One of my astute readers commented that they expected a response from me regarding Anton’s recent video. I really appreciated that comment because it demonstrates that there is at least one person who understands how I think about the universe and can predict that I would be excited about Anton’s video. And right they are! The findings of the referenced papers describe how a main galaxy and it’s central supermassive black hole are intimately tied to the star formation and quenching behaviour of companion galaxies and even correlated with the angle from the SMBH jet axis! It’s like Halton Arp on steroids, but without the rushed and erroneous steady state theories of Narlikar and Burbridge. They were all on to something, but were bowled over by the politics propelling the big bang theory. They really didn’t have a chance to give their theories time to mature and develop before they were dismissed and taboo. Arp was just an observer and he got swept along in the dismissal and could no longer get good observational time allotments, which was an abbrogation of the scientific method, given his bona fides.
Onward to Anton’s video! First, and most hilariously, Anton’s whole video buries the lede that the central galaxy and the surrounding companion galaxies are a tightly coupled system that responds to activity of the central SMBH. That is huge news isn’t it? Explain to me what we need a Big Bang for now, if you will? Each galaxy is essentially “regurgitating/recycling/regenerating” newer galaxies which eventually merge with the central galaxy ad nauseum. Meanwhile there are higher level mergers occurring as well.
Second, per usual Anton drills down on the facts in a very precise way. These are very important findings circa 2021. They aren’t the first nor the last to detect such correlations, yet this appears to be a large step forward in establishing important baselines for any science to follow. Specifically, this basis level can enable a testable differential between
- an expanding universe LCDM cosmology, or
- a steady state cosmology with regenerative standard matter, including spacetime aether.
I always recommend watching Anton’s videos multiple times until the insight he is attempting to convey sinks in. Usually it’s multi-layered. Come back and watch again! The rest of the video speaks for itself. I will probably watch it dozens of times. There is not much more I can add. You know my view – we are in a steady state universe with no known beginning nor end.
Dr. Stacy McGaugh made a short post “Divergence” on his Triton Station blog, which is a good read, and I responded with this rather pleasant rant although I don’t know if it made it through the filters :
Here’s an idea to consider. The most face-saving idea for everyone is to press the rewind button. How far back you want to rewind is a matter of your own views, but at least go back before the terms dark matter and MOND were coined! Simply agree that the choice of frameworks is likely impeding the science. To convince dark matter folks, point out that the really deep physicists like Wilczek are no longer thinking about spacetime as a geometry. They are starting to open the door in their thinking to an aether. I listen to so many of these interviews that I don’t have a reference, but just listen to recent Wilczek social media including his book. Now, if their roiling quantum pair producing vacuum is really an aether, then we have a whole ‘nuther (Noether!) ball game. That means all the astrophysicists photon’s are traversing this newly imagined spacetime.
Now, if its me, I press the rewind button back much farther, as I trace eleven major failures in the decision history. See Missed Opportunities to Discover Nature. I learned of one today, “bootstrap” and it is a whopper: ‘Geoffrey Chew and others went so far as to question the distinction between composite and elementary particles, advocating a “nuclear democracy” in which the idea that some particles were more elementary than others was discarded.’ – Wikipedia. Imagine that, they decided NOT to look for fundamental particles. Stacy, I love your diagram, but it needs to be revised. What kind of a diagram do you draw for ELEVEN wrong turns? The scientific method does not address this kind of crisis.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts