M. Lopez-Corredoira: Tests for the Expansion of the Universe

[Maxim Khlopov]

VIA lecture M. Lopez-Corredoira "Tests for the Expansion of the Universe" was give on 15.05.2015.
It's record is in the VIA library
http://viavca.in2p3.fr/martin_lopez.html
The following questions and comments were made during it:
hantanu: Note that last year South Pole Telescope (SPT) and Planck collaborations published a robust result on T(z) vs 1+z using Sunayev-Zeldovich effect. Isn't this a more robust test? Or do you dispute these results?
Shantanu: Is there an updated plot like this with cD galaxies and radiogalaxies? Or is the 1986 paper the latest observation al paper?
Roy Keys: Do you consider the criticisms of SNIa evidence by Van Flandern and Jensen to be valid?
Alessandro Spallicci: Question 1. SN models are very uncertain for gravitational wave emission. Can they be trusted for expansion?

Shantanu: Alessandro: The SN used for cosmological tests are Type 1 a SN, and only Type II SN give gravitational waves
Shantanu: Are you talking about the Etherington relation, which is Luminosty distance = angular distance * (1+z)^2?

Roy Keys: It has been proposed that there are two 1+z factors in static model, i.e., one for photon energy reduction and another for flux reduction.

Shantanu: Then I disagree slightly. There are many papers which claim that this relation is very well satisfied, one paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2378
This paper also uses S-Z effect.

Shantanu: T(Z) from SPT paper is arxiv:1312.2462, again its going to be very hard to explain this using static models.
Shantanu: another question obviously is structure formation. Can statistic models explain CMB and LSS data on growth of structure.
Shantanu: Ok, I see. anyhow this interpretation has been criticized by Ned Wright, by Narlikar et al.
Alessandro Spallicci: 1. Tired light doesn't imply a static universe. necessarily.
Roy Keys: Re blackbody, see paper by Pecker, Narlikar et al. published this year.
Alessandro Spallicci: 2. Are the test valid if both extreme models are allowed?
Tired light could be complementary to the expansion.
Alessandro Spallicci: I am working on mechanisms for TL. Astrophysical tests should be put in a format for theorists.
Roy Keys: <>
tohttp://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/1545 be reproduced in memorial volume for Halton Arp.
Roy Keys: I discussed Z-D results from Planck with Pecker personally and he feels it is in agreement with the findings in their paper (S-Z).
You are welcome to continue the discussion

[KeysRoyVIA]

Hi Maxim, Thank you for organizing Martin's talk. This is a very interesting format for discussion. I hope to see more talks on alternative cosmology.
Some friends were unable to attend the live event. Is there a link to see a recording of the talk?

Thanks,
Roy

[martinlc]

My replies:

- To Hantanu:
I agree that Saro et al. (2014) is another example of good result in favour of the expansion of the Universe in the test of T_CMBR(z). At present, I have not any suggestion of explanation of the results within a static Universe scenario, although perhaps one may search some alternative explanation in terms of the evolution of gas properties in clusters, but this would need some "strange" coincidence to produce the same factor (1+z)^1 predicted by the expansion. In any case, from my point of view: a point in favour of the expansion.

There are papers of the Hubble diagram more recent than LaViolette (1986). For example, as I mentioned: Schade et al. (1997, ApJ, 477, L17) but for cluster ellipticals.

The factors of (1+z)^2 are already included in the standard model for the calculation of the luminosity distance. The following question related to the Holanda et al. (2012) is related to angular size tests. Thank you for that reference: it looks interesting.

Alternative explanations of CMBR and large-scale structure formation: there are many in the literature, although I agree that they are not at the level of the standard model. See for instance my review at: arXiv:astro-ph/0310214

- To Roy Keys:
I do not know the proposal by Van Flandern and Jensen. In any case, as said, there are many proposals to explain SNIa time dilation away from the expanding paradigm.

Yes, there are some models of static Universe with tired light which include more factors of (1+z). For instance, the plasma redshift cosmology by Brynjolfsson (2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0401420).

The explanation of CMBR given by Pecker et al. (2015) is not in my opinion something that I agree. Possibly Pecker may explain the SZ effect; I would like to see such explanation; at present, I cannot understand how a local origin of CMBR can produce that effect.

- To Alessandro Spallicci: I think S. Hantanu has already given the reply: the gravitational waves and SNII. For SNIa there are also reasons to doubt about their non-evolution. See for example: Podsiadlowski et al. (2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0608324) or Domínguez et al. (2000, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital. 71, 449).

It is certainly possible to have tired light+expansion, or tired light only for some sources whereas most of the galaxies have cosmological redshift.

Thank you for your observations,
Martín López-Corredoira

[KeysRoyVIA]

References to Jensen's papers here:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.astro.research/rZLtU-zKXM4/lfxMEfOwxYgJ>
I have not checked to see if they are still on the server, however.

Notes by Tom Van Flandern.
<http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp>
Article by Tom:
<http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp>

Toivo Jaakkola discussed tests of the expansion hypothesis in several articles. Incidentally I have copies (paper) of all articles written by Toivo. If someone could deposit them in a library I would be happy to forward the box.

[Maxim Khlopov]

Dear Colleagues,
The record of Martin's lecture is already online.
It is on VIA homepage until the end of the next week and is kept in VIA library
http://viavca.in2p3.fr/martin_lopez.html
You are welcome to continue discussion

[martinlc]

Hello Roy,

Van Flandern ("Did the Universe Have a Beginning?") says: "Model-dependent assumptions about the time and intensity of the maximum brightness must be made. The observations can then be fit with an expanding universe model. But expansion is not required for a good fit to the observations because the light maximum was not seen, so static models work too.". Jensen (arXiv:astro-ph/0404207) talks about some selection effects.
Something similar is also claimed by other authors that I have mentioned in the talk:
- S. P. Leaning, New Analysis of Observed High Redshift Supernovae Data Show that A Majority Of SN1a Decay Lightcurves can be Shown to Favourably Compare with a non Dilated Restframe Template, in: 1st Crisis in Cosmology
Conference (AIP Conf. Ser. 822(1)), E. J. Lerner, J. B. Almeida, Eds., AIP, Melville, p. 48 (2006).
- D. Crawford, Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe (Part I), J. Cosmology 13 (2011) 3875.

I cannot judge whether the arguments given by these papers are correct or not. For that, I would need to make an independent analysis of the data

Best regards,
Martín López-Corredoira

[KeysRoyVIA]

Hi Martin, It appears as if you have a good sense of the problem. Perhaps a new analysis is warranted. I am curious to know what the current status of redshift periodicity is. Have you been in touch with Bill Napier at all?

Cheers,
Roy