Alternative Models of Cosmology

Using the Union2 Compilation data (Supernova Cosmology Project, http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2_mu_vs_z.txt) I find a best fit line through log(DL/Gpc) vs Log(z) gives a sum of squares error (SSE) of 1.95 with correlation 0.9955. The best fit LambdaCDM has 71% dark energy, 29% matter and Ho = 69.2 km/s/Mpc and gives SSE = 1.79. Using the best fit model in this paper (kinematically equivalent to empty model) I find SSE = 1.98 for Ho = 65.3 km/s/Mpc. Therefore, the model presented here does not produce a better fit than the best fit line while LCDM does, so the type Ia SN data favors LCDM over this model.

We present an alternative model of cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3973) based on modified Regge calculus. The motivation for this modification to Regge calculus (and, thus, to general relativity) comes from our interpretation of quantum mechanics called Relational Blockworld ("Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox," W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein & Michael Cifone, Foundations of Physics 38, No. 4, 348 - 383 (2008), quant-ph/0510090). We find that our flat, matter-dominated cosmology model produces a fit of the Union2 Compilation data matching that of LambdaCDM. However, our model is decelerating, not accelerating, so there is no need for dark energy.

The arXiv paper cited above has been accepted for publication in Class. Quant. Grav.

My theory comes in the form of a (paradoxical) question: Is the Universe Expanding into a Black Hole?

(see attachment for details)Attachment #1: Is_the_Universe_Expanding_Into_a_Black_Hole.pdf

What I want to explain here is far away from most cosmology as presently understood. It came about through a very different set of known facts (the study of cycles), although these are not known to most people in the scientific world. However, what is put forward is quite consistent with known physics, indeed I would argue that it MUST result from known physics. It is not consistent with Big Bang Theory, because it suggests that the Universe is vastly more ancient than that. I call it The Harmonics Theory, and it can most easily be understood as arising from a single simple axiom:

"The Universe consists of a standing wave which develops harmonically related standing waves and each of these does the same."

This axiom is consistent with any field equations such as Maxwell's equations, Quantum Mechanics or Relativity. The fact that each wave produces harmonics is strongly related to non-linear wave equations. I would argue that the ultimate wave equations of the Universe must be non-linear. If they were linear then we would have no senses, because light would pass through our eyes without interaction, and the same for all other senses.

The consequences of this axiom are what makes it interesting. A single fundamental wave, let us call it frequency 1, loses energy gradually to waves of frequency 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... and then each of these does the same. This means that frequency 2 loses energy to 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 ... and 3 loses energy to 6, 9, 12, 15 ... while 4 loses energy to 8, 12, 16 ... and 5 to 10, 15 .. and 6 to 12, 18 ... and so on.

It is immediately evident that some frequencies such as 12 are produced in many ways while others such as primes are produced in 1 or few ways.

When calculations are done to high order (I have done to about 10^53) it is found that there are certain patterns that almost repeat, and certain orders of magnitude where especially strong harmonics of the original wave form. The first of these especially strong harmonics is 34560 and others tend to be near powers of that number or at about powers of 10^4.5 which is found to correspond quite well to the observed spacing (spacing is naturally inversely related to frequency) of the sequence:

observable universe, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .... cells, atoms, nucleons.

Within each of the levels of very strong structure there are secondary strong structures typically at ratio of 12, 24, 28, or 20 above and below the strongest one of that level. So the outer planets are the dominant structure but the inner planets are spaced at 1/28 of the distances from the Sun. Likewise, spiral galaxies are dominant, but satellite galaxies are spaced at 1/12 of the distance between spirals.

At all levels of structure there are observable tendency towards quanta or periodicity. At some levels of the structure, both the wave spacings and cycle periods are observable, giving strong support to the existence of standing wave structures: (matching cycles periods in years to wavelengths in light years is correct because the waves propagate with the velocity of light)

a. The megawalls of galaxies are at a spacing of 588 million light years according to present estimates of the Hubble constant. A cycle of 586 million years is found in geology according to Afanasiev, geology professor at Moscow University.

b. Cycles with periods 11.1, 9.6, 8.88, 5.92, 4.44 years are commonly reported according to Edward R Dewey who founded the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. My own analysis of nearby stars shows that they more commonly are spaced at distances in light years near these same figures.

c. The spacing of outer planets indicate waves of 80 and 160 light minutes and such periods are found in many solar phenomena. This period is also indicated by galaxy cores and other phenomena throughout the universe. See papers by Kotov.

