Tornado of 5 million degree plasma on the sun is bigger than the Earth

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) watched the Sun’s magnetic forces twist and turn enormous plumes of superheated plasma in a tornado that is larger than the Earth. The particles observed by SDO – mostly partly iron – were measured at a blazing 5 million degrees. (2.8 million degrees C.)

solar-plasma-tornado

A small, but complex mass of plasma gyrated and spun about over the course of 40 hours above the surface of the Sun (Sept. 1-3, 2015). It was stretched and pulled back and forth by powerful magnetic forces but not ripped apart in this sequence. The temperature of the ionized iron particles observed in this extreme ultraviolet wavelength of light was about 2.8 million degrees C. (or 5 million degrees F.) Credit: Solar Dynamics Observatory, NASA.

If we ever needed a reminder that we are little more than a flyspeck on an elephant’s butt, and nature can muster forces beyond our comprehension and squish us like a bug at a moments notice, this video is it. (h/t to Dennis Wingo)

This is not a new finding, these were first noted from SDO imagery back in 2012:

Here is a 3D computer visualization

This supercomputer visualization sheds light on data gathered through new telescopes from hard-to-observe areas of the Sun.

Scientists using NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) have recently observed two sizes of solar “tornado”—rapidly rotating, funnel-shaped structures. Both the small and the large type are driven by magnetic energy, as opposed to the temperature and moisture contrasts that fuel actual tornadoes on Earth.

The smaller, more-frequent type shown here is the result of a 2012 discovery by a team of researchers in Norway, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

In this animation of the data, a virtual camera travels around, above, and into the funnel of a solar magnetic tornado. As lines swirl around the funnel, the colors denote how quickly the plasma is rotating (from slower yellow to faster green and turquoise). Outside the funnel, the red lines represent the magnetic field. The colored patch below the funnel is the magnetic footprint at the Sun’s surface.

At any moment, about 11,000 of these tornadoes, some of them as wide as the United States, may be spinning across the Sun’s surface. Each one can pack winds of more than 10,000 miles per hour. The tornadoes were discovered using the Swedish one-meter solar telescope, together with SDO data. Researchers think that heated plasma (electrically charged gas) rises through the tornadoes into the Sun’s corona, or upper atmosphere. This could help explain a longtime mystery: how the corona reaches temperatures of up to 5 million degrees Fahrenheit.

The larger type of solar tornado (not shown here), which can sometimes be wider than a hundred Earths, is related to bursts of magnetic flux called coronal mass ejections.

—–Magnetic Tornadoes as Energy Channels into the Solar Corona—–

Science: Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm (University of Oslo, Norway), Eamon Scullion (University of Oslo), Oskar Steiner (Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics, Germany), Luc Rouppe van der Voort (University of Oslo), Jaime de la Cruz Rodriguez (Uppsala University, Sweden), Viktor Fedun (University of Sheffield, U.K.), Robert Erdélyi (University of Sheffield, U.K.)

Visualization: Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm, University of Oslo, Norway, using CO5BOLD http://folk.uio.no/svenwe/research.ht… and VAPOR (Visualization and Analysis Platform for Ocean, Atmosphere, and Solar Researchers) http://www.vapor.ucar.edu

More information: http://www.solartornado.info

Advertisements

146 thoughts on “Tornado of 5 million degree plasma on the sun is bigger than the Earth

  1. The particles observed by SDO – mostly iron
    The particles are mostly hydrogen. The iron is but a small part [less than 1%] of the material. We observe in a spectral line of iron, but that does not mean that the matter is mostly iron.

    • SDO team members wrote in a description of the video. “The temperature of the ionized iron particles observed in this extreme ultraviolet wavelength of light was about 2.8 million degrees C (or 5 million degrees F).”
      http://www.space.com/30498-solar-tornado-nasa-sdo-video.html
      iron is the stable end product of both fusion and fission (no net energy to be gained). thus it should be dirt common. given its density it should be found in quantity towards the center of any gravity well, such as a star, planet or moon.
      An interesting question is whether the sun is producing iron today, or if the iron seen in the plasma is primordial, accumulated at the sun’s core similar to earth’s core during its formation. If the sun is not producing iron, was the sun ejecting more iron in the past than today? Will the sun run out of iron? Is it sustainable?

      • The iron deal has gotten out of hand. Iron makes up a tiny, tiny part of the material of the sun [0.003% by number] and was produced billions of years ago by supernovae exploding before the sun was born. The sun is not making iron today and will, of course, never ‘run out of iron’.

      • The sun is not making iron today and will, of course, never ‘run out of iron’.
        =================
        yet iron is found in the solar wind, thus if the sun is not producing iron then the iron in the solar wind is by definition not sustainable. the iron is not being replaced and we are all doomed.
        NASA should implement an immediate iron recycling program for the sun to replace the iron being lost. think of the children and the risk of future iron deficiencies.

        • The solar wind is so tenuous that the mass loss is negligible. Again: the Sun will not run out of iron, or helium, or hydrogen, or anything for billions of years.

      • Cosmic Recycling: We Are Made of Stars

        Sun’s iron content (tiny as Leif points out) is said to have accumulated from ~1000 supernovae events. SkyMapper in Australia is being used to find stars that have markedly lower iron content. Interesting stuff for UK readers and those who know a convenient proxy to BBC iPlayer:
        Cosmic Dawn: The Real Moment of Creation. Not on YouTube yet AFAIK.
        Question is, where did that putative primordial Hydrogen come from in the first place? Does the universe eventually through expansion, diffuse and decay back to a Cosmic Dark Ages state with nothing but primordial hydrogen? Or at least to some point where the whole thing starts over leading eventually to collapse and another big bang; Universe Recycling? Seems more likely that both are going on simultaneously with Black holes being pockets of extreme collapse in the bigger picture that will eventually come together again, who needs primordial hydrogen?

        • Put enough energy into a box and protons and anti-protons are generated in almost equal numbers: for each billion anti-protons there will be one billion and one protons. The protons and anti-protons annihilate each other and are turned into energetic photons [which we today see as the Cosmic Microwave Background]. The one surviving proton is the main visible constituent of the Universe today. Helium is also generated in those first few minutes, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Helium.pdf
          That the generated amount matches what we actually see today is a strong argument for the Big Bang.

    • Why is NASA; a presumably scientific organization, using Fahrenheit scale for Temperature ??
      Given that the high numerical value (compared to my back yard temperature) is related to the physics involved; I can see no purpose in reporting anything other than the absolute Temperature in SI units, namely K (kelvin).
      Perhaps we should have a new NASA temperature scale in degrees N, where the freezing point of water is 320 degrees N, and this new solar tornado is at 50 million degrees N.
      Now that is a really impressive temperature.
      g

      • Because it was a press release to the American public, though they have been known to mix and match to the detriment of certain Mars projects.

    • Thanks. I was thinking, “For the love of God, man, don’t give the Iron Sun fanatics an excuse, or we’ll never hear the end of it…” You beat me to it.
      rgb

    • Yes. Quite. Otherwise I’d be wondering what caused the Sun to suddenly turn into a rather unique Wolf-Rayet.

  2. I am pretty sure it’s the growth of solar panels on earth that caused the solar tornado. Especially the solar towers in Spain.
    Just having fun trying to out do the ridiculous correlations alarmists make between human activity and nature.

  3. With that kind of size, powers and temperatures, one could easily start to wonder whether there might be a sun-climate connection beyond our current knowledge, Well, I do wonder.

      • And how big a thermometer do they use? An Al Gore sized one? But seriously, how DO they measure this 5 million degree temp?

    • You mean the one that Democrat President Harry Truman dropped on the helpless Japanese civilian? And them followed at Nagasaki? (I believe that Harry made the right decision and saved perhaps a million American lives and perhaps ten million Japanese. However, when you say it my way, liberal heads explode. And that is fun to watch! History, a study of what REALLY happened, can be so inconvenient!)

      • Harry was one of the truly great presidents; and a spectacular one for a Democrat.
        I’m no sure that JFK really was a Democrat.
        g

      • Tip O’Neill would agree with you. JFK didn’t need the Democrat Party machine to get elected. His dad had the Mafia.
        I’d have to give Truman a B. He made the right decision to A-bomb Japan in 1945, threatened Stalin to leave Iran, fought the Communists in Greece, and the Marshall Plan was probably a good thing. But he dropped the ball on prosecuting the Communist spies left over from FDR’s Red-riddled administration (even though he knew they were guilty, because he didn’t want to give the GOP ammo), disarmed too precipitously, lost China and botched Korea, although the big booboo there was committed by his secretary of state, Dean Acheson.

  4. But of course the Sun has little to do with the Earth’s Climate……ask any totalitarian green monster.
    They know the real truth. It’s that pesky .04% of CO2 thats to blame. Oh btw, only a fraction of which humans produce…….

    • To be fair to the climate science establishment , not all parts of it deny the influence of solar activity .
      As an example I suggest this article by a BBC journalist :
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/d99e9ee4-2a79-3500-a1d4-07028ecb58d1
      published earlier this year about speculation that a strong el nino would bring a cold winter in a few months time to the UK.
      The correspondent . paul hudson states:
      “During the last El Nino of 2009/2010, the winter across northern Europe, including the UK was exceptionally cold.
      But there are many other variables which affect Europe’s climate and there was a deep, protracted solar minimum at the same time, which is known to increase the likelihood of colder winters.”
      His credentials are very respectable in the met field:
      “I worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for nearly 15 years locally and at the international unit, after graduating with first class honours in Geophysics and Planetary physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1992. I then joined the BBC in October 2007, where I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people’s everyday lives.”
      So i believe that his comments reveal a more open minded attitude to natural and solar effects on climate than we are sometimes led to believe (not least by the BBC itself ironically).

  5. As soon as all the SUVs, coal fired plants and fossil fuel use on the sun shuts down, as per EPA EDICTS, then these solar tornados will be a thing of the past .

  6. 5 million degree plasma
    ==============
    yet the surface of the sun is only 5 thousand degrees.
    this must be one of those 1000x feedback loops climate science is famous for, that allows radiation from a colder object to heat up a hotter object. Since the surface is 1000 times bigger than the plasma, the energy balances out in the solar energy budget.
    or could there be a much simpler explanation?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking
    “For nearly all models of induction cooktops, a cooking vessel must be made of, or contain, a ferromagnetic metal such as cast iron or some stainless steels.”

    • Induction cooktops work by making use of the hysteresis loss in ferromagnetic materials. In order for that to work, the metal needs to be below the Curie temperature of the ferromagnetic material in question. Also helps that the metal be in solid form (i.e. the iron is not responsible for heating of the corona).
      Other forms of induction eating make use of the eddy currents in the material being heated, requiring that the material be conductive. On a large scale, plasmas are quite conductive and thus sensitive to eddy current heating.

  7. lsvalgaard
    September 10, 2015 at 6:16 am
    … Iron makes up a tiny, tiny part of the material of the sun [0.003% by number] …

    So, Iron is the Sun’s CO2.
    Tiny amount… check
    Linked to heat events … check
    Linked to tornadoes… check.
    .
    .
    j/k

  8. Wow!
    Better get to the storm cellar Martha! Where’s the kids? …and don’t forget Toto.
    …It is so huge a storm, it is unfathomable. I just love it.
    Apparently all this solar activity does not contribute to the variability in earth’s climate!
    Here is a plot of night temp vs day temp. ..
    http://rjh.org/~rjh/darwin/darwin-weather-ll.html
    Like turning the sun, off-on-off-on-off-on-off. A 10 degree change in 12 hours! I wonder why?
    🙂

  9. Leif, you say .003% iron. My goodness the sun has a much worse greenhouse problem than we do. Up to 5 million degrees. Wow. I am just glad we are dealing with CO2, just think if we had iron in our atmosphere the planet would boil.

  10. Iron in the sun is nothing new, usually promoted by an ex-NASA scientist (Dr. O.M) earning him a ‘restricted’ access to the number of blogs. Alternative ideas can be found here , but are most likely just speculation.

    • Dr O.M does tend to spam everywhere with his idea, I can understand him getting restraining order. However, I did download the paper he at Judith’s site and it looked interesting and credible. Don’t recall it being much about an ‘iron sun’ though. The concept is new to me.
      However, one thing that did not ring true for me was the comment above that the iron in the sun comes from 1000 supernovae. Rare events, even rarer in the proximity of our system. This just smacks of improbable speculative hypothesis made up to avoid saying they have no idea.
      File that in the same box as “dark matter”. Something we cannot see, that does not interact with other matter but we know it’s there because otherwise our theory would be wrong.

      • Mike,
        First generation stars burned hot and fast (last only about 2 million years). Supernovae would have been far more common during the first generation. Our star is a second generation star (it may actually be 3rd, 4th, etc., but all subsequent generation stars are called second generation.) I don’t believe any first generation stars have been noted within the Milky Way. (though they think they have found some in a distant galaxy see http://earthsky.org/space/brightest-galaxy-and-first-generation-stars) They would be identified by only Hydrogen spectral lines. They would be chock full of heavier nuclei by now, but those would be in the core and we do not see the emissions from the core, because they are all absorbed in the core and the envelop. We see the envelop which in a first generation star is all hydrogen (maybe some escaped helium ejected from the core and some tunneling p-p freaks in the envelop.)

      • Hi Mike
        Perhaps a large iron rich planet ‘dived’ into sun, and in its fly-by caused some puzzling solar system anomalies.
        Let’s assume that 0.003% (re: svalgaard) is measured by volume, this would mean that the iron content by was slightly less than volume of Uranus or about 40 times volume of the Earth. (volume of the sun =1.409 x 10^18, earth 1.08 x 10^12)

      • However, one thing that did not ring true for me was the comment above that the iron in the sun comes from 1000 supernovae. Rare events, even rarer in the proximity of our system.
        There have been hundred million supernovae in the Galaxy, but since the interstellar gas is not well mixed only a small fraction of those [perhaps something like a 1000] are actual direct sources of the iron in the Sun. Although those stars that went supernovae themselves also contained some iron from still earlier supernovae, so some of the iron might well be ancient.

      • If the supernova contained 10 solar masses of iron we can estimate the number of supernovae contributing to the iron in the sun [0.14% by mass] as 10/(0.14/100) = 7000. Since not all of the supernova was iron, the number of supernovae needed is less than the 7000, so an estimate of 1000 seems very reasonable.

      • Thanks for all the comments, and to Vuk’ for the iron sun discussion. It looks like an objective assessment of the question, I’m still working through it.

        If the supernova contained 10 solar masses of iron we can estimate

        This reads like a back engineered justification. Start with a totally random, unjustified IF and end up with the required result. QED.
        And ‘if’ the supernova did NOT contained 10 solar masses of iron it does not support the initial figure of 1000 SN contributing iron to the sun. So where does 10 come from and why should we take it as the basis of the big if and the rest of the argument ?

      • Thanks for the reply. That explains what appears to be an arbitrary starting figure.
        However, that relies on the orthodox ( speculative ) explanation for the development of a type II supernova. The link that Vuk’ provided points out that the only close look we have had at supernova event was 1987A and that this was in no way conformed to the sort of star nor type of implosion event envisaged by the orthodox explanation.
        That was about 30 years ago, yet the NASA link you provided does not account for observations not matching hypothesis.

        When a star called “SK-69 202” exploded on February 24, 1987, becoming “Supernova 1987A”, the shock to conventional theory was as great as the visual wonder in the heavens. The event did not “emulate the theory”, but rather appears to have involved catastrophic electrical discharge.
        Prior to Supernova 1987A, astronomers assumed that a supernova signaled the death throes of a red supergiant star. But the star that exploded — SK-69 202 — was a blue supergiant, perhaps 20 times smaller than a red supergiant and a much different breed of star.

        That’s about as long as climatologists have been banging on about ‘global warming’. I can start to see why other fields of science stayed embarrassingly quiet when Climategate hit the fan.

      • “If the supernova contained 10 solar masses of iron

        For a star to explode as a Type II supernova, it must be at several times more massive than the sun (estimates run from eight to 15 solar masses).”
        10 is a nice round number in the correct range.

        but the supernova is not pure iron.
        .

        Since not all of the supernova was iron, the number of supernovae needed is less than the 7000.

        Err, no, that would mean you need more supernovae, not less. Now since SN1987A was a blue supergiant with a mass about 1/20 of a red , that means your back of envelop figures are off by at least two orders of magnitude.
        None of this adds up. Not surprisingly, if observations are ignored and one conjecture gets tweaked to fit another.

    • I agree, as photon energies of almost always given in eV not degrees K (though photographers use degrees K for color). Same thing goes for fusion reactors, cross section data for the reactions is given in keV or MeV, not degrees K.

    • No, please don’t, unless you include a unit of temperature meaningful to normal people (i.e. those without qualifications in astrophysics) as well.
      No disrespect to astrophysicists but most of us don’t use your native tongue.

  11. I find the statement that the tornado is ‘channeling energy into the Corona’ and that it in any way explains why the corona is so much hotter than the surface below a bit if a stretch. Occasionally one hears of some new explanation for why the corona is so hot. I think there was another novel explanation last year, right?
    How could a tornado be running from a cold zone into a much hotter zone unless there was a strong electrical field pulling it up? Tornadoes, even magnetic ones, work on ‘draft’ involving the relaxation of a potential. I am surprised to see CME’s described as a larger version of this tornado. The models of the CME evolution look nothing like this. What’s going on? All said and done, are they running away from the dreaded topics of EU and iron in the sun?

    • When intense magnetic fields exhibit tight curl a vortex can easily be created. When such a strong magnetic field loses its distant pole, it whips about and can rip matter out of the corona as the field tries to locate another opposite pole. The CME is the mass that continues on as the field re-establishes back to the surface. (Or at least that is my simplistic take on a very complex matter that I haven’t put in the years of study to have mastered)

    • I don’t. I suffer from haemochromatosis, too much iron in my blood. Most people with normal levels have enough iron to make one nail. I have enough to make a bag full lol.

