New method 'confirms dark energy'......or does it?

This article has recently been updated to include an important caveat about the subject of "redshift".
-09/06/2011-

A science article recently featured on the BBC trumpeted the claims of a team of international scientists regarding the apparent confirmation of "dark energy". The entity was most popularised by Albert Einstein's contribution to the General Relativity model that still forms an important part of the fundamental bedrock of mainstream astrophysics. It goes along with concepts such as "dark matter", "black holes", and the "big bang" which currently exist as seemingly reified  mathematical hypotheticals.



Some quotes from the BBC article:-

Dark energy makes up some 74% of the Universe and its existence would explain why the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

Perhaps the authors should replace the word "would" with "could". Is it not pertinent for mainstream astrophysicists or mainstream journalists to look at other proposed mechanisms of apparent acceleration? Indeed...can we trust all of the apparent findings that purport an expanding universe? No (more on that later).

The second type of observation involves measuring how quickly clusters of galaxies have formed over time. Both of these techniques confirmed the existence of dark energy and the acceleration in the expansion of the Universe.

The hypothetical entity has been "confirmed" only if one depends on an interpretation within a framework that ignores the possible dominance of electro-magnetism. More on that later.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said co-author Dr Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

Dr Chris Blake is effectively describing particle acceleration. It is ironic indeed that the people at CERN are relying on electrical power to accelerate and collide particles in order to discover more about the nature of matter and energy in the universe. Have they not thought about the possibility that inter-galactic electric currents may be responsible for the majority of the energetic characteristics in the universe?

However, despite scientists being able to infer the existence of dark energy and dark matter, these phenomena still elude a full explanation.

Have they harnessed the power of dark energy in a laboratory? Or does it merely remain as a hypothetical?



And what of the notion of the "big bang" and expanding universe with respect to the "red shift" phenomena? The research cited in the BBC article has referred to the notion of "redshifts" correlating with recessional velocities of objects linked to the force of dark-energy (http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2948). But, can we challenge such notions?


From Dr. Donald E. Scott's book "The Electric Sky":-

"In 1929 Hubble announced that there was a linear relationship between redshift and the galactic distances he had measured. The dimmer a galaxy was, the more its light was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum - the higher its "redshift" was." (Scott, D. 2006, p. 198)

 Donald E. Scott then went on to point out that the distance-dependent notion of redshift ignores the possibility that small and weak galaxies close to our region of space could also possibly display redshift. Objects with a high red-shift value have also been implied to be a result of them accelerating away from the observer. Dr. Scott wrote that while such recessional velocities may well be explained by careful analysis of redshifts (analogous to the Doppler effect), they are not the only way to explain the cause of redshifts. Dr. Scott then discussed the fact that Edwin Hubble himself suggested that while recessional velocity might theoretically be correlated with redshifts - it had not been confidently proven by observation. Indeed, Hubble used the cautionary "if" with regard to the theoretical idea of redshifts being Doppler shifts (as Scott cites in the book). Dr. Scott then goes on to write:-

"But the analogy between the Doppler effect in sound waves and the observed redshift in light was so compelling to astronomers that they quickly dropped Hubble's cautionary 'if'. The directly measured value of redshift, z, was routinely converted to a Doppler velocity. Astronomers reported redshift values of observations in terms of recessional velocities as though they had measured them with a speedometer instead of a theory. (Scott, D. 2006, p. 199)

This framing of the redshift phenomenon depends on a "Big Bang" expanding universe concept. This has been challenged by a variety of people (such as Eric J. Lerner) albeit one of the most prominent opponents is Dr. Halton C. Arp who was once Edwin Hubble's assistant. Dr Scott writes:-

"While compiling his catalog, Arp discovered that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects," or QSOs), which have enormously high redshift values, are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift values." (Scott, D. 2006, p. 200)

Do objects with high-redshifts have to be far away? Dr. Scott presented an interesting example (from Arp's observations) that challenges this notion. A photograph of a quasar (Mrk 205) apparently connected to the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 (of the constellation Draco) was obtained by an amateur astronomer who handed it to Dr. Scott to quantize the levels of light "to show isophote (similar brightness) contours":-

Credit: John Smith - Hidden Loft Observatory
(Image taken from "The Electric Sky", with permission from Don Scott and Mikamar Publishing)

"In processing this image, I used level quantization (staircase gray curves in the Picture Window Pro 3.1 software package) followed by the 'Edge tool'. Notice that, of all the small objects surrounding the main galaxy, only Mrk 205's shape is stretched back toward NGC 4319. None of the other objects in close proximity to 4319 is extended in this manner." (Scott, D. 2006, p. 201)

In 2002, a Hubble Space Telescope image of the same objects was published by NASA. Don Scott also processed this image in the same way as above. It is important to note that Dr. Scott used a standard technique which adds nothing to the image that was not there originally. It simply emphasizes what is already present in the image.

