Alternative Models of Cosmology

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

hi

I am interested in astronomy ,and I knew from some sources that there are about 7000 blueshifted galaxies,but another source said that the number is only 100.

so if possible if any one is an expert in this field please tell me which number is correct.

best regards

INTRODUCING NEXUS: A QUANTUM THEORY OF SPACE-TIME, GRAVITY AND THE QUANTUM VACUUM

Hie

It is well known that it is notoriously difficult to quantize gravity. I have proposed an alternative approach to Quantum Gravity which has provided answers to fundamental questions such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy without resorting to exotic particles and hitherto unknown scalar fields. You can download my paper from this website www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa and provide a constructive critique

Best regards

Stuart Marongwe

Mutasim, (& Stuart)

There are ~7000 blueshifted galaxies, most in two groups nearby and around a plane tilted wrt the Milky Way. Ave velocity is 200km/s, highest 8000km/s. Many are quite small (satellites). There are many more with a blushifted half (rotating towards us).

The full list can be found on the JPL's NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). A good analysis from 2009 is here; Blogspot; Fitted Planes.

The peculiar pattern is consistent with the predictions of a cyclic cosmological model which also predicts the CMB peculiar anisotropies, just confirmed by Planck, described in a model of 'discrete fields' (DFM) and in my essay here three years ago (2020 vision). Similar cyclic cosmologies have been suggested by Dicke, Peebles, Einstein, Penrose and Turok among others, many which the findings support, resolving the 'pre Big Bang' problem.

Stuart,

I'll try to find some time for a quick look and comment. Do check out and cemment on my well supported essay this year revealing an apparently powerful QM aspect of the DFM. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=community 'The IQbit'.

Best wishes

Peter

I am checking it now. Its good to share different views of reality.

Stuart

Isn't a stationary light-conducting matrix at variance with Michelson 1881 and Michelson and Morley 1887?

Eckard

MOND ACCELERATION DERIVED FROM NEXUS

Here is something that is bound to raise your eyebrows. If you read the published version of my paper you will find that I derive Hubbles law from Nexus in form v=H/k which is the induced constant rotational velocity by a graviton (Dark Matter).H is the Hubble constant and k is graviton wave vector in the nth quantum state. it can also be expressed as v=H/nK where K is the ground state wavevector K=H/c and c=speed of light.

Therefore the acceleration induced by a graviton in the nth state on a test particle is v^2xk or H^2/nK. Thus the highest induced acceleration is by the ground state graviton where n=1. This is H^2/K = Hc ~ MOND acceleration.

Stuart,

You'll see I find manipulating symbols only approximates nature so use a very different dynamic geometrical approach to model how reality evolves. I can't then comment on your formulations, but it's more interesting to see where we've ended up from the very different routes taken. I liked your paper and found some broad areas of agreement, though also differences to falsify.

For me, gravity emerged unheralded from a dynamic logic resolving the differences of SR and QM. SR is implemented by scattering at c from simple condensed fermion conjugate pairs (high coupling constant but low EM profile; n=1) and protons, with various fractions of bound molecular gas. Collectively 'plasma', which has interesting qualities including a '2-fluid' state.

The condensation of the matter, directly related to orbital or rotational velocity as you say, creates the quantized G potential. So 'gravitons' are in that case ions, which are quite handy, also being Dark Matter and implementing 'curved space time' due to refraction, including the kinetic effects found due to relative plasma motion (as my prev. essay and recently confirmed by the VLB Array).

Plasma density distribution of course relates to massive bodies, and also relative motion through the QV (shocks). I've tended to favour the Yukawa potential as it's sharper cut of matches the model and observation, but I'd take your advice on the implications of your proposal. There was too high a 'symbol density' for me to be confident about conceptual harmonics.

To get a better glimpse of the 'discrete field' model I've derived you'd need to see my last 3 essays, starting with '2020 Vision' (estimating no change to doctrine before 2020). It's far from complete, but you'd better comment on it because if you think it's entire claptrap there's little point exploring further! Look at the conversations on the 'other' "Alternative Models" blog, or a more comprehensive joint paper published on the quantum optics foundations is open access here; arXiv; Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

Best wishes

Peter

Can two electrons exchange a photon at unlimited distances?

This paper examines what the universe would look like if there was a distance limit to the quantum electrodynamic absorption and emission of photons.

It uses Hubble's limit as the limit and the results are a very plausible alternate history of the universe.

http://monadpad.com/bigbang.pdf

I would like to propose an alternative model of the origin and evolution of the universe. It starts from the assumption that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. In the Big Bang model we implicitly assume the existence of a time boundary. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of spacetime so that time and space do not have a separate independent existence. This implies the existence of a space boundary as well as a time boundary.

All that exists in the universe lies with this spacetime boundary so it makes no sense to talk about "before the beginning" or "outside of the space boundary". It is the expansion of space at the boundary which is the cause of the general expansion of space which is observed. Going back in time towards time zero in this model means that we are contracting towards a zero volume, zero energy universe which is more satisfactory than the hot big bang singularity which proposes higher and higher energy densities as you approach time zero.

In this expanding universe the total energy must remain at zero so that the change in spacetime curvature associated with the expansion of space must lead to matter formation. Another way of looking at this is to consider the Schwarzschild relationship between the amount of mass in a region and its radius: r = 2Gm/c2. As the universe expands there is a requirement for the formation of matter arising from the gravitational potential energy of space.

This matter formation appears from observations to have taken place when the universe was 378,000 years old since the cosmic microwave background radiation has a redshift of z = 1,100. In this model the CMBR is directly associated with matter formation. The process of galaxy formation is proposed as the initial formation of galactic black holes due to the release of tension in the fabric of spacetime. Then star formation follows as a result of the galactic black-hole formation. The material in the disk or sphere of the galaxy causes the motion of stars in the galaxies to be as observed. No dark matter. No dark energy.

This idea is explained a little more fully in:

universe

Richard

The website link in the previous post did not work:

This one does:

Universe