Summations Only

So how in the world does that make you KNOW there was an electroweak epoch? How is that? I sincerely doubt that unless you have defined "observed" in a way that differs from what "observed" has traditionally been understood to mean. I am sorry you believe in fairy tales. I didn't make anything up. Don't make false accusations. You just previously stated it was imaginary. Make up your mind. What I did was show weaknesses in the big bang theory. Until you can demonstrate that the electroweak force is a reality, and that dark matter and dark matter are indeed realities, then the real possibility of their non existence would throw the theory into serious danger.

Because that is where the evidence leads.
Perhaps you would like to start screaming about evidence again? How is what? Why do you doubt that it has been observed? What makes you think that I am religious? You referred to "if dark matter and dark energy were myths" - which involves you making up that they don't exist. I have never said either were imaginary. Don't make false accusations. No you didn't. You were just asking random questions. It has been demonstrated that the electroweak interaction exists.
But if what was real was dependent on your understanding then there would be less than 3 things in reality.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

A recent article from SPACE.com via Yahoo! News. A part of the article:How hot is dark matter?In the 1960s and 1970s, astronomers hypothesized that there might be more mass in the universe than what is visible. Vera Rubin, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, studied the speeds of stars at various locations in galaxies. [Top 10 Strangest Things in Space]Rubin observed that there was virtually no difference in the velocities of stars at the center of a galaxy compared to those farther out. These results seemed to go against basic Newtonian physics, which implies that stars on the outskirts of a galaxy would orbit more slowly.Astronomers explained this curious phenomenon with an invisible mass that became known as dark matter. Even though it cannot be seen, dark matter has mass, so researchers infer its presence based on the gravitational pull it exerts on regular matter.Dark matter is thought to make up about 23 percent of the universe, while only 4 percent of the universe is composed of regular matter, which includes stars, planets and humans."Scientists still don't know what dark matter is, but that could soon change," Cho wrote. "Within years, physicists might be able to detect particles of the stuff."But while astronomers may soon be able to detect particles of dark matter, certain properties of the material remain unknown."In particular, studies of runty 'dwarf galaxies' might test whether dark matter is icy cold as standard theory assumes, or somewhat warmer essentially a question of how massive particles of dark matter are," Cho explained.8 Modern Astronomy Mysteries Scientists Still Can't ExplainEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Nothing and nothing, respectively.Bear in mind that the Big Bang was discovered before dark energy, dark matter, or the electroweak unification, so it can hardly depend on them as premises.

What is your understanding of the role played by dark matter and dark energy in the big bang theory?My understanding is that dark energy and dark matter are used to explain things that are observed in the universe at the current time. We can add a constant to Einstein's equations to accommodate dark energy, but we can model an expanding universe without said constant.Your question is akin to asking how the theory of evolution would change if it turned out there were no brontosauri.

Because we can recreate that epoch in high energy collisions here on Earth. Physicists observe the merging of electromagnetism and the weak force in high energy colliders. We know how much energy is needed to unify these forces. We also know that this energy density was present after the start of the Universe:

quote:

---

In physical cosmology the electroweak epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when the temperature of the universe was high enough to merge electromagnetism and the weak interaction into a single electroweak interaction (> 100 GeV). The electroweak epoch began when the strong force separated from the electroweak interaction. Some cosmologists place this event at the start of the inflationary epoch, approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang.[1][2][3] Others place it at approximately 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang when the potential energy of the inflaton field that had driven the inflation of the universe during the inflationary epoch was released, filling the universe with a dense, hot quark—gluon plasma.[4] Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. As the universe expanded and cooled, interactions became less energetic and when the universe was about 10−12 seconds old, W and Z bosons ceased to be created. The remaining W and Z bosons decayed quickly,[citation needed] and the weak interaction became a short-range force in the following quark epoch.
Electroweak epoch - Wikipedia

---

Dark matter observed here:
SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact.Dark energy observed here:

quote:

---

By studying the spectra of supernovae or of the galaxies in which they explode, we can infer the redshift due to the expansion. Comparing the redshift with the distance for a large number of supernovae, we can derive the history of the cosmic expansion rate. In 1998, such measurements were first reported for supernovae at large distances, those which exploded when the universe was only two-thirds its present size. These supernovae appeared about 25% fainter, that is, farther away, than expected, an effect attributed to the speed-up of cosmic expansion over the last several billion years.
Overview - The Dark Energy Survey

---

The acceleration of expansion IS dark energy. That is the name given to it. It is what we observe. Sure you did. You made up a fantasy where the Big Bang was a myth. It isn't. It is an extremely well supported scientific theory that explains the evidence we have.

quote:

---

For contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.[1][2]
Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

---

Do you think Nobel Prizes are awarded for imaginary particle interactions? Really?