 

Credit  Original Image: R.Knacke (Penn State Erie) at al., Hubble Heritage Team, NASA
(Image taken from "The Electric Sky", with permission from Don Scott and Mikamar Publishing)

There is a clear physical connection between the galaxy and the quasar. Yet, these are two objects that have vastly different redshift values. This poses a serious challenge to the use of "redshift" to help argue for the existence of an expanding universe (originating from a "Big Bang") powered by "dark energy".

Another example that contradicts the current argument used for Big Bang inflationary universe theory can be found in galaxy NGC 7603:-

(Source: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/img22.gif)

If the quasar (Object 1) is physically connected to the parent galaxy then this falsifies the notion that the quasar is twice as far away as the main galaxy (a notion which its redshift value would erroneously dictate). Amazingly, the two quasars (Object 2 and Object 3) are supposed to be more than ten times away from the main galaxy (NGC 7603) according to their redshift values. But clearly, they are part of the connected bridge. 

Halton Arp has collected hundreds of examples of high-redshift quasars that are closely associated with low-redshift galaxies. One of the most compelling examples can be found in galaxy NGC 7319:-

"The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."
(Source: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060831picture.htm)

Arp produced a paper to show that the quasar was energetically interacting with the material very close to the nucleus of galaxy NGC 7319:-
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215

Yet, it seems the mainstream astronomical community still remains in denial of such cases that appear to falsify their theories. Interestingly, one of the favourite methods that mainstream astrophysicists employ to dismiss the above examples; is the apparent phenomena known as "gravitational lensing" or "microlensing". Donald Scott describes the phenomena in his book:-

"If a far distant object lines up precisely with Earth and a mid-distance object that has enough mass, then Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicts that the light from the farther object will be bent - producing two symmetrically placed images of that distant object when it is observed from Earth. Gravitational lensing is now a customary explanation used by astronomers to discredit any observations of quasar pairs situated very near their parent galaxies. We are told that any images of this sort are 'mirages' due to gravitational lensing. Once this explanation is accepted, the way is cleared for its continued use, no matter how improbable its repeated occurrence is"
(Scott, D. 2006, p. 33)

Dr. Scott then goes on to state that observations of the movements of stars in galaxies challenge the perceived observed behaviour of the mass of galaxies within the "lensing" framework:-

"They claim that widely separated multiple images of single background objects (hidden behind those objects) can and do occur. But that would require that the entire mass of the galaxy act as if it were concentrated in a single point - and that single point has to be exactly in line between Earth and the far distant object. But the observations of the movement of stars in galaxies indicate that the total mass does not act as if it were concentrated at a single point"
(Scott, D. 2006, p. 34)

 A notable challenge to the lensing hypothesis lies in a group of four quasars known as the "Einstein Cross":-
 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061006einsteincross.htm

It is important to remind readers of this article, that while there is in fact a correlative relationship between redshift and distance - the mainstream astronomers have downplayed or ignored observational evidence that shows that there is far more to redshift than meets the eye. It simply cannot be used to argue for an overall inflationary universe in the way it has been thus far. Regardless, the issue of "redshift" is more complicated than this article is making out, especially when the subject of intrinsic redshift is brought into the picture. The visual examples given above; suggest that the high redshift of the quasars relative to the galaxies is an intrinsic phenonema; and it is this aspect that is being overlooked by the mainstream. An important discussion about the mainstream treatment of redshift vs Electric Universe perceptions of the phenonema can be found here.

Mainstream astronomers and cosmologists also seem to be in denial about the potential power of inter-galactic electric currents to dominate the morphology and dynamics of galaxies. One recent example can be found in an article published on the website Universe Today on May the 11th this year:-
http://www.universetoday.com/85551/energizing-the-filaments-of-ngc-1275/

The author describes how a massive elliptical galaxy (NGC 1275) exhibits very narrow and long tendrils of glowing ionized gas and dust which seem hard to explain by conventional theory. One of the reasons that mainstream theory finds it hard to explain is that the tendrils are far removed from the areas closer to the galaxy which are associated with regions of star-formation (and subsequent heating of adjacent gas). The author ponders about what energy source could animate the tendrils and goes on to admit that the tendrils or filaments "exhibit an anomalous amount of X-ray flux" which is yet to be explained. It is unfortunate that the author goes on to attack Electric Universe theorists even while admitting that this case generally "agrees with their claims". He creates a strawman argument by stating that "astronomers don’t argue that electromagnetic effects don’t exist (like EU supporters frequently claim)". EU supporters and theorists do not generally claim that mainstream astronomers negate electromagnetic effects. EU theorists simply point out that mainstream astronomers and cosmologists make erroneous claims about the behavior of electromagnetic phenomena. An example of such erroneous claims is the idea of "magnetic re-connection" as well as the mainstream fragmentation of magnetic field-behavior into isolated zones in space (i.e. "frozen-in" magnetic fields in inter-stellar clouds). Both such concepts (among others) have been analyzed and critiqued in an article I wrote earlier. The Universe Today article author also claims that Electric Universe theorists "consistently refuse to provide any quantitative models which could provide true discriminating tests for their propositions". While it may be true that EU/Plasma Cosmology theorists have not produced anywhere near as much quantitative analyses as the mainstream - it does not mean that the theory should simply be rejected or dismissed. It is the qualitative evidence that should lead the way. Unfortunately, the mainstream is stubbornly rooted in a deep pool of quantitative data that is based on certain qualitative assumptions that is entirely questionable within reason. Yet, the arrogance of these scientists seems as high as ever. The Universe Today article author linked to the website of a scientist called Tom Bridgman who has been a vocal and active skeptic of Electric Universe theory. One of the comments that he made on his website is as follows:-

"Electric stars fails on basic conservation constraints. Peratt and Alfven's models fail on numerous other observational constraints. Increased computational power solves problems in smaller-scale details of a process - it cannot fix model failures on a global scale. Considering how EU routinely dismisses mathematical models, how will computational power solve their problems?"
(http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/07/electric-universe-everything-i-needed.html)

Perhaps Mr. Bridgman would care to read this extract from Wallace Thornhill's website (concerning Herschel discoveries of filamentary star-formation):-

"The European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory (formerly called Far Infrared and Sub-millimetre Telescope or FIRST) has the largest single mirror, at 3.5-metres in diameter, ever built for a space telescope. It is an infrared telescope, named after Sir William Herschel, the discoverer of the infrared spectrum. The telescope has been giving astronomers an unprecedented look inside the cosmic womb of stars, known as molecular clouds, to find (surprise, surprise) that stars are formed in “an incredible network of filamentary structures, and features indicating a chain of near-simultaneous star-formation events, glittering like strings of pearls deep in our Galaxy.” Although described as “incredible” by astronomers, this description precisely matches the decades-old expectations of plasma cosmologists!"
(http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=4eefp0kj)

An expectation of the plasma model, but a "surprise" to the mainstream model. This is something that Bridgman should take seriously and open his mind more to alternative explanations. If he won't take plasma/EU cosmology seriously, then why should the mainstream be taken seriously? Should plasma cosmologists take things like "dark energy", "dark matter", "black holes" and "the big bang" seriously? Why? Have they actually been measured or harnessed in a laboratory? Perhaps Mr. Bridgman should explain how a nuclear-fusion theory of stellar energy and gravitational-collapse can explain such phenonema as the "solar wind"? The "wind" is basically a stream of accelerating charged particles. Perhaps he can explain how a nuclear-core stellar theory can account for the existence of a corona (and its great heat anomaly), sun-spots, sunspot cycles, differential rotations by depth and latitude, neutrino variability and deficiency, uniform solar density, changing size and so on whilst the mainstream fusion-core theory fails to predict such phenomena.

How about Mr Bridgman and other critics look at some of the successful predictions of the Electric Universe model?

http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm

It is time that mainstream scientists started considering other qualitative and empirical assumptions about the nature of our universe. There may be a reason why so many are dismissive of ideas that go against the foundations of the current Einsteinian and largely gravity-dependent paradigm. The late Dr. William Birenbaum
(former President of Staten Island Community College) summed it up well:-

"The problem is the extreme professionalisation and rigidification of institutions through which thought is supposed to occur. Extreme to the point where it begins to contaminate the fluidity and looseness; the freedom to think. Fluidity and looseness of ideas, of having ideas and the freedom to think."
(Quote sourced from the documentary "Immanuel Velikovsky The Bonds of the Past").