmological constant and acceleration were never observed, only an
anomalous dimness of supernovae with red shift. (in equations that are
clearly intractable, thus immune to analysis and criticism, and laden
down with hypothesis).
The scientific attitude should be "there can't be dark energy",
followed by vigorous efforts to disprove it.
I have done that, with the conclusion there is no dark energy, but a
much more logical reason for the dimness.
John Polasek

[[Mod. note -- Three comments:
1. The "L" in "LCDM" stands for "Lambda", the usual symbol for the
cosmological constant. So if you don't have Lambda, or dark energy
(which behaves similarly or identically), then you don't have LCDM.

2. This says nothing about the overall hot-big-bang model.

3. A great many things in physics are not observed directly, but
"just" inferred. A famous example is the Earth's iron core.
-- jt]]

In the old days, yes, it was just an "anomalous dimness". Now there are
many more data and also data at higher redshift. Guess what? One can
STILL fit the data with just the two traditional parameters Lambda and
Omega. These have been around for 100 years now, so remember that
Lambda was not invented to explain any recent observations. And, though
of course some region of parameter space is allowed, guess where the
best fit is? Right at the same values of lambda and Omega which are now
known quite well from other tests. (These days, just the CMB can pin
them down rather well.) Did ANY other theory predict this before it was
known? No. This greatly increases confidence in LambdaCDM. Note that
any "dimming" explanation would have to increase with redshift, then
decrease, and in just the way to mimic the prediction of the concordance
model.

The fact that one can fit 1000 data points with just two parameters is
in itself strong evidence that the model is probably correct.

Of course, if you can definitively prove that there is no cosmological
constant, that would be interesting. Do you have a reference? Do you
have predictions which can distinguish your theory from the concordance
model?

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:23:55 PST, "Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)"
wrote:
The fact that one can fit 1000 data points with just two parameters is
in itself strong evidence that the model is probably correct.

Of course, if you can definitively prove that there is no cosmological
constant, that would be interesting. Do you have a reference? Do you
have predictions which can distinguish your theory from the concordance
model?
I posted a reply to you, but apparently it got lost.
I have a paper that explains it in 4 pages. I have a lot of difficulty
putting it in a format suitable for a journal, the ApJ Letters for
example.
When we see the discrepancy at z=1 is only 0.76 magnitudes, (by
scaling the graph), it seemed like overkill to declare that space is
filled with dark energy. There is a more logical explanation.
I'm not extending the argument to the LCD'M model, but it stands on
only 2 legs one of which is Omega lambda, and this can be shown to be
0.

In article ,
writes:

Of course, if you can definitively prove that there is no cosmological
constant, that would be interesting. Do you have a reference? Do you
have predictions which can distinguish your theory from the concordance
model?

I posted a reply to you, but apparently it got lost.

By mail or in the newsgroup?

I have a paper that explains it in 4 pages. I have a lot of difficulty
putting it in a format suitable for a journal, the ApJ Letters for
example.
When we see the discrepancy at z=1 is only 0.76 magnitudes, (by
scaling the graph), it seemed like overkill to declare that space is
filled with dark energy.

Why? The result is highly significant statistically. Even if you can
explain it away in the case of the supernovae, say, you have to take
into account that combinations of other tests, or these days even just
the CMB, also point to a positive cosmological constant.

There is a more logical explanation.
I'm not extending the argument to the LCD'M model, but it stands on
only 2 legs one of which is Omega lambda, and this can be shown to be
0.

Important if true. :-|

In what forum can I display the argument?

If it's not too speculative, post it here. If it's too long and/or not
plain text, post an abstract and a URL. If it's too speculative for the
moderators, it's probably too speculative for me, but you could send it
to me in the same format (text email if plain text, otherwise URL where
I can read something).