Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Display:
all posts
member posts highlighted
member posts only

FQXi FORUM
June 19, 2013

CATEGORY: Cosmology [back]
TOPIC: Alternative Models of Cosmology [refresh]

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
In cosmology, it is believed that regions of space on opposite' sides of the universe are too far apart to have ever been causally connected. That is, they are outside each other's particle horizon'. Consequently, it is difficult to explain the apparent similarities in their characteristics as evidenced by COBE results.

Inflation theory has been offered as a way to overcome this Horizon Problem. However, it is my intention here to show that it is not necessary to postulate Inflation in order to insure that all regions of spacetime are now, and have always been, causally connected.

In addition, this model offers an alternative explanation for the origin of the CMBR and eliminates the need to postulate an accelerating universe or Dark Energy.

Dave Rutherford

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
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.

report post as inappropriate

Douglas William Lipp wrote on Jul. 2, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT
Hi David Rutherford,

I like your theory, but I'm no good at math.

Please consider my CIG Theory also.

CIG theory offers in a "single view of nature", and "simultaneously", the following:

Varying Cosmological Constant

Possible explanation of Virtual Particles

Combination of the Spacetime Continuum with the Mass-energy equation

Quantification of mass to a spatial quantity

Solution to Dark Matter

Solution to Dark Energy

Solution to Horizon Problem

Solution to Red Shift Anomalies

Solution to Double Slit (Young's) Wave-Particle Duality Quantum Confusion

Physical explanation as to what E=mc² actually represents

New Interpretation of Einstein's Field Equations

True reason for Hubble expansion

Fourth Law of Motion Equating Gravity to Other Forces

Possible meaning of Plancks Constant

Lipps Law of Proportionality

Offers a New Explanation of Pressure

Is Relativitivistic in nature and therefore builds upon current science

Does not rely on extra dimensions

Does not rely on speeds greater than "c" as does current inflationary theory

Combines the Fundamentals (Matter, Time, Space)

Coherently respects conservation of energy (current view of expansion of space does not)

Above all else, the theory is experimentally verifiable.

For a hard copy, please email the author.

Once again, the author apologizes for what appears to be a paper not altogether written in scientific/academic protocol.

Enjoy the "Fun" section as well.

Please open the attached to find: "The Coney Island Green Theory".

attachments: 1_MTSFINAL15Rollover12.doc

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Douglas,

I enjoyed your CIG theory and it is closer to the truth in stating that matter and energy emerge from space-time itself. As you have requested

" If any of you have a simpler and better conceptual description as to why E = mc², I would be grateful if you would send me in the right direction."

please know the absolute truth which is with in every one of us and can be represented as S=BM^2 (S=Soul, B= Body, M=Mind).

For a detailed explantion of how the singualarity with in us works, please know that Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 3, 2011 @ 22:41 GMT
Can someone tell me if this is the right place to post link to a theory which explores some possible consequences of space being quantum-geometrical? Seems this is the only place where someone outside the academia can hope to be taken seriously (assuming of course that the his proposed models and mathematics are not only internally consistent, but consistent with observations).

Thanks.

DLB

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Jul. 7, 2011 @ 12:26 GMT
Dear Daniel,

Yes, you are more than welcome to post your ideas in this forum thread, for discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Boris Balkh replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
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

e_dualism_pdf.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Helder Velez wrote on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
Space expansion? yes. It is measured in relation to the atoms around us.

What if the atom can vary its dimensions thru time?

I'm pretty sure that no one presented evidence that the atom is invariant.

And yet, everybody is claiming that the universe expands.

Space expansion or matter shrinks ?

The search of a scaling model of the universe, a self-similar one or dilation, has been pursued by the scientific community since Dirac, Hoyle & Narlikar, and others without results.

A scaling model is born, derived from data, using standard physics and making no hypotheses, this model has only one parameter (H0) :

A Self-Similar Model of the Universe Unveils the Nature of Dark Energy

So, from now on I'will ask for proper evidence that the atom is invariant every-time that I hear someone to say: the universe is expanding.

Space expansion? NO.

Matter evanesces? YES.

report post as inappropriate

sridattadev wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Velez,

Universal I or singularity or conscience of god is the cosmological constant.

I = Zero = Infinity

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jul. 13, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
At the Planck scale we encounter also a horizon, from our macro point of view at this scle we cannot longer make measurements, for us there is no longer causality (perhaps this scale is going to be 10^48, see www.physorg.com, integral challenges physics beyond Einstein, but anyway (our) causality no longer rules here), so the same limit we meet at a large universal scale, in this way we can observe ou total observable universe as a Planck unit, where for an observer that is super macro , "his" causality no longer exists, in this way the bubble in the bubble can go on forever...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT

"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

Yes the standard model of cosmology is totally wrong. It is (implicitly) based on the following premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.

