Hoyle's steady state universe is expanding, so the Hubble redshifts come from velocity; but matter is constantly being created so that the universe doesn't get more spread out over time. The amount of matter that needs to be created is minuscule, amounting to just a few hundred atoms per year in a space the size of our galaxy.
Doesn't the Galaxy create a Gravity Lens and the Quasars are much farther away than they appear. That would explain the higher Red Shift. I'm not an Astronomer so please don't be too hard on me because I'm just an Amateur.
The other thing is that, aren't Gravity Waves instantaneous?
Hey Josh, you may find this interesting. One of the pieces of "evidence" used to prove the existence of Dark Matter is that stars orbit galaxies too fast. That is, they don't follow Kepler's equations for bodies in orbit. It turns out that the assumption that they must obey Kepler is wrong! I found this paper that accurately calculates the rotational velocities of stars around galaxies using only Newton's law of gravitation and the formula for centripetal motion. I confirmed that the math works out myself.
This doesn't give a new understanding of the universe, but it's another nail in the coffin for conventional astrophysics.
It's a complex subject. The Arxiv article you referenced models different ways that matter can be distributed in a disk that leads to flat rotation curves without requiring non-baryonic matter. It's interesting in its own right, as the least disruptive solution to that problem.
The extra galactic matter doesn't have to be non-baryonic, but it has to be "dark" in the sense that we can see the stars in the disk, and there isn't enough matter in the stars to populate the Paplovich models.
In addition to the galaxy rotation curve problems, there is another "missing mass" problem associated with clusters of galaxies that seem to be gravitationally bound together, but which are moving too fast to be bound by the mass we can see. So there is another place where dark matter is suggested.
The requirement that it be non-baryonic comes from a different line of reasoning. "Non-baryonic" just means that the matter is not in the form of neutrons and protons. Sinde these are the only stable heavy particles that are known, "non-baryonic" ends up meaning some new form of matter that has never been observed.
You can refer to Steven Weinberg's book on the First Three Minutes to learn about the nuclear reactions that should have taken place in the hot Big Bang model. If you add extra baryonic matter to the recipe, you end up with a Helium to Hydrogen ratio that is too large for what we observe. You can account for "not enough helium" by invoking an early generation of stars that fused hydrogen into helium. But "too much helium" emerging from the Big Bang is a bigger conundrum. This is the reason that the standard Lambda CDM model invokes non-baryonic matter.
Hoyle's steady state universe is expanding, so the Hubble redshifts come from velocity; but matter is constantly being created so that the universe doesn't get more spread out over time. The amount of matter that needs to be created is minuscule, amounting to just a few hundred atoms per year in a space the size of our galaxy.
"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck
Doesn't the Galaxy create a Gravity Lens and the Quasars are much farther away than they appear. That would explain the higher Red Shift. I'm not an Astronomer so please don't be too hard on me because I'm just an Amateur.
The other thing is that, aren't Gravity Waves instantaneous?
Hey Josh, you may find this interesting. One of the pieces of "evidence" used to prove the existence of Dark Matter is that stars orbit galaxies too fast. That is, they don't follow Kepler's equations for bodies in orbit. It turns out that the assumption that they must obey Kepler is wrong! I found this paper that accurately calculates the rotational velocities of stars around galaxies using only Newton's law of gravitation and the formula for centripetal motion. I confirmed that the math works out myself.
This doesn't give a new understanding of the universe, but it's another nail in the coffin for conventional astrophysics.
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2401
By the way, I did talk to the author a few years ago. He said the paper was based on some ideas his father had brought with him from Russia.
It's a complex subject. The Arxiv article you referenced models different ways that matter can be distributed in a disk that leads to flat rotation curves without requiring non-baryonic matter. It's interesting in its own right, as the least disruptive solution to that problem.
The extra galactic matter doesn't have to be non-baryonic, but it has to be "dark" in the sense that we can see the stars in the disk, and there isn't enough matter in the stars to populate the Paplovich models.
In addition to the galaxy rotation curve problems, there is another "missing mass" problem associated with clusters of galaxies that seem to be gravitationally bound together, but which are moving too fast to be bound by the mass we can see. So there is another place where dark matter is suggested.
The requirement that it be non-baryonic comes from a different line of reasoning. "Non-baryonic" just means that the matter is not in the form of neutrons and protons. Sinde these are the only stable heavy particles that are known, "non-baryonic" ends up meaning some new form of matter that has never been observed.
You can refer to Steven Weinberg's book on the First Three Minutes to learn about the nuclear reactions that should have taken place in the hot Big Bang model. If you add extra baryonic matter to the recipe, you end up with a Helium to Hydrogen ratio that is too large for what we observe. You can account for "not enough helium" by invoking an early generation of stars that fused hydrogen into helium. But "too much helium" emerging from the Big Bang is a bigger conundrum. This is the reason that the standard Lambda CDM model invokes non-baryonic matter.
Josh, thank you.