Crisis in Cosmology

Charles Francis wrote:
In message , Jose B.
Almeida
writes
I couldn't agree more with you, Charles, and I am sure there are
others
sharing this view among those participating in the conference.

Then why allow abstracts stating, as Baryshev does "There are several

especially spectacular puzzles in the standard cosmological model
related to the expanding space

1) recession velocities of galaxies can be much more than the
velocity
of light;

Yes, this is correct. See astro-ph/0310808

2) cosmological redshift is not due to the Doppler effect;

Yes, this is also correct (again see astro-ph/0310808). The Doppler
concept of redshift is a good teaching tool, but has no meaning as an
interpretation of redshift (especially at high-z).

3) global gravitational redshift exists in homogeneous matter
distribution; etc. Likewise the criticisms of Tomes. Surely Baryshev
should have been told to read an undergraduate text on general
relativity...

I imagine he has, based on the valid points he raises.

In message , Phillip
Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
writes
In article , Charles Francis
writes:


I've not heard of gastrophysics, and I must confess it is not really my
field. However, many moons ago I did do the ptIII course on star
formation, and gained the impression that, particularly in view of the
large systems involved, the processes were decently modelled in terms of
fundamental properties of elementary particles and gravity. I find it
very difficult to believe that there is much wrong with the physics of
galaxy formation.

Stars are much better understood than galaxies. First, they are simpler
systems. Second, there are many more detailed observations,
particularly from helioseismology. I think it's fair to say that stars
are understood much better than the Earth.

Then surely the ageing problem exists, and in a severe form? Is it not
the case that the galaxies at z=1.4 contain stars 10bill years old? Or
have I misremembered that?


Regards

--
Charles Francis

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
e writes
In article , Charles Francis
writes:

Having read the papers and studied the data, I can hardly agree. The
MOND law is empirically solid. It is also unexplained.

I agree as far as the observations go.

I think that's mond's only claim to fame.
Quite a big claim mind.

However, the question is whether
the answer is MOND or some generalisation of MOND, or something else
entirely.

Quite.

MOND in its original form is simple, but it cannot be right
on a number of grounds.

Ah, well, it gets the right answer by a method that has some very
serious faults. It clashes with established theory for one thing.

This is bad ....

More involved theories are quite complicated
(see the recent papers by Bekenstein) and lack the simplicity of MOND
which is one of its strengths.

Quite.
One needs to arrive with the same result but perhaps by quite a
different means. What you see may not be what you get.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

In message , "Alastair @
Nodem" writes
Charles Francis wrote:
In message , Jose B.
Almeida
writes
I couldn't agree more with you, Charles, and I am sure there are
others
sharing this view among those participating in the conference.

Then why allow abstracts stating, as Baryshev does "There are several

especially spectacular puzzles in the standard cosmological model
related to the expanding space

1) recession velocities of galaxies can be much more than the
velocity
of light;

Yes, this is correct. See astro-ph/0310808

I didn't say it wasn't correct. I said it wasn't a spectacular puzzle.
It depends entirely on choice of coordinates, as the paper you cite
makes clear. As far as I know it is only a spectacular puzzle in the
popular press and in the corrupted versions of relativity of those who
have not understood the text books.

2) cosmological redshift is not due to the Doppler effect;

Yes, this is also correct (again see astro-ph/0310808). The Doppler
concept of redshift is a good teaching tool, but has no meaning as an
interpretation of redshift (especially at high-z).

Yes, we know. It is an elementary point for a text book, not a topic for
a leading edge conference.

3) global gravitational redshift exists in homogeneous matter
distribution; etc. Likewise the criticisms of Tomes. Surely Baryshev
should have been told to read an undergraduate text on general
relativity...

I imagine he has, based on the valid points he raises.

Then why does he say:

"There are several

especially spectacular puzzles in the standard cosmological model
related to the expanding space




Regards

--
Charles Francis

Charles Francis wrote:
In message , Phillip
Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
writes

In article , Charles Francis
writes:



I've not heard of gastrophysics, and I must confess it is not really my
field. However, many moons ago I did do the ptIII course on star
formation, and gained the impression that, particularly in view of the
large systems involved, the processes were decently modelled in terms of
fundamental properties of elementary particles and gravity. I find it
very difficult to believe that there is much wrong with the physics of
galaxy formation.

Stars are much better understood than galaxies. First, they are simpler
systems. Second, there are many more detailed observations,
particularly from helioseismology. I think it's fair to say that stars
are understood much better than the Earth.


Then surely the ageing problem exists, and in a severe form? Is it not
the case that the galaxies at z=1.4 contain stars 10bill years old? Or
have I misremembered that?

I would say you misremember that. All articles I've ever read which
talked abot "mature" galaxies at high redshift *always* pointed out
that the stars in these galaxies were young. The only "mature" thing
is the structure of the galaxies (well-developed spiral arms etc.)


Bye,
Bjoern

In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Charles Francis wrote:
Then surely the ageing problem exists, and in a severe form? Is it not
the case that the galaxies at z=1.4 contain stars 10bill years old? Or
have I misremembered that?

I would say you misremember that. All articles I've ever read which
talked abot "mature" galaxies at high redshift *always* pointed out
that the stars in these galaxies were young. The only "mature" thing
is the structure of the galaxies (well-developed spiral arms etc.)

By coincidence, here's a representative paper on this topic in this morning's
astro-ph:

Longhetti et al, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505467

We present the analysis of 10 massive early-type galaxies at
$z\sim1.5$. They have been identified by means of a near-IR low
resolution spectroscopic follow-up of a complete sample of 36 bright
(K' $$ 18.5) Extremely Red Objects (EROs, R-K'$$ 5) selected from
the Munich Near-IR ClusterSurvey (MUNICS; Drory et al. 2001). The
low resolution near-IR spectra constrain their redshift at
$1.2z1.7$, implying absolute magnitudes M$_{K'}-26.0$ and stellar
masses well in excess of 10$^{11}$ M$_\odot$. Under the hypothesis
of pure passive evolution from $z\sim1.5$ to $z=0$, in the local
universe they would have luminosities L$_K\ge2.5$L$^*$. Thus, they
are the high-z counterparts of the local old massive
(10$^{11}-10^{12}$ M$_\odot$) early-type galaxies populating the
bright end of the local luminosity function of galaxies. The
comparison of their spectro-photometric properties with a grid of
synthetic models suggests that the stellar populations in more than
half of the sample are about $\sim$3-5 Gyr old and 1-2 Gyr old in
the remaining part. These ages imply formation redshift $z_{f} 2$
for all the galaxies and $z_{f} \geq 4$ for the oldest ones. The
comparison of the 4000\AA break and of the overall spectral shape of
the average spectrum of the 10 galaxies at $z\sim1.5$ with those of
their local counterpartsconfirms that field massive early-type
galaxies formed the bulk of their stellar mass at $2z4$, most
likely over a short ($$ 1 Gyr) star formation time scale,
consistently with the results derived from the analysis of their
individual spectro-photometric properties.

There are plenty more like this...

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with star.herts.ac.uk to mail me

In message , Bjoern
Feuerbacher writes
Then surely the ageing problem exists, and in a severe form? Is it not
the case that the galaxies at z=1.4 contain stars 10bill years old? Or
have I misremembered that?

I would say you misremember that. All articles I've ever read which
talked abot "mature" galaxies at high redshift *always* pointed out
that the stars in these galaxies were young. The only "mature" thing is
the structure of the galaxies (well-developed spiral arms etc.)

What's the verdict then, based on latest figures for age of the
universe, and time for galaxy formation. How serious is the ageing
problem?


Regards

--
Charles Francis

Charles Francis wrote:

Then why allow abstracts stating, as Baryshev does "There are several
especially spectacular puzzles in the standard cosmological model
related to the expanding space 1) recession velocities of galaxies can
be much more than the velocity of light; 2) cosmological redshift is not
due to the Doppler effect; 3) global gravitational redshift exists in
homogeneous matter distribution; etc. Likewise the criticisms of Tomes.
Surely Baryshev should have been told to read an undergraduate text on
general relativity before presenting a paper at such a level of drivel.
And at the same time you adopt a policy of hostility toward submissions
which do address the issues raised by unification.

Any reviewing process is highly subjective as you well know. We
distributed each abstract to 2 scientific committee members and
accepted their verdict when it was coincident; in case of disagreement
we sought a 3rd verdict and this tilted the balance to one side. I
don't know many scientific conferences that adopt a more stringent
acceptance process but I recognize there may have been some unfair
decisions.

Best regards,
Jose