Re: Slow Motion Cosmological Train Wreck


Rob wrote:
George Dishman wrote:

Nope, big bang neither predicts DM nor its nature.

Exactly! The Big Bang paradigm is impotent when it comes to the dark
matter. It did not predict it in the first place,

It doesn't predict ohms law either, so what.

and it vaguely
retrodicts mythological particle-mass CDM.

Nope, that is just your strawman. What it does
is predict the total density needed for certain
conditions (e.g. flat or closed) and when applied
to measurements suggests DM is cold.

But let us allow nature to answer this question.

By all means, that is the way science works.

I expect that the
highly definitive (prior, quantitative, testable and non-adjustable)
predictions of the Discrete Fractal paradigm will be vindicated, and I
argue there is prelininary evidence that provides significant support
for my expectation. Nature speaks louder than empty words!

Indeed, and so far microlensing has shown that
there is insufficient macroscopic DM and hence
those observations (not GR) suggest it is more
likely to be in the form of some sort of unfamiliar
matter.

Where can we see the CMB angular power spectrum as
predicted by your Discrete Fractal Paradigm? If there
is structure at very large scales as is basic to the
fractal nature, it should show up as a difference in
that spectrum. Compare your prediction with WMAP and
show it is better than GR with a non-zero cosmological
constant and you might get some attention.

If you understand the Discrete Fractal paradigm, you will realize two
things quite quickly.

1. If we could suddenly increase our observational capabilities by a
factor of 10, we would still be extremely far away from observing the
next scale at which fundamental inhomogeneity reappears.

The key property of fractals is that they have structure
at _all_ levels and the most obvious place where this
would show up would be in the angular power spectrum,
so where is your prediction or is your theory incapable
of making one?

2. The basic, well-tested, properties of the local Hubble Bubble bang
are part of the Discrete Fractal paradigm. The DF paradigm does not
dispute the bang, the microwave background radiation, global expansion
of the Hubble Bubble, evidence for high-energy plasma-like turbulence
within the Hubble Bubble, etc. It does say, however, that it was most
certainly not the Universe that went "Bang!", but rather just one
metagalactic system on the next higher Scale of nature's unbounded
discrete fractal hierarchy.

The dark matter, which comprises most of the matter in the observable
universe, offers the critical test of the two paradigms. This is where
they say radically different things, and this is where one will succeed
and one will be recognized as seriously incomplete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing#History

"The MACHO collaboration ultimately found that their
data suggested that roughly 20% of the mass of the
dark halo of the milky way was composed of compact
objects of mass ~0.5 solar masses [8]. If correct, it
would suggest a major change in our view of the universe
since there is no good candidate object with the right
mass to explain this measurement [9]. However, the
MACHO result has not been borne out by subsequent
measurements by the EROS collaboration [10]. The
cause of the MACHO measurement -whether a
detection of dark matter, ordinary stars, supernovae, or
a statistical fluke- is still uncertain."

So there you have the result from nature, a surprisingly
high result, not borne out by the follow-up observations,
and yet even that value could at most explain only 20%
of the dark matter in the galactic halo.

George

.

Relevant Pages