  12. If I understand what is currently happening to the sun, how the sun is different than the standard model, and how past abrupt changes to the solar cycle caused cyclic abrupt climate change, we are approaching the time when there will be a set of very special climate changes and solar observational changes that will send multiple fields into crisis. We are going to see the type of theory change that occurred in geology with the discovery of tectonic plate movement.
    While we wait for the in your face type of observational paradoxes that cannot be ignored and will most certainly stimulate discussion, the following is some background of how the sun has changed.
    As solar cycle 24 progressed, the long lasting large sunspots have gradually been replaced by tiny short lived pores. The sun will start to have spotless days by sometime in this quarter and will have multiple spotless days next year.
    The solar Northern large scale magnetic field strength (blue line this graph) is now oscillating around zero. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly a year behind the solar northern hemisphere. The observational fact that the solar large scale northern magnetic field strength is oscillating around zero is not a surprise. The solar large scale magnetic field is created by the residue magnetic field strength of the cycle’s sunspots.
    Solar cycle 24 is anomalous. Solar cycle 24 is not a slowdown in the solar cycle. Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the basic mechanism that causes the solar cycle.
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    The following is an example of an observational paradox to support the assertion that there is something fundamental incorrect with the standard solar model. (P.S. There are more than a hundred astrophysics observational anomalies and paradoxes related to the explanation of what happens when large bodies collapse.)
    As many are aware the solar convection zone surface rotational speed changes based an latitude. The rotational speed of the surface plasma at the poles of the sun is roughly 40% slower the rotational speed at the equator of the sun. This makes sense as the convection zone is a plasma (type of gas).
    Sunspots which float on the surface of the sun have the same rotational speed as the plasma on which they float.
    The rotational speed of Coronal holes on the other hand does not change with latitude. Coronal holes’ rotational speed matches that of the tachocline. The observational fact that coronal holes’ rotational speed matches that of tachocline means the source of coronal holes is not in the convection zone but rather something deep within the sun.
    The coronal hole rotational paradox is of course ignored as its solution requires a new solar model.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Tachocline.gif

    ROTATION RATES OF CORONAL HOLES AND THEIR PROBABLE ANCHORING DEPTHS
    From 2001–2008, we use full-disk, SOHO/EIT 195Å calibrated images to determine latitudinal and day-to-day variations of the rotation rates of coronal holes (CHs).We estimate the weighted average of heliographic coordinates such as latitude and longitude from the central meridian on the observed solar disk. For different latitude zones between 40◦ north and 40◦ south, we compute rotation rates and find that, irrespective of their area, the number of days observed on the solar disk, and their latitudes, CHs rotate rigidly. Combined for all the latitude zones, we also find that CHs rotate rigidly during their evolution history. In addition, for all latitude zones, CHs follow a rigid body rotation law during their first appearance. Interestingly, the average first rotation rate (∼438 nHz) of CHs, computed from their first appearance on the solar disk, matches the rotation rate of the solar interior only below the tachocline.
    …We know, however, of no currently accepted model of magnetic field generation that could anchor coronal structures to such a depth in the interior. Unless a consistent and acceptable theoretical model of CHs that supports of our proposition (that during their first appearance, roots of CH might be anchored in the radiative core), our proposed idea remains mere a conjecture only. (William: Wildly waving hand. Ask me, ask me, I know what the solution is.)

    The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf

    The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
    Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it. We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.
    The minimum preceding the cycle showed other unusual characteristics. For instance, the polar fields were lower than those of previous cycles. In Fig. 1 we show the polar fields as observed by the Wilcox Solar Observatory. It is very clear that the fields were much lower than those at the minimum before cycle 22 and also smaller than the fields during the minimum before cycle 23. Unfortunately, the data do not cover a period much before cycle 21 maximum so we cannot compare the polar fields during the last minimum with those of even earlier minima.
    Other, more recent data sets, such as the Kitt Peak and MDI magnetograms, and they too also show that the polar fields were weak during the cycle 24 minimum compared with the cycle 23 minimum (de Toma 2011; Gopalswamy et al. 2012).
    The differences between the cycle 24 minimum and the previous ones were not confined to phenomena exterior to the Sun, dynamics of the solar interior showed differences too. For instance, Basu & Antia (2010) showed that the nature of the meridional flow during the cycle 24 minimum was quite different from that during cycle 23. This is significant because meridional flows are believed to play an important role in solar dynamo models (see e.g., Dikpati et al. 2010, Nandy et al. 2011, etc.).
    The main difference was that the meridional flow in the immediate sub-surface layers at higher latitudes was faster during the cycle 23 minimum that during the cycle 24 minimum. The difference can be seen in Fig. 3 of Basu & Antia (2010). Since the solar cycle is almost certainly driven by a dynamo, the differences in meridional flow between the last two minima, and between cycle 23 and the first part of cycle 24, may be important factors in creating the cycle differences, which extend into the corona and even cosmic rays (Gibson et al. 2009). Differences were also seen in the solar zonal flows (Howe et al. 2009; Antia & Basu 2010 …etc.), and it was found that the equator-ward migration of the prograde mid-latitude flow was slower during the cycle 24 minimum compared with that of cycle 23.

    • Perhaps this is a job for Dark Matter and/or other occult objects and forces – just as in the case of the observed rotational velocities of stars in galactic disks.

    • how the sun is different than the standard model
      Except that it is not. The standard model has been found to be very accurate.
      The rest of your comment is misunderstood nonsense [as usual].

      • “That the generated amount matches what we actually see today is a strong argument for the Big Bang.”
        Certainly for the particle physics involved, but not so much for the singulaity theorized to have spawned the big bang. Particle physics corrections to general relativity and acoustic oscilations argue for an infinite universe that is infinitely old. http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

        • Your link states:
          “Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.
          The fact that there’s a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed, Brandenberg told Live Science.”
          The Big Bang is thus a fact and we take it from there onwards. What happened before [if there were a ‘before’] is not relevant for the discussion.

      • Small and hot could very well be the signature of a more recent and more local event within an infinite and infinitely old universe than theorized by the big bang proponents. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/01/08/boss-one-percent/. And I realize that “before” has no meaning when we speak of before the universe and time itself. But there may have been a “before” the theoretical big bang in an infinite universe. We need to separate “fact” from commonly held beliefs which are theoretical in nature.

        • infinite and infinitely old universe than theorized by the big bang proponents
          The Big Bang is concerned with what happened 13.8 billion years ago when a very hot and infinite universe started to expand. BB cosmology is an observational, high-precision science, thus a fact as we normally understand that word.

      • “thus a fact as we normally understand that word.” Depends upon who “we” encompasses and how convenient it is to quote theory as fact. We have way too much settled science. The big bang is a theory, not a fact and I accept it as a good theory, but not a fact. Not enough “observation” to be given that designation, yet.

      • Jim G1
        “We need to separate “fact” from commonly held beliefs which are theoretical in nature.”
        There are endless possibilities when evidence is thin. Let’s start separating, define ‘fact’ and we can start filling up that basket.

      • If there is no observational evidence to the contrary and the theory has not been proven false through lab or observation, we are getting close to what I would call a fact. If it simply makes the numbers work, as in big bang or dark matter, then not so much. Bring me a spoonful of dark matter. The particle physics example that I mentioned below and much of GR are as close to real facts as advanced science gets. And as I said below, even these may change. There is no science without skepticism. Consensus is the enemy of discovery.

        • If there is no observational evidence to the contrary and the theory has not been proven false through lab or observation, we are getting close to what I would call a fact.
          BB is not a theory, but the collective name for a large amount of high-precision observations.

      • The biggest problem with the term “fact” is the implication of finality and that it should not be questioned. Science is nothing if not constantly questioning what is currently believed.

        • No that is not the problem. Every scientist knows that facts are what we currently consider to be established and that that assessment is not fixed, but can be amended by further discoveries.
          In science, a “fact” is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. In this sense BB is a fact as it is based on observations.
          The problem is with people like you who does not not realize the above.

      • “The problem is with people like you who does not not realize the above.” ( SIC)
        Very impressive intellectual argument, Leif.

  13. Why is it so hard to understand that our sun contains iron – and it is not producing it? Earth contains an iron core (both liquid and solid), yet I am fairly certain that the Earth is not creating it. Where did it come from? Well, along with every other naturally occuring element in the Periodic Table except maybe H, it was created in the cores of stars and dispersed throughout the galaxy/universe when those stars exploded.
    Iron was part of the molecular cloud from which our solar system was created and through gravity, angular momentum, and probably a few dozen other actions/reactions/interactions the cloud collapsed into a star, 8 planets, a crap load of moons, and a bazillion more asteroids and comets. We know we have iron. We are fairly certain that Mars has iron (rust red, and all). We know most asteroids have iron (ferrous meteorites).
    So why is finding iron in the plasma of the sun – the single largest attractive object in our neighborhood – surprising? Think of all the iron that it collected BEFORE the density was sufficient to start fusing H into HE.
    Unless you think WE got it all, that is.
    Thanks Isvalgaard for your insight.

    • To iterate the point: it is not a surprise that there is a [tiny] amount of iron in the Sun. We understand where it came from. But is is wrong to state that the sun is ‘mostly iron’ and misleading to say that it is ‘partly iron’.

  14. Small and hot could very well be the signature of a more recent and more local event within an infinite and infinitely old universe than theorized by the big bang proponents. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/01/08/boss-one-percent/. And I realize that “before” has no meaning when we speak of before the universe and time itself. But there may have been a “before” the theoretical big bang in an infinite universe. We need to separate “fact” from commonly held beliefs which are theoretical in nature.

      • That is the question. Much of particle physics has been proven in the laboratory, strange as much of it is. Those are facts to me. Though even they may change with better technology.

    • The BOSS results include new and precise measurements of the universe’s expansion rate (called the “Hubble constant”) and matter density, which includes dark matter, stars, gas, and dust.

      OH, so they have “precise measurements” of the amount of dark matter now. I wonder how they did that !!?

      • In truth black matter is a huge fiddle factor of ‘invisible’ matter to account for the mass of known universe being off by about a factor of 20!! from what is expected assuming that redshift indicates distance from an assumed Big Bang.
        If that is what we are supposed to regard as hard “fact” in a hard science we’d better stop giving climatologists such a hard time. They have the same ingrained orthodoxy but are only off by a factor of two.

      • Dr. S,
        Thanks for that link.
        It didn’t occur to me that dark matter must be immune to electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, leaving just gravity and the weak nuclear force.

      • Even though the constituent particles of the dark matter have not yet been
        identified, its cosmological role is largely specified by the requirements that it be cold, stable, and immune to electro-
        magnetism and the strong nuclear force.

        Like I said we can’t see, it does not react with anything ( except graviationally ) and we only know it’s there because we need a fiddle factor for the effect of gravity on the rate of expansion.

        mological constant is just one of several possibilities.The claim of an accelerating cosmic expansion and the
        idea of a mysterious dark energy as its cause are so revolutionary that they demand particularly strong evidence.
        After all, distant supernovae might look weak simply because early supernovae were weak, or because something happens to
        their light on the way here. But additional evidence from the angular scale of the CMB acoustic peaks has convinced most
        cosmologists that the expansion really is accelerating. The cause, however, remains unknown.

        Nothing but ‘facts’ I tell you and ‘particularly strong evidence’.

  15. What would the smallest particle of one of those 2.800,000C flares, molecule, atom, electron, something, look like? Supposing of course that our children’s children’s measuring devices can actually look at them.

  16. According to eminent, Nobel Laureate scientist Prince Albert, five million degrees is the temperature at the center of the earth. Too hot by three orders of magnitude, but close enough for government work.

  17. Jim G1 September 10, 2015 at 1:26 pm
    “But there may have been a “before” the theoretical big bang in an infinite universe.”
    Universe ‘is’ just state of the energy-mass balance within a nonlinear close system, while the time ‘is’ represented by the ratio of two.
    Perfect energy-mass balance is only an instant known as the ‘big-bang’ but it may not be a singularity. Even the smallest of variations in such system of bi-directional mass-energy conversion can rapidly form distinct periods of the energy vs. mass excess (we perceive time as positive), or vice versa where there is excess of mass vs. energy (time from our perspective would be perceived as negative).
    Thus there is no time before or after, time just reverses its direction.

  18. The Bible say : in the beginning there was the word; and the word was God
    Science says: iin the beginning there was the word; and the word was Bang.
    Philosophically they are identical.

    • Science is filled with philosophy! The scientific method is based on philosophy and logical proofs are rooted in philosophical statements. When I want something analysed logically I go to a philosophy professor. They know every trick and misunderstanding and incorrect attribution in the book. For example the word “synecdoche” is very relevant to the analysis of CAGW. When a philosopher looks at the claims of CAGW they recognise that an attribute of the whole (the climate system) is being ascribed to one of its components (CO2). It is a type of category error, i.e. the incorrect assigning of an attribute to something which cannot have it. CO2 is an element of the atmospheric heating and cooling systems, but the attribute of the whole is ascribed by CAGW to CO2 as if it was responsible for the causing the effects of the whole which is impossible. Water vapour, for example, is described by CAGW as being ‘only a feedback’ and not the major cause of the GHG’s total effect.

      • That is logic, a subset of philosophy.
        There is indeed overlap between certain aspects of philosophy and science. There is also the philosophy of science.
        But myth, not so much. Mythological thought is pre-scientific. It’s what the scientific method replaced. Naomi Orestes and Steven Mosher are trying to revive a 2600 year old habit of thought.

      • The Ancient Near East cosmology, in both its Mesopotamian and Egyptian versions, was based upon consensus, to which standard Orestes and Mosher would have us return.
        By contrast, the scientific method, which has achieved such great advances in understanding nature since 1543, is based not upon consensus, but its opposite, ie what can be shown by observation.

  19. Watching the solar corona devil (like a big dust devil, not a tornado) is cool.
    What I find intriguing is watching the upper corona frequently tear the top off of the corona devil.
    Winds or magnetic loops, whatever. Too toasty for me to go and find out, not forgetting the cost issues.

  20. In reply to:

    lsvalgaard
    September 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    If there is no observational evidence to the contrary and the theory has not been proven false through lab or observation, we are getting close to what I would call a fact.
    BB is not a theory, but the collective name for a large amount of high-precision observations.

    William,
    Bah, bah, bah, bah, all talk no observations, no specifics to support any of your comments. Science is the investigation of paradoxes and anomalies. Your knowledge of astronomical anomalies and paradoxes is zip, yet you have very, very, strong ‘opinions’ about the big bang theory. What is the basis for those very, very strong opinions?
    There are over a hundred observational anomalies and paradoxes in peer reviewed papers that indicate the Big Bang theory is in crisis has been in crisis for at least the last 20 years.
    1) Quasars do not exhibit time dilation which is a paradox. Super Nova spectral show evidence of time dilation. As time dilation is observed super nova, this fact that quasars do no exhibit time dilation provides support for the assertion that quasars less than z=1 in distance. Support for this assertion is the fact that local intergalactic gas ionization requires twice as many quasars as observed to explain ionization.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
    This the link to the published 2010 paper. (There is 2001 and 2006 paper same conclusion).
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract
    The quasars are aligned as they are not billions of light years apart. There is evidence (See the late Halton Arp’s peer reviewed papers and book on this subject) of highly ionized gas clouds connecting quasars that should be billions of light years apart based on redshift. There are a dozen independent observational types all in peer reviewed papers to support that assertion.
    http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/

    Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years
    “The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other — despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years,” said Hutsemékers.

    On time dilation in quasar light curves
    2) Quasars’ super massive black hole ‘downsizes’ gets smaller with redshift rather than larger with less redshift. Quasar spectrum show absolutely no evolution with redshift. High redshift quasars have high metallicity than local quasars.
    BH Downsizing
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151v1

    • Why have the during cosmic epochs, from initial . 10^9.5 M⊙ to their present-day 10^7M⊙, as shown by the statistics of the SDSSurvey (fig.4, Vestergaard et al 2008)? • How could some of the most massive ones already form within . 0.8 Gyr after the Big Bang? • Why do their masses scale as 10−2.85 times their bulge masses (Marconi and Hunt 2003)? • How do they blow their gigantic winds^ enriched (up to Fe)? • How do they generate their extremely hard spectra, (occasionally) peaking at &TeV energies, even recorded (from PKS 2155-304) as minute-sharp, hour-scale bursts (Weekes 2007), whilst accreting black holes radiating at their Eddington rates are predicted to shine with blackbody temperatures of KeV(M⊙/M)1/4? • Why are some of them distinctly under luminous? • Why does their high g -ray compactness not prevent them from forming jets, in the (10%) cases of their radio-loud subpopulation, via inverse-Compton losses?

    See explanation for spooky alignment of quasar group that is billions of light years in size.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256v1

    A structure in the early universe at z = 1.3 that exceeds
    the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology

    3) Quasars disappear at Z=6.8 while there is now a galaxy at z=8.68. Curiously the galaxy at z=8.68 shows no absorption of neutral hydrogen, likewise same problem for high redshift quasar.
    4) Dark matter crisis
    After searching for dark matter for 25 years there is no evidence of ‘dark matter’. There are no a list of roughly 5 observations including spiral galaxy evolution that cannot be explained by ‘dark matter.
    This is an interesting review article that discusses the dark matter issues.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2546v2.pdf

    The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology
    The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist: primordial dark-matter (DM) dominated (type A) dwarf galaxies, and tidal-dwarf and ram-pressure-dwarf (type B) galaxies void of DM. Type A dwarfs surround the host approximately spherically, while type B dwarfs are typically correlated in phase-space. Type B dwarfs must exist in any cosmological theory in which galaxies interact. Only one type of dwarf galaxy is observed to exist on the baryonic Tully-Fisher plot and in the radius- mass plane. The Milky Way satellite system forms a vast phase-space-correlated structure that includes globular clusters and stellar and gaseous streams. Other galaxies also have phase-space correlated satellite systems. Therefore, The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist. It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations. Other theoretical solutions to cosmological observations exist. In particular, alone the empirical mass-discrepancy–acceleration correlation constitutes convincing evidence that galactic-scale dynamics must be Milgromian. Major problems with inflationary big bang cosmologies remain unresolved.

    Some researchers have proposed warm dark matter as a possible solution to dark matter crisis. However, there are problems with warm dark matter also.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1282

    Cores in warm dark matter haloes: a Catch 22 problem
    The free streaming of warm dark matter particles dampens the fluctuation spectrum, flattens the mass function of haloes and imprints a fine grained phase density limit for dark matter structures. The phase space density limit is expected to imprint a constant density core at the halo center on the contrary to what happens for cold dark matter. We explore these effects using high resolution simulations of structure formation in different warm dark matter scenarios. We find that the size of the core we obtain in simulated haloes is in good agreement with theoretical expectations based on Liouville’s theorem. However, our simulations show that in order to create a significant core, (r_c~1 kpc), in a dwarf galaxy (M~1e10 Msun), a thermal candidate with a mass as low as 0.1 keV is required. This would fully prevent the formation of the dwarf galaxy in the first place. For candidates satisfying large scale structure constrains (m_wdm larger than 1-2 keV) the expected size of the core is of the order of 10 (20) pc for a dark matter halo with a mass of 1e10 (1e8) Msun. We conclude that “standard” warm dark matter is not viable solution for explaining the presence of cored density profiles in low mass galaxies.

    5) CMB and Inflation. The predicted minimum variance of the cosmic microwave background is 1 part 7000 to at most 1 part in 10,000. The observed CMB variance is one part in 100,000. The hand waving ‘theory’ which is called ‘inflation’ saves the day. Inflation expands the entire universe at 100,000 times the speed of light and then stops the expansion with no change in velocity. The inflation theory requires (invents a new field) a new ‘field’ which appropriately called inflaton which expands Einstein space. There is no explanation as to where the energy comes from to expand Einstein space or why inflation starts or ends.
    Dark energy is similar, in that there is not even a hand waving theoretical explanation for its physics. Dark energy is place holder for the real explanation as to why super nova light curves vary unexplainably with redshift.
    6) CMB and large scale anomalous alignment and cold spot. There is mysterious unexplained alignment of large structures in the CMB with the axis of our galaxy. Could there be an alternative explanation as opposed to inventing ‘dark energy’?
    7) Trouble at first light. New infrared observations have found 3 to 5 times more light than can be explained.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604448v1

    Astronomy: Trouble at first light
    Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the
    extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared
    radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky.
    Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering for ever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations, 8,9,10.

    8) There are now unexplained super infrared luminous galaxies. The problem is to produce super infrared luminosity requires a major merger of galaxies. Major mergers of spiral galaxies produce elliptical galaxies. Paradox is 70% of all galaxies less than z=1 are spiral galaxies. How do spiral galaxies avoid mergers? Why are there so many spiral galaxies. Problem gets worst with the discovery of bulgeless spiral galaxies which includes our own galaxy and all of the major spiral galaxies in the local group.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3015

    BULGELESS GIANT GALAXIES CHALLENGE OUR PICTURE OF GALAXY FORMATION
    BY HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING

  21. “”At any moment, about 11,000 of these tornadoes, some of them as wide as the United States, may be spinning across the Sun’s surface. Each one can pack winds of more than 10,000 miles per hour. The tornadoes were discovered using the Swedish one-meter solar telescope, together with SDO data. Researchers think that heated plasma (electrically charged gas) rises through the tornadoes into the Sun’s corona, or upper atmosphere. This could help explain a longtime mystery: how the corona reaches temperatures of up to 5 million degrees Fahrenheit.””
    After having watched the videos and before reading the above paragraph, was thinking “corona heating.”
    11,000 +/- of these tornados on the solar surface woo woo…
    Not why we are here today..
    Pondering
    Hemispheric Asymmetries in the heliosphere nose and Hemispheric Asymmetries in Solar Polar Field reversals and Periodicities.
    IBEX: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS (2009-2013)
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/20/meta#apjs497246r11
    D. J. McComas1,2, F. Allegrini1,2, M. Bzowski3, M. A. Dayeh1, R. DeMajistre4, H. O. Funsten5, S. A. Fuselier1,2, M. Gruntman6, P. H. Janzen7, M. A. Kubiak3
    © 2014
    “”..Figures 24 and 25 also show a substantial north–south asymmetry developing on the upwind side, especially in the 2013 maps (right columns), with broadly increasing spectral slope in the north, but not in the south…
    ..Figure 28 shows the time evolution of ENAs for the dominant energy/latitude dependent emission regions of the Ribbon. From 2009 to 2012, ENA fluxes are declining at all energies in both the northern and southern portions of the Ribbon. However, in 2013, while the northern Ribbon ENAs continue to show declining fluxes, especially for the highest two energies, the southern Ribbon ENA fluxes appear to have flattened out or even slightly recovered. Thus, the evolution of the Ribbon fluxes in the two hemispheres has become quite different in 2013. We note that this difference cannot be simply explained by the difference in the survival probability corrections, which diverge between the north and south in 2012–2013 (e.g., Figure 6) as these corrections are only a few percent different, especially at the higher energies were the Ribbon flux evolution becomes so different…””

  22. Wright is completely silent (does not mention any) of the 100 astronomical paradoxes and anomalies that cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. Science is the study of anomalies and paradoxes, to solve scientific problems, not the perpetuating of Zombie theories. Your silly copy of a power point presentation which you know nothing about and your complete inability to discuss any of the details of a couple of dozen of the most discussed paradoxes/anomalies that are widely discussed in peer review papers confirms you know zip about the 100 astronomical paradoxes and anomalies. Cosmology has been in crisis for at least 20 years.
    50% of the observational measurement of the 3.7 k ‘background’ is removed as that 50% is deemed to be thermal from cold dust that surrounds the Milky Way galaxy same as the cold dust that surrounds other galaxies, to create what is called the cosmic microwave background radiation.
    Dark matter, Dark Energy, Inflation all have been created to keep the Big Bang theory on life support. The big bang theory fails to explain the most basic observations without inflation and dark matter.
    CMB and Inflation. The predicted minimum variance of the cosmic microwave background is 1 part 7000 to at most 1 part in 10,000. The reason for the minimum variance is due to the fact that there are galaxies in the universe.
    The observed CMB variance is one part in 100,000.
    The hand waving ‘theory’ which is called ‘inflation’ saves the day. Inflation expands the entire universe at 100,000 times the speed of light and then stops the hyper expansion with no change in velocity.
    The inflation theory requires (invents a new field) which is appropriately called the inflaton field which expands Einstein space when necessary to keep the big bang theory on life support. There is no explanation as to where the energy comes from to expand Einstein space for an entire universe or why inflation starts or ends. Wright completely ignores the inflation mechanism energy paradox (where or where does the energy come from to expand an entire universe and then stop the hyper expansion with no change in velocity) and does not explain that the Big Bang theory cannot explain the most basic astronomical observation (the existence of galaxies) without inflation. Inflation is not even mention in the standard short form definition of the key pillars of Big Bang.
    Wright’s quasar section does not mention the fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation and does not mention the fact that quasars also do not exhibit Faraday magnetic rotation, both observations support the assertion that all observed quasars are less than z=1. There is no mechanism (and there are no peer reviewed papers that attempt to propose a mechanism) that can magically change quasars with redshift to make it appear that quasars do not exhibit time dilation.
    As I noted Halton Arp noticed thirty year ago that there are clouds of highly ionized intergalactic gas surrounding strings of quasars that are coming from their parent galaxy. These weird specific patterns of a low redshift parent galaxy with a string of quasars with gradually reducing redshifts along the string and then as the ejected quasars evolve with time newly developing galaxies at the end of the string, is observed throughout the universe.
    Subsequent new analysis confirms Arp’s original observations. The redshift along the string of ejected quasars is highest when they are originally ejected and decreases with time as they move away from their parent galaxy and evolve with time and start to ejected what are called Wolf-Rayet stars and form Wolf-Rayet galaxies. As Arp notice there are knots along the spiral galaxy arms as these early galaxies eject from their quasar core.
    It is these Wolf-Rayet stars in Wolf-Rayet galaxies which eject immense amounts of hydrogen and helium gas in the galaxy where they are developing and outside their parent galaxy to create the background gas that the Big Bang theory alleges was created 13.7 billion years ago.
    The new multi spectral analysis shows 50% of the high redshift galaxies are Wolf Rayet galaxies.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0051
    Massive star formation in Wolf-Rayet galaxies
    http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507298v1
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603188v1
    Implications of the metallicity dependence of Wolf-Rayet winds
    DUSTY INFRARED GALAXIES: SOURCES OF THE COSMIC INFRARED BACKGROUND
    Because of assumed great distance there is now the same ultra luminous problem that was waved away for quasars for Ultraluminous infrared galaxies.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4869v1
    Hyperluminous infrared galaxies from IIFSCz
    The morphological paradox is 70% of the galaxies in the local universe are spiral galaxies. There is no mechanism that can cause a galaxy to suddenly start producing 1000 Wolf-Rayet stars per year. The assumption that the Wolf-Rayet observation is caused by a major merger will create an elliptical galaxy, rather than a spiral galaxy. Based on the number of ‘high redshift’ Wolf Rayet galaxies in the ‘early’ universe there should be no spiral galaxies in the local universe.
    Furthermore paradoxically there is no change in the percentage of spiral galaxies verse elliptical galaxies from z=0 to z=1. There is no morphological change. It is as if the universe is eternal.
    The weird high redshift objects such as super dense galaxies completely disappear. There is absolutely no evidence of a class of galaxies in the local universe that differs from the others.
    The observations support the assertion that the universe is eternal, rather than the theory that the universe was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago.

