Surface Brightness of Galaxies

and

the Evidence Against the

Concordance Model

Eric J. Lerner

LPPFusion, Inc.

EWASS

June 22, 2015

Size and surface brightness

Tolman Test

Euclidean non-expanding:

Surface brightness is constant

Expanding Universe Prediction:

Surface brightness per unit frequency (AB

Mag)~1/(1+z)3

EUCLIDEAN

NON-EXPANDING MODEL

Eric J. Lerner, Renato Falomo, and Riccardo Scarpa,

UV surface brightness of galaxies from

the local universe to z ~ 5

Int. J. Mod. Phys. D DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814500588

Need to determine absolute M

from apparent m, z.

Assume d= cz/H0 for all z

Static vs Expanding SNIa--Both Fit

No Difference—amazing coincidence?

Measuring SB: GALEX vs HUDF

Compared SBs of

623 nearby GALEX disk galaxies

with 344 distant HUDF disk galaxies

in 8 pairs of samples, FUV and NUV,

matched for λ, M

Bright UV galaxies -17.5<M<-19

Young galaxies

Matched telescope linear resolutions

in SEU model

SB From Measurements

We measured the radius of each

galaxy to get surface area and from

that and measured apparent

luminosity we get surface brightness

For galaxies of the same luminosity ,

same SB means same size

Mean SB is Constant

If we include unresolved galaxies,

Median SB is constant

How Constant?

Mean:

0.027 ± 0.033 mag/arcsec2

Slope on z: 0.04 ± 0.06 mag/arcsec2

Median:

-0.017 ± 0.05 mag/arcsec2

Slope on z: -0.08 ± 0.05 mag/arcsec2

For equal luminosity radii equal to within

2.3%

Observational limits do not bias results

Tolman test for SB is consistent

with a

non-expanding,

Euclidean Universe with

distance proportional to redshift

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

Trujillo et al 2007, Buitrago et al 2008

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

NEW: Size -- Expanding vs

Non-Expanding

19

Size Evolution

Can’t Explain these Results

� Three BIG coincidences—one in a million

� Size evolution must shift from H(z)-0.5 for z>3 to at least H(z)-1.6 for z<3

� Requires at least 3 more parameters

� Same for ellipticals (growth) and spirals (formation)

� Where are all the dense large ellipticals?

� No Physical mechanism—20-40 times too few mergers

Surface Brightness and Luminosity

Data Alone are Strong Evidence

Against Any

Expanding Universe Model

And for A Non-expanding universe

with D proportional to z

21

Observational Contradictions to

Hot Big Bang Model

Lithium, Helium Predictions

are Wrong

23Sbordone et al 2012, Hansen et al 2015

Helium also far too low

in local stars

24

Portinari, Casagrande, Flynn, 2010

Galactic Theory of

Element Formation

Plasma model of galactic formation

(1988) predicted correct amounts of He,

Li, D from intermediate mass stars that

produce almost no metallicity

predicted correct amount of energy

release for CBR energy density

25

Lithium and helium data are

strong evidence against any

hot big bang model and for a

galactic origin of light

elements.

27

LCDM Predicts Three Times Too Much DMI. D. Karachentsev, Astrophys. Bull. 67, 123-134

>200 Mpc LSS Takes

Far Too Long to Form for BB

Clowes et al, 2012

LSS at all scales predicted by non-expanding plasma theory,

1986

Analytical result, not simulation

Large scale structure

observations are strong

evidence against dark

matter and for formation by

magnetic-gravitational

processes

CBR Alignments and Asymmetries

Contradict Inflation Predictions

Evidence Indicates Scattering/Absorption of

Radio-Frequency radiation in local universe

Atrophys & SS, 1993

Evidence against

Inflationary LCDM

Surface Brightness

Lithium, Helium

Large Scale Structure

Large Angle Alignments

Free Parameters Exceed Measurements

Two Approaches—

Time to Switch!

� Expanding—Unlimited Free

Parameters, New Hypothetical

Entities, No Predictive Power

� Non-Expanding– Minimal number of

free parameters, High Predictive

Power