For more details, background and graphics please see:

Harmonics Theory - The Physics and Maths

Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454the_dualism_pdf.pdf

Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454th

e_dualism_pdf.pdf

There is a large number of Blueshifted Galaxies ie., more than about 35 ~ 40 Blueshifted Galaxies known at the time of Astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1930s. The far greater numbers of Blueshifted galaxies was confirmed by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations in the year 2009. Today the known number of Blue shifted Galaxies is more than 7000 scattered all over the sky and the number is increasing day by day. In addition Quasars, UV Galaxies, X-ray, γ- Ray sources and other Blue Galaxies etc., are also Blue shifted Galaxies. Out of a 930,000 Galaxy spectra in the SDSS database, 40% are images for Galaxies; that gives to 558,000 Galaxies. There are 120,000 Quasars, 50,000 brotherhood(X-ray, γ-ray, Blue Galaxies etc.,) of quasars, 7000 blue shifted galaxies. That is more than 31.7% of available Galaxy count are Blue shifted. Just to support Bigbang theory, we are neglecting such a huge amount Blue shifted Galaxies.

How to explain the existence of such large number of blueshifted Galaxies in an expanding universe?

Quasars are Blue shifted Galaxies:

Is that true?

There are 248 papers :

Go to ADS search page try searching title and abstract with keywords "Blue shifted quasars". If you search with "and"s ie., 'Blue and Shifted and Galaxies" [use "and" option not with "or"option] you will find 248 papers in ADS search. I did not go through all of them. You can try this link...

DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL: Blue shifted quasars in ADS

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/05/blue-shifted-quasars-in-ads.html

Now I want to have a live discussion whether quasars are REDshifted or BLUEshifted?

An alternative model for all of cosmology exits in self-similar fractal scale-invariant cosmology between quantum and macroscopic cosmology, or simply fractal scale cosmology. The term for this field of research is more specific and can be considered a branch, or sub-field, of the more generic field of fractal cosmology which includes fractal patterns in matter distributions between all cosmological matter objects. This field of research is not simply fractal cosmology. My research into this field, into a specific model, directly correlates a scale relation between atomic quantum systems and macroscopic cosmological systems through a uniquely explicit framework. The framework reconciles many disparaging differences between the two scaled systems and is fairly intuitive (simple). The results have been thus far very interesting.

Click here for latest details on this model

Click here for older details on this model

In this specific sub-field of research in fractal cosmology, there are actually very few individuals doing remotely similar research. The notable few that are, besides myself, are Robert L. Oldershaw and Laurent Nottale. Our specific models are currently fundamentally different though the premise is loosely the same, that macroscopic cosmological systems are a scale invariant self-similar representation of quantum systems through some form of scale transforming framework, and that subsequently other macroscopic systems have quantum scaled relatives. I urge you to explore our individual models to get a fulsome perspective of all the research being done. Notably the quality of research material differs. I concede I have not been as polished as the others, but in response I turn the focus to my results.

My own research into my specific model has derived very interesting results which have been my only driving motivation to pursue this research and my model. Whether or not this line of research is correct or not is inconsequential as the importance lies in exploring the possibility to either validate or invalidate it. My current belief is that this field of research will be fruitful, through I maybe proven wrong, my results indicate otherwise.

Hi all

I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it and perhaps make some comments about it.

I have studied the foundations of cosmology and as far as I understand the so called concordance model of cosmology (popularly known as the big bang model) is based on a strong principle, namely: space expands as function of time. This simple assumption can account for the cosmological redshift and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation which are considered two of the most important experimental evidences favoring this model (of course the abundance of the elements and the distribution of galaxies are important too, but not fundamental as space expansion). The idea of space expansion led astronomers and physicists (Lemaitre, et al.) in the 1930s to propose the idea of the universe having a beginning in the past. The Big Bang and the stationary models both assumed space expansion as a fundamental ingredient and without it they wouldn't be able to explain Hubble's law and more specifically the cosmological redshift. Hence, the key in any of these models is the mechanism used to make light to change its wavelength as it travels long distances. I think that my point has been clear, if space is not really expanding the whole concordance model won't be able to explain cosmological phenomena and the whole edifice of modern cosmology would fall. Do you agree on this?