The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Ken Seto replied on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 21:33 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

jim baker wrote on Sep. 4, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
The mechanics of the force of gravity

attachments: Mechanics_of_the_universe.docx

report post as inappropriate

wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 22:09 GMT
Once 'ex nihilo nihil fit', the cosmos fabric is necessarily infinite in time, as well as in space. Creation myths are bull shit, and our minds are full of them; jewish one or not!

The cosmos presents itself as nested construction, so, the most reasonable choice is thinking it is made of infinitely nested 'class of dimensions'.

Every macro or micro particle is infinite, sheltering an infinitely complex 'universe' (every particle of an infinite system is also infinite).

So, the 'model' is: No start, no end, no limit of any order (infiite), infinitEley NESTED'.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

israel socratus wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 05:57 GMT
The Alternative Models of Cosmology can be Vacuum.

==.

Philosophy of Science : The Models of Vacuum.

1.

A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of

three - six – ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of

spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

2.

A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb

The result: from a ‘black body ‘not even light, can escape’

3.

Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’

Why?

Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.

For example: according to QET then electron interacts

with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists

invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",

a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./

The result: from a ‘vacuum ‘not even light, can escape’

#

My conclusion.

The ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum

can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant

energy). It means that the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’

are models of vacuum.

Another fact.

A black hole has a temperature within a few

millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.

/ Oxford. Dictionary./

And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:

T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.

The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)

belongs to ‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ and therefore we can use

this theory for explaining ‘ The Theory of Vacuum’.

My conclusion.

The ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and

‘ The Theory of Ideal Gas’ are models of vacuum.

===.

P.S.

If the ‘black body’ and the ‘ black hole’ and the vacuum can radiate

the quantum of light and electron – then the reason is the Vacuum’s

fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ‘ a song from

another opera’. Because the Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation /

polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.

==.

Best wishes.

===.

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey wrote on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
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.

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey replied on Feb. 4, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
The arXiv paper cited above has been accepted for publication in Class. Quant. Grav.

report post as inappropriate

Victor Grauer wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
My theory comes in the form of a (paradoxical) question: Is the Universe Expanding into a Black Hole?

(see attachment for details)

attachments: Is_the_Universe_Expanding_Into_a_Black_Hole.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Ðóáöîâ Âèêòîð Âëàèìèðîâè÷ Rubzov Viktor Vladimirovich wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
Ïðåäëàãàåìàÿ ìíîé ãèïîòåçà óñòàíàâëèâàåò ôàêò îòäåëåíèÿ Ëóíû îò Çåìëè è îïðåäåëÿåò ïîâåðõíîñòè èõ ðàçäåëåíÿ, à èìåííî: âèäèìàÿ ñòîðîíà Ëóíû è òåððèòîðèÿ Ñèáèðè (Ðîññèÿ). Ïðè÷èíà îòäåëåíèÿ - ìàãìàòè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû ìåæäó Ëóíîé è Çåìëåé.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Tomes wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Boris Balkh wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT
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

4th

e_dualism_pdf.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
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?

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
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-

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

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Satyavarapu

Quasars are not 'blue shifted galaxies' in astronomical terms, but often emit blue as well as red shifted radiation subject to orientation of the opposing jet 'outflows'. The 'parent' galaxy to the jets is at a distance from us measured in 'redshift', because, consistently, systems further away (so also further in the past) are increasingly redshifted.

The distance correlation is based on an assumption for the cosmological constant or 'rate of expansion' of the universe. I for one do not subscribe to the most mainstream view on this as the evidence is based on space being entirely 'empty nothingness' so having no effect on wavelength of em emissions over time or distance (see my essay - at 7th).

Blue shifted em waves are normally emissions not the emitting matter itself moving towards us. Some are, but far less than the emissions. Galaxy Zoo is a good source of survey data.

But back to quasars. I have a slightly different analysis of them which is more consistent with wider observation that the old mainstream view, and explaining a number of anomalies. You can find it in my last years essay (also 7th in the community list) or in more detail with a bigger picture (and nice pictures) here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 which shows how they fit precisely with a dynamic but cyclic model.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 19, 2013 @ 10:16 GMT
Peter

I did not see your post , orelse I would have replied it long ago...

I am showing below that two quasars are blue shifted...

see :

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163
#editor/target=post;postID=3764090022352257683;onPublishedMe

or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. DeMelo wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

VimanaPro wrote on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 01:41 GMT
Good 4all

$\frac{{\Omega }_{V}}{{\Omega }_{M}}=\frac{{\pi }^{2}}{4}=\frac{0.7116}{0.2884}$

report post as inappropriate

VimanaPro wrote on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 01:58 GMT
I'm sorry my forgetfulness, if not difficult, and this formula also

$\Lambda G=\frac{2}{5.33*{10}^{121}}*\frac{{c}^{5}}{\hbar}$

report post as inappropriate

Israel Omar Perez wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 07:22 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Israel Omar Perez replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 22:56 GMT
Hi Pentcho

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

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Omar Perez replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 23:26 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Ken Seto wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Welcome to http://vixra.org/

report post as inappropriate

Ken Seto wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

mutasim wrote on May. 13, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate