surface brightness of galaxies and the evidence against ... · surface brightness of galaxies and...
Post on 23-Feb-2019
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Surface Brightness of Galaxies
and
the Evidence Against the
Concordance Model
Eric J. Lerner
LPPFusion, Inc.
EWASS
June 22, 2015
Size and surface brightness
Tolman Test
Euclidean non-expanding:
Surface brightness is constant
Expanding Universe Prediction:
Surface brightness per unit frequency (AB
Mag)~1/(1+z)3
EUCLIDEAN
NON-EXPANDING MODEL
Eric J. Lerner, Renato Falomo, and Riccardo Scarpa,
UV surface brightness of galaxies from
the local universe to z ~ 5
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814500588
Need to determine absolute M
from apparent m, z.
Assume d= cz/H0 for all z
Static vs Expanding SNIa--Both Fit
No Difference—amazing coincidence?
Measuring SB: GALEX vs HUDF
Compared SBs of
623 nearby GALEX disk galaxies
with 344 distant HUDF disk galaxies
in 8 pairs of samples, FUV and NUV,
matched for λ, M
Bright UV galaxies -17.5<M<-19
Young galaxies
Matched telescope linear resolutions
in SEU model
SB From Measurements
We measured the radius of each
galaxy to get surface area and from
that and measured apparent
luminosity we get surface brightness
For galaxies of the same luminosity ,
same SB means same size
Mean SB is Constant
If we include unresolved galaxies,
Median SB is constant
How Constant?
Mean:
0.027 ± 0.033 mag/arcsec2
Slope on z: 0.04 ± 0.06 mag/arcsec2
Median:
-0.017 ± 0.05 mag/arcsec2
Slope on z: -0.08 ± 0.05 mag/arcsec2
For equal luminosity radii equal to within
2.3%
Observational limits do not bias results
Tolman test for SB is consistent
with a
non-expanding,
Euclidean Universe with
distance proportional to redshift
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
Trujillo et al 2007, Buitrago et al 2008
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
NEW: Size -- Expanding vs
Non-Expanding
19
Size Evolution
Can’t Explain these Results
� Three BIG coincidences—one in a million
� Size evolution must shift from H(z)-0.5 for z>3 to at least H(z)-1.6 for z<3
� Requires at least 3 more parameters
� Same for ellipticals (growth) and spirals (formation)
� Where are all the dense large ellipticals?
� No Physical mechanism—20-40 times too few mergers
Surface Brightness and Luminosity
Data Alone are Strong Evidence
Against Any
Expanding Universe Model
And for A Non-expanding universe
with D proportional to z
21
Observational Contradictions to
Hot Big Bang Model
Lithium, Helium Predictions
are Wrong
23Sbordone et al 2012, Hansen et al 2015
Helium also far too low
in local stars
24
Portinari, Casagrande, Flynn, 2010
Galactic Theory of
Element Formation
Plasma model of galactic formation
(1988) predicted correct amounts of He,
Li, D from intermediate mass stars that
produce almost no metallicity
predicted correct amount of energy
release for CBR energy density
25
Lithium and helium data are
strong evidence against any
hot big bang model and for a
galactic origin of light
elements.
27
LCDM Predicts Three Times Too Much DMI. D. Karachentsev, Astrophys. Bull. 67, 123-134
>200 Mpc LSS Takes
Far Too Long to Form for BB
Clowes et al, 2012
LSS at all scales predicted by non-expanding plasma theory,
1986
Analytical result, not simulation
Large scale structure
observations are strong
evidence against dark
matter and for formation by
magnetic-gravitational
processes
CBR Alignments and Asymmetries
Contradict Inflation Predictions
Evidence Indicates Scattering/Absorption of
Radio-Frequency radiation in local universe
Atrophys & SS, 1993
Evidence against
Inflationary LCDM
Surface Brightness
Lithium, Helium
Large Scale Structure
Large Angle Alignments
Free Parameters Exceed Measurements
Two Approaches—
Time to Switch!
� Expanding—Unlimited Free
Parameters, New Hypothetical
Entities, No Predictive Power
� Non-Expanding– Minimal number of
free parameters, High Predictive
Power
top related