  23. What is interesting about solving the cosmological puzzle is its solution (the key to the puzzle is what happens physically when very large bodies collapse and how does the body that forms when very large bodies collapse change cyclically with time) has real practical implications as to what is currently happening to the sun, to fundamental physics, and to how the climate will change in the immediate future.
    There will be renewed interest in the sun if and when there is a significant change to the planet’s climate. I am waiting for the observational evidence to move the show on. Until there is, this is a Coles notes summary of some of the related problems.
    There is a physical reason for cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record. Can you see the cyclic abrupt climate change in this graph? Cyclic or not cyclic? Abrupt changes?
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
    http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
    When you were a child did you ever pretend? Try to imagine a different theory. Is that possible for you? Do you have scientific imagination?
    Pretend you have never heard about the big bang theory, now look at the cosmological observations. Pretend you are interested in solving the cosmological puzzle and have researched the peer reviewed papers concerning the more than a hundred different cosmological anomalies and paradox. Pretend you have read Halton Arp’s book “Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science” that was published more than 20 years ago.
    What observations does Arp have in his book? What was the academic community’s reaction when Arp forced peer reviewed academic journals to publish anomalous observations which cannot to this day be explained? The immediate reaction of the academic journals was to rejected the papers that outlined the anomalous observations as there was no explanation for the observations in question.
    It is a fact not at theory that there are now more than a 100 anomalous observations and paradoxes concerning the Big Bang theory. It is not possible to disprove anomalous observations. What cosmologists have done is to either ignored specific anomalous observations and paradoxes that disprove the big bang theory or alternatively they have created new Zombie mechanisms such as ‘inflation’, dark matter, and dark energy to avoid a paradox.
    There are now (20 years after Arp wrote his book) more quasar anomalies such as the observation that there is no time dilation of quasars with redshift and no Faraday magnetic rotation of quasars with redshift, spooky alignment of a massive group of quasars that is almost a billion light years apart based on redshift, and there now acknowledged anomalous large groups of quasar where the group size is greater than can be explained by the big bang theory (see my comment above and below for a link to a peer reviewed paper). The other quasar found anomalies and paradoxes support the assertion that Arp made 30 years ago in peer reviewed papers.
    Wright’s blog and modern cosmological text books do not include the more than 100 anomalous observations that send the big bang theory into crisis. A single anomaly or paradox should send a theory into crisis. More than hundred is comical, ridiculous.
    As Halton Arp noted almost 30 years ago based on observations (i.e. Arp does not have a theory that a specific group of quasars were ejected from a specific parent galaxy, that is what he observed.) It is fact that there is a cloud of very, very, hot ionized intergalactic gas that surrounds some of the quasars of a group of what should be according to the big bang theory unrelated quasars. The super hot ionized gas that surrounds a group of quasars (the quasars in questions based on redshift should be millions of light years apart and hence unrelated) points in the direction of the parent galaxy that ejected the quasars in question. This same weird formation and arrangement of super hot ionized gas surrounding a group of what should be unrelated quasars is found in all regions of the universe.
    The random check for quasar clustering is (there is now accepted agreement that quasars do anomalously cluster) ignores the issue is the anomalous clustering is a specific group of quasars, not all quasars in general. Other quasars are related to their own group, not to a disconnected group.
    This super hot ionized intergalactic gas (the fact that there is intergalactic gas that is a million degrees k surrounding a group of quasar is another anomaly to explain. Why is the intergalactic gas so hot? The reason why the intergalactic gas is so hot is the same reason/cause that ejected the quasar and caused an non cosmological redshift that changes with time. Very, very high electric charge imbalance cause non cosmological redshift. Electric charge imbalance causes current movement as the charge attempts to equalize between bodies which is the reason for the super hot intergalactic gas. As the charge imbalance of the ejected quasar object reduces the quasar in question starts to eject the Wolf-Rayet ‘stars’ and form a satellite galaxy which overtime evolves into a massive spiral galaxy. This same mechanism history is seen in our local group of galaxies.
    There is another set of papers which try to come up with zombie mechanisms to heat up intergalactic gas and to keep the intergalactic gas hot for hundreds of millions of years, basic analysis indicates it should cool.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502458v1

    Cooling and Clusters: When Is Heating Needed?
    There are (at least) two unsolved problems concerning the current state of the thermal gas in clusters of galaxies. The first is identifying the source of the heating which offsets cooling in the centers of clusters with short cooling times (the “cooling flow” problem). The second is understanding the mechanism which boosts the entropy in cluster and group gas. Since both of these problems involve an unknown source of heating it is tempting to identify them with the same process, particular since AGN heating is observed to be operating at some level in a sample of well-observed “cooling flow” clusters. Here we show, using numerical simulations of cluster formation, that much of the gas ending up in clusters cools at high redshift and so the heating is also needed at high-redshift, well before the cluster forms. This indicates that the same process operating to solve the cooling flow problem may not also resolve the cluster entropy problem.

    The following are more peer reviewed papers that discuss the spooky alignment of large scale structures in the ‘cosmic microwave background’, the radiation in question is not cosmic it from dust that surrounds the Milky Way that is heated by the Milky Way by external galaxies.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353v3

    Is the low-ℓ microwave background cosmic?
    The large-angle (low-ℓ) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology. We show that the quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are far more aligned than previously thought (99.9% C.L.). Three of these planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at 99.1% C.L., and the normals to these planes are aligned at 99.6% C.L. with the direction of the cosmological dipole and with the equinoxes. The remaining octopole plane is orthogonal to the supergalactic plane at 99.6% C.L.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738

    Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate and high Galactic latitudes
    We verify that these general properties are preserved towards high Galactic latitudes with low dust column densities. We show that even in the faintest dust-emitting regions there are no “clean” windows in the sky where primordial CMB B-mode polarization measurements could be made without subtraction of foreground emission.
    This level is the same magnitude as reported by BICEP2 over this ` range, which highlights the need for assessment of the polarized dust signal even in the cleanest windows of the sky. The present uncertainties are large and will be reduced through an ongoing, joint analysis of the Planck and BICEP2 data sets.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.6221v1

    Two close Large Quasar Groups of size _ 350 Mpc at z = 1.2
    Since 1982 there have been many reports of large-scale structures (LSSs) in the distribution of quasars and related objects. These structures have now become generally known as Large Quasar Groups (LQGs). They are the largest structures so far seen in the early universe (z ∼ 0.4–2.0), with sizes in the range 70–250 Mpc, and memberships & 5. The Clowes & Campusano (1991) LQG, at redshift z ∼ 1.3 and with a longest dimension of ∼ 250 Mpc, is a particularly large example of LSS in the early universe. For some of
    the historical development of work on LQGs see, for example: Webster (1982); Crampton, Cowley & Hartwick (1987), Crampton, Cowley & Hartwick (1989); Clowes & Campusano (1991); Komberg & Lukash (1994); Graham, Clowes & Campusano (1995); Komberg, Kravtsov & Lukash (1996); Newman et al. (1998), Newman (1999); Clowes, Campusano & Graham (1999); Tesch & Engels (2000); Williger et al. (2002); Haines, Campusano & Clowes (2004); Brand et al. (2003)

    • Study the results from the SLOAN survey [now covers a million quasars]:
      http://www.sdss.org/science/
      “Measurements of large-scale structure in SDSS maps of galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas have become a central pillar of the standard cosmological model that describes our understanding of the history and future of the Universe. SDSS data have helped to demonstrate that the Universe is dominated by unseen dark matter and pervasive dark energy, and seeded with structure by quantum fluctuations in the infant cosmos. Those fluctuations have grown into the large-scale structure we see today.
      The SDSS’s high-precision maps of cosmic expansion history using baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) have been especially influential in quantifying these results, yielding exquisite constraints on the geometry and energy content of the universe. BAOs were first detected in galaxy clustering by the SDSS-I and in the contemporaneous 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, and have since also been detected in intergalactic hydrogen gas using Lyman-alpha forest techniques.
      These BAO measurements are beautifully complemented by the results of the SDSS-II Supernova Survey, which has provided the most precise measurements yet of cosmic expansion rates over the last four billion years. In addition, statistical measurements of galaxy motions and weak gravitational lensing provide some of the strongest evidence to date that Einstein’s General Relativity is an accurate description of gravity on cosmological scales.”
      The BB is alive and well.
      Quasars are active nuclei of galaxies.
      Gravitational lensing shows that quasars are a vast distances.

    • It is a fact not at theory that there are now more than a 100 anomalous observations and paradoxes concerning the Big Bang theory.
      You could increase your flagging credibility by listing and linking to the papers that claim the ‘more than a 100’ anomalies…

  24. While we wait for local observation to confirm or disprove the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted and that a solar cycle interruption is the cause of cyclic abrupt climate change, here are more of the piles and piles of anomalies and paradoxes which have general public are not aware of.
    There piles and piles of anomalies concerning why spiral galaxies form rather than elliptical galaxies, why spiral galaxy parameters including momentum is tightly controlled and increases with galaxy mass.
    Those observations are a paradox for a hierarchical galaxy formation which is what the big bang predicts. Random galaxy mergers would produce random angular momentum of the resultant and would turn spiral galaxies into elliptical galaxies.
    The relatively new discovery that 1/3 of all spiral galaxies are bulgeless is salt into the paradox.
    Finally the discovery of super luminous infrared galaxy adds another paradox. What can cause the massive increase infrared luminosity with red shift. The galaxies in question are too bright which creates theory problems for the big bang theory. The leading theory that super infrared brightness is caused by mergers returns to the why are two thirds of the galaxies spiral.
    Paradox 1 – Spiral Galaxy Existence Paradox, Conservation of Momentum/Merger Paradox,
    How do spiral galaxies avoid mergers? Why are there any spiral galaxies? 2/3 of the mass in the local universe is in spiral galaxies. Due to the conservation of angular momentum (angular momentum cannot be created or destroyed) the merger of two spiral galaxies which have different angular momentum (the problem is the angular momentum of the stars of the two merging galaxies) will produce an elliptical galaxy or an elliptical like galaxy not a spiral galaxy and will produce a galaxy that has log normal angular momentum. This is a very, very basic paradox.
    There must be some unknown mechanism that is stopping spiral galaxies from merging. Dark matter is not a solution to this problem. Changing the laws of gravity does explain this observation. The problem is the conservation of angular momentum and the mergers of spiral galaxies that have stars.
    The existence of a set of a graduated set of flat bulgeless spiral galaxies makes this paradox more sever.
    The bulgeless galaxies somehow grow without mergers and turn into normal massive spiral galaxies.
    Paradox 2: Tightly Correlated, Graduated increasing Angular Momentum and four other Spiral Galaxy Parameters, Goldilocks Spiral Galaxy Momentum Paradox
    Disney et al’s discovery that spiral galaxy have a tightly correlated set of parameters. Mergers will in addition to producing elliptical like galaxies, will not produce spiral galaxies that have a graduating increase in angular momentum.
    As I noted this paradox requires a Goldilocks angular momentum mechanism which will add the correct amount of angular momentum (not too much, not too little) as the galaxy grows in mass to maintain the tight correlation of galaxy parameters.
    Paradox 3: Discovery of hyperluminous infrared galaxies and discovery that roughly 50% of the high redshift galaxies are hyperluminous. The paradox is there is no mechanism besides mergers to cause the hyperluminous infrared emission in the big bang theory. The competing eternal theory has spiral galaxies ejecting Wolf-Rayet ‘stars’ as an internal process, a process that does not involve interaction or mergers of galaxies. Major mergers produce elliptical galaxies rather than spiral galaxies. There is a paradox as 2/3 of the galaxies from z=0 to z=1 are spiral galaxies and roughly 1/3 of the spiral galaxies are bulgeless spiral galaxies. Why are there so many spiral galaxies?
    Galaxy spin is thought (assumed) to be the result of early tidal torquing. That assumption is not correct. There needs to be new mechanism (I repeat, a new mechanism) that produces a precise graduated increase in momentum as the spiral galaxy grows/gains mass.
    Simulations produce spins (spiral galaxy angular momentum), independent of mass, with a log-normal distribution.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.1554.pdf

    Galaxies appear simpler than expected
    M. J. Disney1, J. D. Romano1,2, D. A. Garcia-Appadoo3,1, A. A. West4,5, J. J. Dalcanton5, & L. Cortese1
    Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment, and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes1. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter2,3,4. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular-momentum, baryon-fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history. Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free of optical selection effects5, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a ….
    … This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our dataset. Such a degree of organization appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter paradigm in cosmology6.
    …Consider spin alone, which is thought to be the result of early tidal torquing. Simulations produce spins, independent of mass, with a log-normal distribution. Higher-spin discs naturally cannot contract as far; thus, to a much greater extent than for low-spin discs, their dynamics is controlled by their dark halos, so it is unexpected to see the nearly constant dynamical-mass/luminosity ratio that we and others14 actually observe.
    Heirarchical galaxy formation simply does not fit the constraints set by the correlation structure in the Equatorial Survey..

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0702585v1.pdf

    THE MILKY WAY: AN EXCEPTIONALLY QUIET GALAXY; IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES
    Disk galaxies constitute the majority of the galaxy population observed in the local universe. They represent 70% of intermediate mass galaxies (stellar masses ranging from 3× 10^10 to 3 × 10^11 M⊙), which themselves include at least two-third of the present-day stellar mass (e.g., Hammer et al. 2005).
    However, there are several outstanding difficulties with this standard scenario. One such difficulty is the so-called angular momentum problem. That is, simulated galaxies cannot reproduce the large angular momentum observed in nearby spiral galaxies (e.g., Steinmetz & Navarro 1999). Another is the assumed absence of collisions during and after the gas condensation process. Indeed, the hierarchical nature of CDM cosmology predicts that galaxies have assembled a significant fraction of their masses through collisions with other galaxies.
    It is likely that such collisions would easily destroy galactic disks (e.g., Toth & Ostriker 1992). Although the accretion of satellites may preserve the disk, it is also true that major collisions would certainly affect it dramatically.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3015

    BULGELESS GIANT GALAXIES CHALLENGE OUR PICTURE OF GALAXY FORMATION
    BY HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING
    We inventory the galaxies in a sphere of radius 8 Mpc centered on our Galaxy to see whether giant, pure-disk galaxies are common or rare. We find that at least 11 of 19 galaxies with Vcirc > 150 km s-1, including M101, NGC 6946, IC 342, and our Galaxy, show no evidence for a classical bulge.
    We conclude that pure-disk galaxies are far from rare. It is hard to understand how bulgeless galaxies could form as the quiescent tail of a distribution of merger histories.
    Recognition of pseudo bulges makes the biggest problem with cold dark matter galaxy formation more acute: How can hierarchical clustering make so many giant, pure-disk galaxies with no evidence for merger-built bulges?

  25. As no one has bothered to list (more likely everyone understands what happened to Halton Arp who just insisted that observational anomalies and paradoxes should not be ignored and should be not be pasted over with Zombie mechanisms) the more than hundred anomalies and paradoxes related to the big bang theory in a form that is accessible to the general public, the general public is completely unaware that the Big bang theory is in crisis and has been in crisis for at least 20 years.
    The Big Bang theory is a Zombie theory, an urban legend. The Big Bang theory is a theory that is stopping the progress/blocking the discovery of the most important breakthrough in fundamental physics, in the history of physics. Comparable to the discovery of nuclear power. Big thing, leads to interstellar travel.
    As I noted the key to solving this entire mess, is to solve what happens when very large bodies collapse. Hint look the quasar observations, throw away the standard quasar model that has been kicking around for at least 20 years. Remember quasars do not exhibit time dilation or Faraday magnetic rotation with redshift. Explain why that is so. What are the implications of that fact?
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3377v1

    MISSING DARK MATTER IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE
    A sample of 11 thousand galaxies with radial velocities VLG < 3500 km/s is used to study the features of the local distribution of luminous (stellar) and dark matter within a sphere of radius of around 50 Mpc around us. The average density of matter in this volume, loc = 0.08 ± 0.02, turns out to be much lower than the global cosmic density globe = 0.28 ± 0.03.
    We discuss three possible explanations of this paradox (William: Observational paradoxes are sign that there are fundamental errors in the base theory.) :
    1) galaxy groups and clusters are surrounded by extended dark halos, the major part of the mass of which is located outside their virial radii;
    2) the considered local volume of the Universe is not representative, being situated inside a giant void; and
    3) the bulk of matter in the Universe is not related to clusters and groups, but is rather distributed between them in the form of massive dark clumps. Some arguments in favor of the latter assumption are presented.
    " Besides the two well-known inconsistencies of modern cosmological models with the observational data: the problem of missing satellites of normal galaxies and the problem of missing baryons, there arises another one the issue of missing dark matter"

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276v5

    On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
    Here we have a more robust conclusion: neither the NFW profile nor isothermal sphere profiles are an accurate description of clusters, or important elements of physics responsible for shaping zero curvature space are missing from the standard cosmological model. When all the effects are accrued, it is difficult to understand how WMAP could reveal no evidence whatsoever of lensing by groups and clusters.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924v1

    Kinematical and chemical vertical structure of the Galactic thick disk1,2 II. A lack of dark matter in the solar neighborhood
    A detailed analysis reveals that a small amount of DM is allowed in the volume under study by the change of some input parameter or hypothesis, but not enough to match the expectations of the models, except under an exotic combination of non-standard assumptions. Identical results are obtained when repeating the calculation with kinematical measurements available in the literature. We demonstrate that a DM halo would be detected by our method, and therefore the results have no straightforward interpretation. Only the presence of a highly prolate (flattening q >2) DM halo can be reconciled with the observations, but this is highly unlikely in CDM models. The results challenge the current understanding of the spatial distribution and nature of the Galactic DM. In particular, our results may indicate that any direct DM detection experiment is doomed to fail, if the local density of the target particles is negligible.

    • As no one has bothered to list
      So you don’t have such a list, and therefore no documentation for your claim of ‘more than a 100’ anomalies. Well, I thought so, but was given you the benefit of the doubt.

      • There are more than 100 anomalies and paradoxes. Each issue requires a Coles Note explanation for a general audience to explain why it is a paradox.
        An example is the fact that the CMB varies as 1 part in 100,000 while it must vary no less than 1 part in 7000 to 1 part in 5000 to explain the existence of galaxies (clump-ness of matter distribution). ‘Inflation’ is a magical expansion of Einstein space with no explanation as to energy source to make the problem go away. Inflation requires the creation of an ‘inflaton’ field which there is absolutely no proof exists. The inflaton field appears when required to cause the entire universe to expand 100,000 times faster than the speed of light and then suddenly stops expanding space to avoid killing the BB with excess velocity.
        Some of the above issues such as the BB theory cannot explain the fact that 70% of the galaxies are z=0 to z=1 are spiral rather than elliptical and cannot explain the existence of bulgeless galaxies are very, very, basic.
        Disney et al’s finding concerning spiral galaxies is astonishing:

        Galaxies appear simpler than expected
        M. J. Disney1, J. D. Romano1,2, D. A. Garcia-Appadoo3,1, A. A. West4,5, J. J. Dalcanton5, & L. Cortese1
        Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment, and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes1. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter2,3,4. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular-momentum, baryon-fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history. Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free of optical selection effects5, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a ….
        … This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our dataset. Such a degree of organization appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter paradigm in cosmology6.
        …Consider spin alone, which is thought to be the result of early tidal torquing. Simulations produce spins, independent of mass, with a log-normal distribution. Higher-spin discs naturally cannot contract as far; thus, to a much greater extent than for low-spin discs, their dynamics is controlled by their dark halos, so it is unexpected to see the nearly constant dynamical-mass/luminosity ratio that we and others14 actually observe.
        Heirarchical galaxy formation simply does not fit the constraints set by the correlation structure in the Equatorial Survey.

        There is however no point in listing the entire 100 and some anomalies and paradoxes are difficult to explain the a general audience.
        I have listed sufficient linked (for example the four quasar anomalies, no time dilation with redshift, no Faraday rotation with redshift, and a reduction in super massive black hole mass with redshift, super large quasar structures which exceed the BB maximum structure constraints), the spiral galaxy set of anomalies, the CMB large structure alignment anomalies, the dark matter structural anomalies, the lack of dark matter in the local universe, the missing baryon problem, the anti matter problem, the CMB lack of variation problem (hello inflation), and so on to make my point.
        The objective is to solve a scientific problem, not to beat a dead theory with paradoxes and anomalies. There are a comical number of Zombie mechanisms that have been created to keep the BB theory on life support, which is ridiculous, pathetic.
        The BB theory was in crisis, 20 years ago. In last 10 years more and more paradoxes and anomalies have started to be discussed in peer reviewed papers. As the funding fathers of key theories pass away, there is less and less resistance to calling a dead theory, a dead theory.
        What I finding interesting is that you knew nothing about the 100 anomalies and paradoxes and yet parroted the ridiculous precision cosmology silly comment.
        Scientific progress is absolutely blocked if there are fundamental errors in base theories. If the BB theory is a Zombie theory, inflation is a silly mathematical model that has absolutely no connection with science. Akin to alchemists trying to convert lead to gold. It may appear sciency but does not advance science.

        • As I said before: none of what you call paradoxes have any bearing on the BB. If you feel that paradox A is not explained by BB, then explain how it is neatly explained by Crank Theory X, e.g. “BB theory cannot explain the fact that 70% of the galaxies are z=0 to z=1 are spiral rather than elliptical and cannot explain the existence of bulgeless galaxies are very, very, basic”, so how does Crank Theory X explain that?
          Scientific progress is absolutely blocked if there are fundamental errors in base theories
          The scientific progress in Cosmology the past 20 years has been stupendous and not blocked in any way.
          We have pinned down the parameters of the Universe with exquisite precision: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmological-Principle.pdf “We describe and discuss the various observational probes that led to this conclusion and conclude that the ΛCDM model, although leaving a number of open questions concerning the deep nature of the constituents of the Universe, provides the best theoretical framework to explain the observations”.
          The point is that the precise data put very strict limits on the variation of the parameters describing the BB.
          Of course, you have to be aware of this [and you don’t seem to be] in order to comprehend the fantastic progress we have seen the past 20 years.
          All of these observations strongly support the hot Big-Bang paradigm which not only predicts the important events in the evolution of the universe, but allows one to calculate observable quantities and obtain excellent agreement between calculations and observations, something Crank Theory X, Y, Z, … cannot do.

      • about the 100 anomalies and paradoxes
        Before it was ‘more than 100’, but OK, some economy with the truth might be excused for the sake of the cause, but you have not produced a list of the fabulous 100, so it seems that you don’t have it.

      • What three possible explanations did you have for this set of seven paradoxes?
        Oh, I forgot defending a Zombie theory is a complete waste of time.
        Inflation is akin to alchemy. Without inflation the Big Bang theory cannot explain the existence of galaxies or the astonishing uniformity of the CMB or the fact that space is absolutely flat (p.s. Flat space is just would you would expect in an eternal universe).
        Inflation is a magic wand. Inflation expands Einstein space (entire universe) 100,000 times faster than the speed of light and then abruptly stops the expansion of space to avoid excess velocity which would invalidate the Big Bang theory. There is no explanation as to where the energy source comes from to expand the entire universe, at 100,000 times the speed of light. The Inflation theory appeals to a new field appropriately called the Inflaton field which there is absolutely no evidence exists. Cranky theory or not?
        The universe is eternal rather than the theory that the universe was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Where was the universe 100 billion years ago? Sitting in box on shelf waiting for the command?
        The mechanisms in an eternal universe are different than the mechanisms in a BB universe.
        2/3 of the mass in the local universe is in spiral galaxies. The spiral galaxies have a tightly controlled angular momentum that is not possible via a merger history. Likewise mergers destroy spiral galaxies. Something is stopping mergers from occurring, to enable their to be 2/3 of the mass in the local universe in spiral galaxies.
        50% of the high redshift galaxies are ultra luminous galaxies. The high redshift universe is too luminous which is not possible due to Big bang theory limitations (See problem at first light.)
        Quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift, do not exhibit Faraday magnetic rotation with redshift, and are found in super large clusters which exceed the BB limit for structure size.

        Galaxies appear simpler than expected
        M. J. Disney1, J. D. Romano1,2, D. A. Garcia-Appadoo3,1, A. A. West4,5, J. J. Dalcanton5, & L. Cortese1
        Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment, and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes1. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter2,3,4. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular-momentum, baryon-fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history. Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free of optical selection effects5, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a ….
        … This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our dataset. Such a degree of organization appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter paradigm in cosmology6.
        …Consider spin alone, which is thought to be the result of early tidal torquing. Simulations produce spins, independent of mass, with a log-normal distribution. Higher-spin discs naturally cannot contract as far; thus, to a much greater extent than for low-spin discs, their dynamics is controlled by their dark halos, so it is unexpected to see the nearly constant dynamical-mass/luminosity ratio that we and others14 actually observe.
        Heirarchical galaxy formation simply does not fit the constraints set by the correlation structure in the Equatorial Survey

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0702585v1.pdf

        THE MILKY WAY: AN EXCEPTIONALLY QUIET GALAXY; IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES
        Disk galaxies constitute the majority of the galaxy population observed in the local universe. They represent 70% of intermediate mass galaxies (stellar masses ranging from 3× 10^10 to 3 × 10^11 M⊙), which themselves include at least two-third of the present-day stellar mass (e.g., Hammer et al. 2005).
        However, there are several outstanding difficulties with this standard scenario. One such difficulty is the so-called angular momentum problem. That is, simulated galaxies cannot reproduce the large angular momentum observed in nearby spiral galaxies (e.g., Steinmetz & Navarro 1999). Another is the assumed absence of collisions during and after the gas condensation process. Indeed, the hierarchical nature of CDM cosmology predicts that galaxies have assembled a significant fraction of their masses through collisions with other galaxies.
        It is likely that such collisions would easily destroy galactic disks (e.g., Toth & Ostriker 1992). Although the accretion of satellites may preserve the disk, it is also true that major collisions would certainly affect it dramatically.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276v5

        On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
        Here we have a more robust conclusion: neither the NFW profile nor isothermal sphere profiles are an accurate description of clusters, or important elements of physics responsible for shaping zero curvature space are missing from the standard cosmological model. When all the effects are accrued, it is difficult to understand how WMAP could reveal no evidence whatsoever of lensing by groups and clusters.

        external galaxies.
        http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353v3

        Is the low-ℓ microwave background cosmic?
        The large-angle (low-ℓ) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology. We show that the quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are far more aligned than previously thought (99.9% C.L.). Three of these planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at 99.1% C.L., and the normals to these planes are aligned at 99.6% C.L. with the direction of the cosmological dipole and with the equinoxes. The remaining octopole plane is orthogonal to the supergalactic plane at 99.6% C.L.

        basic analysis indicates it should cool.
        http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502458v1

        Cooling and Clusters: When Is Heating Needed?
        There are (at least) two unsolved problems concerning the current state of the thermal gas in clusters of galaxies. The first is identifying the source of the heating which offsets cooling in the centers of clusters with short cooling times (the “cooling flow” problem). The second is understanding the mechanism which boosts the entropy in cluster and group gas. Since both of these problems involve an unknown source of heating it is tempting to identify them with the same process, particular since AGN heating is observed to be operating at some level in a sample of well-observed “cooling flow” clusters. Here we show, using numerical simulations of cluster formation, that much of the gas ending up in clusters cools at high redshift and so the heating is also needed at high-redshift, well before the cluster forms. This indicates that the same process operating to solve the cooling flow problem may not also resolve the cluster entropy problem

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2546v2.pdf

        The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology
        The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist: primordial dark-matter (DM) dominated (type A) dwarf galaxies, and tidal-dwarf and ram-pressure-dwarf (type B) galaxies void of DM. Type A dwarfs surround the host approximately spherically, while type B dwarfs are typically correlated in phase-space. Type B dwarfs must exist in any cosmological theory in which galaxies interact. Only one type of dwarf galaxy is observed to exist on the baryonic Tully-Fisher plot and in the radius- mass plane. The Milky Way satellite system forms a vast phase-space-correlated structure that includes globular clusters and stellar and gaseous streams. Other galaxies also have phase-space correlated satellite systems. Therefore, The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist. It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations. Other theoretical solutions to cosmological observations exist. In particular, alone the empirical mass-discrepancy–acceleration correlation constitutes convincing evidence that galactic-scale dynamics must be Milgromian. Major problems with inflationary big bang cosmologies remain unresolved.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604448v1

        Astronomy: Trouble at first light
        But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky. Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering for ever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations8,9,10..

        • What three possible explanations did you have for this set of seven paradoxes?
          Read your own link…
          Apparently you did not study
          http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmological-Principle.pdf “We describe and discuss the various observational probes that led to this conclusion and conclude that the ΛCDM model, although leaving a number of open questions concerning the deep nature of the constituents of the Universe, provides the best theoretical framework to explain the observations”.
          Do that, then come back.
          None of your ‘paradoxes’ have any bearing on the BB, but are simply expressions of us learning more about the details of the subsequent evolution.

      • “None of your ‘paradoxes’ have any bearing on the BB, but are simply expressions of us learning more about the details of the subsequent evolution.”
        But the subseqent evolution ain’t goin the way the “theoretical framework” says it’s supposed to and “theoretical frameworks” ain’t facts in my lexicon. However, I seriously thank you both for the rigorous discussion, both entertaining and enlightening.

        • All theoretical Frameworks must be based on observations. With better observations we get better theories. We learn more about the variation of the initial conditions. And theories are never facts. A theory summarizes observations and those are the facts.

      • Leif,
        Thanks again. I always enjoy and value your input and the fact that you give us that input. The proper response is “you’re welcome”.

    • William, don’t waste time arguing with someone who doesn’t think the Sun has a strong influence on our climate. Who would trust such a person?

Comments are closed.