If so, do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift and the CMB?

Cheers

Israel

Israel,

Yes. And it's actually worse than that. The Concordance model (If an 'observational' cosmologist view will do) was just the 'closest approximation' that could be agreed. It's highly inconsistent with current findings, including CMBR anisotropies.

You refer to; "the mechanism used to make light .. change its wavelength as it travels long distances." Unbelievably No! According to current 'Baryon Acoustic nonsense theory' light 'decouples' in the early universe, so no change on the journey is allowed for in redshift theory except in the local emitter area. It quite beggars belief really as that conflicts with most other astronomy! There are in fact many effects that could add to redshift. I listed them on an APS blog page recently (can't find it right now) but the very expansion itself on the 12bn yr journey is one!

A few of the inconsistencies are officially admitted, such as here;

Ostriker & Nabb 2012 (specifically on galaxy evolution, but way behind mine here which resolves the anomalies);

Helical CMBR asymmetry and also; giving the complex and unique 'anomalous' CMB Anisotropic pattern precisely predicted by the DFM;

Copi et al 2010 Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB.

But it's 'head in the sand' as editors wont publish any other theory. You have to smile!. The DFM give pre 'big bang (not!) conditions, resolves around 9/10 of the anomalies, and logically derives slowly decelerating expansion with 'joined up' cosmology.

I've taken the 9 page strait jacket off my essay, which now more readably explains the foundations. Academia.edu Jan 2013 It's only just lodged, do please give me your thoughts (The main paper including the full list of effects not allowed for is still in draft).

So most admit current theory is quite inconsistent, but wont look at any alternatives as they're different from current theory! Bring back Spock I say.

Best wishes

Peter

Israel Perez wrote: "I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it... (...) ...do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift..."

You expect a cosmologist to answer this question and automatically become an unperson?

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho

Thanks for the links. I'am aware of the controversy with Halton Arp. Unfortunately, the second link didn't work.

Regards

Israel

Dear Peter

Thanks for your reply. Indeed, that's why cosmologists called it "concordance", so far this model represents what most cosmologists agree on. As you rightly point out there are still several anomalies that seriously challenge the model. No theory is perfect, they all have anomalies, so we should understand that finding an explanation of the universe is not an easy task. As far as I know this is the best available description of cosmological phenomena and despite certain inconsistencies cosmologists will hold the model until a more powerful one appears on the scene.

I'll take a look at your documents but it'll take some time to give you a reply since the material is considerable. I'll let you know as soon as possible.

Best Regards

Israel

I agree that the wavelength of an elementary source such as H-Alpha is a universal constant. The concept of universal wavelength replaces Einstein's constant light speed postulate of SR eliminates all the paradoxes of SR. Also it gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG.

The paper in the following link describe a theory of everything based on the above concept:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf

Ken Seto

The paper in the following link describes a new theory on the origin of our universe.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Also please visit my website for more papers on my theory:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Ken Seto

Welcome to http://vixra.org/

A New Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

A new physical model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space isoccupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the EMatrix.A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle existsin our Universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise

to all the observed particles such as the electron and the different quarks. Also, the absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particle Systems give rise to all the forces and processes of nature. Model Mechanics leads to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity(DTG) and DTG unites with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally [1, 2]. It alsoleads to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes

SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all

environments....including gravity.

In cosmology, Model Mechanics provides natural solutions to the following problematic cosmological observations of the current theories:

1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions.

2. The observed rotational curves of galaxies disagree with the predictions of current theories.

3. The observed paths of travel of the spacecrafts Pioneer 10 and 11 disagree with the predictions of current theories.

4. The observable universe appears to have a much larger horizon than it is allowed by its observed age.

5. The GRT description of gravity gives rise to the observed flatness problem of the universe.

6. Dark matter....this is the free S-Particles that are not in orbiting motions around the E-Strings.

7. Dark energy....this is a repulsive effect arises from the interacting objects following the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

The above Model Mechanical description of our current Universe leads to a new interpretation for the origin of our Universe. This new interpretation provides explanation for the following mysteries of our universe:

1. How the electrons and up quarks were produced during the Big Bang.

2. Why is there a preponderance of matter over anti-matter in our universe.

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf