Ultimate fate of the universe
Critique and Fate of the Universe (continued, part 3)
Posts  1 - 2  of  2
This post is entered in 5 parts because it is long, segmenting makes it easier to reply and easier to read.

………………………..Critique and Fate of the Universe (continued, part 3)..……………………

These comments are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research.

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics from after 1998, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent (as claimed) and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to force the two data sets to conform, they admit that they had to apply a mutual "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of each set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points.

The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adjustment factor to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the textbook experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students.

Still, as professionals who certainly are good scientists, Permutter and Riess, no doubt, think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND effect (from modified Newtonian dynamics) does not acknowledge that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such field potentials decline as 1/r or hyperbolically, not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity.

The difference between the relativistic black hole hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's proposed residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the belabored construction of the "Dark Energy" ediface to account for Perlmutter's and Riess's putative "acceleration".

So, given the truly doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)? The easiest way is to postulate that the global universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength or amplitude pattern, the frequency nodes, statistical distributions and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100%/4.5% = 22.2. That is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times bigger than we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive than conventional wisdom admits, it goes a long way toward accounting for the CMB characteristics, the other red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and most SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy. If the universe's own global hyperbolic gravitational field effect, the transition from which must pervade the whole total universe (not just our local space) is acknowledged as a vestige from before the Big Bang inflationary era - even the sense of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect is explained parsimoniously.

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

See Part 5 for the implications to the fate of the universe.

Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau
replied to:  GaryAnthony
Replied to:  This post is entered in 5 parts because it is long,...
These comments are more faithful to the Law of Parsimony than all of the pious drivel that professional cosmologists are usually served.

The hyperbolic field could be said to "incarnate" quintessence. But, as an explanation for Dark Energy and Dark Matter, its parsimonious aspects go even deeper. So, DE/DM are not so simple as being merely results of the real release of potential energy stored in the Pre-BigBang hyperbolic field. More subtle, almost mystical, relativistic considerations must apply. This makes the whole idea of the hyperbolic field much more attractive. There is real mystery here. Strange or weird science runs rampant. Professional cosmologists: there is real grant money here.

General Relativity will be seen to accommodate the hyperbolic field concept at least as easily as it does the Newtonian field. The field tensors will actually be simpler. When the global universe is considered, one must ask of "quintessence": WHY? No reason is given for why the quintessence field should suddenly increase its output and pour out more energy than it did unless one tacks on some sort of complicated half-life property that is just another ad hoc invention.

Let us pile up "to this point" clever band aids until we approximate a splint. Then, let us pile on splints until we get a crutch. Then, we shall pile crutches together until we get a regular immobile fortress. And the fortress will stand on sand. How's this for mixing metaphor?

The hyperbolic field collapse must be at least as momentous as the original collapse of matter and energy that formed all into a black hole or a super black hole (a universe). No matter that we begin to refer here to a "meta-universe" or metaverse. What happened before the Big Bang is said to be unknowable. I say NUTS!

The hyperbolic field must have existed BEFORE the BB. This establishes a brand new timeline. This is a timeline of a purely logical as well as a real metaverse that simply must have existed and almost surely still exists. This has incredibly huge implications to cosmology, astrophysics and Quantum Theory. Archibald Wheeler's and Hugh Everett's interpretations of Quantum Theory must suddenly be taken seriously. If there is one, there must be many more "parallel universes" by The Law of Parsimony. If there is a limited number, some squirrely new invention must be produced that limits them.

So, now we have a whole new family of posts to worry about. UGH!

"Having wed Dark Energy is like living with a whore." - G A Kent

"Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt." - Lev Landau