"... Big Bang model does not fit into the mapped universe. ... It is time now for the re-examination of Big Bang cosmology." According to Famaey and McGaugh,

"Either (i) there is a vast amount of unseen mass in some novel form--dark matter-- or (ii) the data indicate a breakdown of our understanding of dynamics on the relevant scales, or (iii) both."

[link:link.springer.com/article/10.2942/irr-2012-10]Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions, Living Reviews in Relativity, volume 15, 7 September 2012[/link]

Please consider 4 questions:

(1) Does MOND have many empirical successes?

(2) How likely is it that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 ?

(3) How likely is it that dark-matter=compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 ?

(4) How likely is it that dark matter particles exist?

David your questions have nothing to do with my essay. I just pointed out BB cosmology has troubles. It is too small to fit into the existent universe.

Besides that NASA has measured the universe is infinite.

I discovered the universe does not run in time, time is just numerical order of events in the universal space which is time-invariant. Nothing ever happens in time. These are facts we have to incorporate in cosmology.Attachment #1: 3_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdfAttachment #2: Minkowski_Space-time_and_Einsteins_Now.pdf

    Your 'computer program' is assuming the Big Bang started off at a point. This assumption is probably wrong. What if the "BB" occurred when the Universe was already flat and a substantial size as a result of a 'phase change' in the primordial energy? Or maybe we should assume the "BB" started after inflation, not before. Both these scenarios do not require an infinite steady-state universe.

      Do no see the universe as a system that exists in some physical time. Time is just the numerical sequential order of events running in universal space. There is no physical time in the universe. This is what Julian Barbour calls "The Third Revolution of Physics". Universal space and cosmological principle are time-invariant. Black holes are rejuvenating systems of the universe which is eternal and non-created.

      Inflation is not falsifiable. Read articles on the inflation of Dr. Alan Guth on arxiv. He says that "gravitational energy" is negative and the energy of matter is positive and the sum of both in the universe is always zero. This model is not falsifiable and is against common logic. Read my article attached: Black holes are rejuvenating systems of the universe".

      BB cosmology has serious problems that have to be solved in order to remain the leading cosmology model. We have to push physics forward together. FQXI is the right platform for this.Attachment #1: 2_Black_Holes_are_Rejuvenating_Systems_of_the_Universe_.pdf

      Dear Amrit

      I do not agree with your next view:

      "It is time now for the re-examination of Big Bang cosmology. If the troubles willnot be solvable, we have to be open to accepting a Stationary universe without begging and without an end is a good model."

      For the one who respected real philosophers of nature, the stationary model was always the right model. It is also the result of my calculations, some of which you can see in the essay.

      Regards Branko

      Dear Branko,

      this is great, we are already two having the same view. I also think BB cosmology is not right. But you know it will take time to fix this. I could not publish my articles on BB trouble in important journals. We have to be very exact and taking into account the falsifiability of our work.

      BB cosmology is not falsifiable.

      I'm deeply thankful FQXI for giving us the possibility to present our ideas. My plan is we end BB cosmology in 2020.

      Yours Amrit

      Dear Amrit

      You didn't answer my objection.

      I agree with your statement on time, which you can see from my own essay discussing presentism. I also agree that inflation theory is not falsifiable.

      However that doesn't mean I believe in a steady state universe, especially when the observational evidence indicates an expanding and accelerating universe.

      Dear Amrit,

      Thank you for a short but very clear essay that explains your position towards the Big Bang.

      I know that you are able to write books about the subject, and also I agree with you.

      You read my latest article in "Conscious Exploration & Research", in this essay I am still more clearly trying to explain "intellectual try-outs" like the BB.

      Good luck in the contest.

      Thank you for taking the time and making comment on it.

      best rgards

      Wilhelmus de Wilde

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411

      5 days later

      Dear Amrit ji,

      You caught a wonderful point in Bigbang ...."To reach the size of today's observed and mapped universe, according to the Big Bang model, the universe should expand since its beginning with the speed of 1,02тИЩ109??тИ'1 . The velocity of light is 3тИЩ108??тИ'1?. To reach today radius universe should expand with the velocity v which should be 3,34 times bigger than light speed."

      There are 100 more well publicized problems of this theory, like Dark matter, Dark energy, blue shifted Galaxies, Blackholes....... etc..... This 101th.

      Then how Bigbang is surviving?

      Just only because of UNLiMITED FUNDs availability. Scientists, Authors and researchers were not given freedom. I dont know why?....

      I am also a against Bigbang person,

      I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

      "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

      =snp.gupta

      Dear Gupta,

      BB cosmology is not "scientific theory", this is a silly idea. It is not falsifiable, it is not bijective, this is a fairy tale.

      I work that in 2020 BB cosmology will become a history of physics.

      Nothing in this model works, incredible how still they teach it at universities.

      If we will get the support of FQXI than the BB cosmology abolishing process could start. But I hardly believe in their support. At the end of this essay story, they will ignore us and give awards to other researchers. They do not dare to contradict BB cosmology. Today in science you have to follow the mainstream, otherwise, you are out of the game. The game of money and success.Attachment #1: 5_-_A_THREE-DIMENSIONAL_NON-LOCAL_QUANTUM_VACUUM_AS_THE_ORIGIN_OF_PHOTONS.pdf

      a month later
      14 days later
      5 days later

      Dear Amrit,

      I have read your essay and comments with great interest. Excellent intellectual attack on the philosophically naive hypothesis of the "big bang".

      You write

      "What we can measure for sure exists. In order to build the most accurate computable picture of the universe I propose in this essay a bijectivity principle: in the modelling of the universe we will use only what is measurable. We will use only obtained data. "

      I would also add: an understanding of the model of the Universe (for all people on Earth) and its heuristic. First of all, understanding of its ontological structure and, as a consequence, the nature of fundamental constants, the structure of space, the nature of time, information, consciousness.

      Did you sign this An Open Letter ?

      Where can I read the ontological justification (basification) for your model of the Universe?

      With kind regards,

      Vladimir