They can go one step farther now. They can diretly observe gravitationaly lensing caused by dark matter. This is as much a direct observation as matter absorbing and emitting light. Not only have astronomers observed dark matter, but they are able to map where it is and its density:
Biggest Map Yet of Universe's Invisible Dark Matter Unveiled - Scientific American

I don't need to wonder about this as it has been experimentally refuted. There is an electroweak force. There are different predictions between a theory where the two forces are separate and theories where they come from one force. The second type of theories match experiment, the first don't. Also electroweak contributions to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) have been observed. If there was no electroweak force, the Big Bang would be pretty much the same but with a slightly different CMB. This CMB has not been observed, but the CMB for an electroweak force has been. The theory would give somewhat different predictions. Those predictions have been falsified and Dark Matter has been observed. Dark Energy is not a "thing" in the same sense as Dark Matter, but again it gives you a slightly different Big Bang, CMB and galaxy evolution. All of which have been observed.

Taq my friend Interesting that the Bullet Cluster and similar observations are the latest augments against CDM

quote:

---

One result is very definite by now: neither the Bullet nor the Train Wreck clusters support (nor do they prove) the existence of cold or warm dark matter. And, they certainly do not disprove MOND. Quite on the contrary, according to current knowledge, they falsify the concordance cosmological (or LCDM) model.

​

Seite wurde nicht gefunden. » Tagebcher der Wissenschaft » SciLogs - Wissenschaftsblogs

---

Some more articles finding the same resultsBULLET CLUSTER: A CHALLENGE TO CDM COSMOLOGY - IOPscience From the observations as such only more problems arise for BB.
Actually there are several better explanations for the 1A supernova redshifts one of them being the Carmeli 5d Cosmology.

Can you please cite a peer reviewed article that demonstrates this? How so? Why is it a better explanation?

JonF my friend You have mixed up the articles my friend If you look at citation #6 in the Wiki it is in error. The conclusion of that article clearly states

quote:

---

These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

---

It is not investigating the same redshift paradigm I am advocating. That is your continued argument (ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM)! However, to make you happy I cited articles up to 2008 and you still make the same mistakes. This is a quote directly from a 2006 article that includes the SDSS results as do any article I cited at and after 2006.

quote:

---

Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS...

---

You state This link is broken so if you want me to address this, fix it.This article did fine periodic redshifts and you are using it to bolster your argument? It supports my point

quote:

---

Contrary to the previous studies we consider all galaxies which can be regarded as a structure member disregarding the accuracy of velocity measurements. We applied the power spectrum analysis using the Hann function for weighting, together with the jackknife error estimator. In both the structures we found weak effects of redshift periodisation.

​

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

---

Do you see disregarding the accuracy? I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember? You know some of your citations do not go where they are advertised to go. Some of your citations actually do find quote weak redshift quantization even to 3 sigma and the last citation you criticize, states that SDSS data is used right in the middle of the ABSTRACT (http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885).The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.

Nope, I already explained why the SDSS data is better, for objective and easily verified reasons, so there is no such argument. There's much more SDSS data and it's higher quality than available before. Any analyses that don't use SDSS data are obsolete, no matter when they were published. Your claim of a fallacy is refuted. Don't post it again. Sorry, not all the post 2006 articles used the SDSS, as I already pointed out. I'll take a look at your link from which you didn't provide any quote.OK, I've looked. They state:

quote:

---

We then visually compare the SDSS redshift distribution to the quasi-periodic values predicted by equation 1 to demonstrate that the peaks found are not only in good agreement with the fundamental periodicity, but also with the sub-components predicted by eqn 1...

​

The resulting redshift distribution curve, after subtraction of the smooth baseline curve, is shown by the lower curve in Fig 5. However, because the shape of this smooth baseline curve is somewhat arbitrary it is conceivable that its removal may have introduced some spurious features. This is especially true near z = 2.5 where the curve ends abruptly. Therefore we also used a second, more objective, method to remove the broad, low-redshift selection effect. In this method, after obtaining the Fourier components for the entire sample, the first four non-DC Fourier components were then set to zero. This effectively filters out all long-period fluctuations. The inverse Fourier transform was then obtained and the result is plotted in the upper curve in Fig 5...

