Predictions based on the size-evolution, expanding-universe hypothesis are incompatible with galaxy size data for both disk and elliptical galaxies. For disks, the quantitative predictions of the Mo et al theory are incompatible at a 5-sigma level with size data, as is any model predicting a power-law relationship between H(z) and galaxy radius. For ellipticals, a power law of H(z) does fit the data, but only with an exponent much higher than that justified by the Mo et al theory. All three mechanisms proposed in the literature-- “puffing up”, major and minor mergers—make predictions that are contradicted by the data, requiring either gas fractions or merger rates that are an order of magnitude greater than observations. In addition, any size evolution model for ellipticals leads to dynamical masses that, given the observed velocity dispersions, are smaller than stellar masses, a physical impossibility.
Contrary to some other analysis, we find that the r-z relationships for elliptical and disk galaxies are identical. The resolution-size effect must be taken into account for valid conclusions, and that effect is larger for disk galaxies that have smaller angular radii, either because they are observed at higher z or because they are observed at longer rest-frame wavelengths. The identical size evolution of disks and ellipticals appears as a very large and unexplained coincidence in the expanding-universe model.
In contrast, the static Euclidean universe (SEU) model with a linear distance-z relationship is in excellent agreement with both disk and spiral size data, predicting accurately no change in radius with z. The exact agreement of the SEU predictions with data could also only be viewed as an implausibly unlikely coincidence from the viewpoint of the expanding universe hypothesis. The contradictions with impossibly small dynamic masses are also eliminated with the non-expanding universe model.
I would like to think the game will be up once they launch JWST, but something tells me they will find excuses to explain why they are observing fully formed giant galaxies in the infrared, where there should only be baby one's, if any at all.Michael Mozina wrote:I'm still working my way through Lerner's most recent published and peer reviewed paper between tech calls at work, but the conclusion section of his paper is rather intriguing to say the least:Predictions based on the size-evolution, expanding-universe hypothesis are incompatible with galaxy size data for both disk and elliptical galaxies. For disks, the quantitative predictions of the Mo et al theory are incompatible at a 5-sigma level with size data, as is any model predicting a power-law relationship between H(z) and galaxy radius. For ellipticals, a power law of H(z) does fit the data, but only with an exponent much higher than that justified by the Mo et al theory. All three mechanisms proposed in the literature-- “puffing up”, major and minor mergers—make predictions that are contradicted by the data, requiring either gas fractions or merger rates that are an order of magnitude greater than observations. In addition, any size evolution model for ellipticals leads to dynamical masses that, given the observed velocity dispersions, are smaller than stellar masses, a physical impossibility.
Contrary to some other analysis, we find that the r-z relationships for elliptical and disk galaxies are identical. The resolution-size effect must be taken into account for valid conclusions, and that effect is larger for disk galaxies that have smaller angular radii, either because they are observed at higher z or because they are observed at longer rest-frame wavelengths. The identical size evolution of disks and ellipticals appears as a very large and unexplained coincidence in the expanding-universe model.
In contrast, the static Euclidean universe (SEU) model with a linear distance-z relationship is in excellent agreement with both disk and spiral size data, predicting accurately no change in radius with z. The exact agreement of the SEU predictions with data could also only be viewed as an implausibly unlikely coincidence from the viewpoint of the expanding universe hypothesis. The contradictions with impossibly small dynamic masses are also eliminated with the non-expanding universe model.
Emphasis mine. Evidently the mainstream galaxy evolution models have *serious* unresolved problems to say the least. On the other hand, static models pass this complicated test beautifully without *any* extra parameters beyond the simple Hubble constant of redshift.
So, either we live in a pretty simple static universe where light simply loses some of it's momentum to the medium over distance, *or* we live in an implausibly complicated universe that requires four metaphysical constructs and who's galaxy evolution predictions *still* don't even come close to matching the data.
It seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.
FYI, if this paper holds up to scrutiny, I think Lerner should win the next Nobel Prize in physics. This is a *bombshell* a of paper and it's been published and peer reviewed in a reputable astronomy journal to boot. Congratulations are certainly in order. This paper seems destined to have a dramatic impact in astronomy.
Aardwolf wrote:I would like to think the game will be up once they launch JWST, but something tells me they will find excuses to explain why they are observing fully formed giant galaxies in the infrared, where there should only be baby one's, if any at all.
Webbman wrote:you need your own forum
LCDM rants
Michael Mozina wrote:I honestly don't think any real scientific progress is likely to occur in astronomy until the mainstream comes down off it's high horse and actually publicly acknowledges and admits that it's got serious unresolved problems with LCMD, starting with the fact that they've blown *billions* of dollars on the CDM part in the lab and they have absolutely *nothing* to show for any of it.
Webbman » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:17 am
you need your own forum
LCDM rants
Brigit Bara wrote:One problem with re-categorizing failed science as "religion" is that historically, at minimum, a religion deals with the afterlife. --That is, usually the afterlife is linked in some way to the kind of life the individual led.
Labeling failed science as a "religion" is also not helpful because there have been an abundance of scientific theories which were actually quite destructive and brutal, and wrong. For example, the barbaric practice of lobotomizing mental patients was awarded with a Nobel Prize or something. I will not bang on and on about it, but why not be honest with the younger generations about the more dark pages of scientific history. It might serve them better if they understood that science both has, and can still, get it badly wrong.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests