New Challenge to LCDM on Arxiv (edited version)

On Sat, 09 Jan 16 09:44:58 GMT, "Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)"
wrote:
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).

Thank you for your reply. Send me an email at ,
and I'll attach a copy of the paper in my reply.
Obviously I place great value on my derivation which puts to rest the
idea of dark energy that has been baffling everyone. Take a look at it
but keep it to yourself for that reason. I do need to publish it in a
journal though.
John Polasek

[Mod. note: this seems to have turned into a private conversation,
followups set to poster -- mjh]

On 1/4/16 11:53 PM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
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

Nobody has chosen to comment on this post
but there are some clarifications that must be made:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543.pdf
figure 2 BARYONIC TULLY-FISHER RELATION relationship
Baryonic mass M ~ (galactic rotation v km/sec)^4

The acceleration 'a' in the dimensional relationship
M = v^4/(a*G)
or
a = v^4/(M*G)

From figure 2 use
M = 1x10^10 solar mass (2.0x10^43 gram)
v = 100 km/sec (1.0x10^7 cm/sec)
G = 6.7x10^-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1
then
a = 7.5x10^-9 cm sec^-2

The 1/(a x G) value defines the graphical slope
within the reported measured error.

In the Pioneer 10 & 11 context
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf
assumes the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP

daP/dt = -k*aP model one

This fits the assumption that all aP components
are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time.

A better fit to stochastic data is:

daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two

aPinfinity = 5.9x10^-9 cm sec^-2
(close to BARYONIC TULLY-FISHER 7.5x10^-9 cm sec^-2)

see 9/4/13 post
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....E/iSG81HGDivcJ
or my lanl report for details

Initially, the thermal emission overwhelms
the anomalous acceleration (aPinfinity)
but diminishes with time(model one)
with aP decay approaching aPinfinity with time (model two).

The Pioneers probes may be sensing an anomalous acceleration in space
as they approach the interstellar region that may
influence galactic formation.

The BARYONIC TULLY-FISHER relationship has not been mentioned
in all of the Pioneer publications.

I have tried to obtain the original Pioneer data
for further analysis
through the freedom of information act
with no success.
Apparently, the government does not own it any more.

I ask
I plead
that anyone who has access to the Pioneer data
do a more complete analysis
incorporating

daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two

Richard D Saam