​

Close examination of Fig 5 reveals that not only are there peaks associated with all harmonics of 0.62 below z = 4, there is also reasonable agreement below z = 2 with the predicted redshift sub-components. For example, the peaks at .31 and 1.1 coincide with regions where there is a high density of preferred redshift components. Also, the double peaks at z = 1.55 and 1.85 agree well with the predicted preferred redshifts of 1.488 and 1.798, if a small cosmological component is present.

---

Questions:

• Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
• Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.

It's an article you posted, so if you want to defend your position you can find it. Browse back to the message in which you posted it. I saw claims of "smearing the data", in your messages and some of the papers to which you linked. Nowhere have I seen any demonstration that this alleged "smearing" exists or is a problem. Yup, it's a commentary, by an expert in the field. It's hard to find recent peer-reviewed papers debunking quantized redshift; the vast majority of astrophysicists aren't interested in wasting time addressing crackpot ideas.It seems to me that Dr. Bridgman provided a valid and powerful criticism, peer-reviewed or not. Do you have any response?

And leave us not forget that your Bell & McDiarmid paper has already been debunked in the peer reviewed literature, quoted back in Message 75. Here's an expanded quote and figure:

quote:

---

Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006). To construct the lower histogram we have partially removed the effect of host galaxy contamination (by excluding extended objects), limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1 (accounting for emission-line effects), and have corrected for the known incompleteness near z ~ 2.7 and z ~ 3.5 due to quasar colors lying close to or in the stellar locus. Accounting for selection effects significantly reduces the number of objects as compared with the raw, more heterogeneous catalog, but the smaller, more homogeneous sample is what should be used for statistical analyses.

---

(click to enlarge)(from The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release). no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been includedI've taken the liberty of adding the predicted peaks, in blue, from Bell & McDiarmid Figure 5 to Schneider et. al. Figure 3, above. What periodicity do your see in the lower histogram of Figure 3? Would you care to comment on the relationship between the blue predictions and the lower histogram results?

You should look at some of the absurd mapping of dark matter in clusters. Small galaxies leave tails of gas as they revolve around usually two large elliptical galaxies. Some of the galaxies in the cluster shine at tiny fractions of the light frequencies of most of the cluster galaxies. How do we know they are linked? X-rays usually pervade the cluster showing that high energy stuff envelopes the entire cluster.When trying to understand why scientists invent dark matter and stretching vacuums, one should start by analyzing the first principle of science. The Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science because they found no way to answer the problem of matter always changing itself. Fifteen hundred years later, Catholic monks adjusted Aristotle's system to fit their interpretation of the Bible. They invented the new concepts of being and essence. Their solution to the problem of matter changing itself was that the essence of substance is changeless. No one has ever detected any essence of anything. This assumption became the basis for western science. The definitions of physics, the measuring schemes - the mathematical constants, the methods - almost everything scientists do and think depends on their assumption that the properties of matter are not continually emerging.None of the invisible things scientists populate their universe with (dark matter, a big bang, black holes, stretching vacuums, vacuums that stretch light etc) are needed if they could just believe what is visible - that the properties of all matter are changing relationally throughout cosmic history.Only a biblical version of physics and a biblical cosmic history is supported by the only history that is visible as it happened, galactic history. We observe that galaxies were originally made of formless substances whose atoms shone at tiny fractions of the light frequencies of modern matter. We observe how the galaxies intrinsically grew, as the stars spread out, accelerated out as they continually changed their light clock frequencies. What we observe is the very things the biblical God says He does in unbroken continuity (in Hebrew - not English translations).It is because the visible universe is a violation of the scientific creed, that scientists have filled it with magical, undetectable things. None of them are necessary if one just believes that ancient atoms clocked tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern matter, had different inertial properties and took up less volume of space.

JonF my friendHere is a link to that broken one you are using only the abstract is presentedhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169Please look at the following citation first sentence

quote:

---

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. http://www.mendeley.com/...s-sloan-digital-sky-survey-data-1

---

Do you see test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies.I have gone over your reply and wish to ask why you keep including the research for a study of the hypothesis for quasars ejected from galaxies. That assertion is not relevant to the preferred redshifts of galaxies we are discussing.Some more...ShieldSquare CaptchaThis one from Hartnett:
ShieldSquare CaptchaIn a effort to learn more I will humor your assertions
Please help me with the following from your citation. In particular, what are these selection effects? Are they a result of the mean of the zConf parameter as described by Hartnett? What is the host galaxy contamination? Is that the redshift from the supposed parent galaxy from which the QSO was ejected?If you can describe some of these effects maybe, you will catch on to what I am trying to tell you.