I’m working on research and reminded of a base tenant of Measurement Quantization (MQ), but would like more feedback about how astronomers interpret observation. The perceived view differs from that of MQ (Eqs. 57-80).

Article Measurement Quantization Describes History of Universe—Quant...

I will explain. When we look to the universe we may classically describe certain classes of observation. In an expanding universe they are

• what you see (visible Ωb/Ωvis),
• all that can be seen (observable Ωc+Ωb/Ωobs),
• the presently unobserved (dark matter Ωc/Ωuobs) and
• that which you will never see due to the expansion of space (dark energy ΩΛ/Ωdkm).

Now, there is considerable argument as to the rate of expansion and coincidence with critical density. Let’s avoid that and go with the premise that we are at critical. This is an area that MQ has covered well. Then, we take the temporal presentation and work out the distributions.

Amazing! The same. I am very familiar with the ΛCDM calculations. That said, maybe others have observed the correspondence to the temporal interpretation and wrote it off as coincidence because of the insufficient connection to critical density. Is that the only missing link? Or, maybe everyone is focused on the other properties, the oddness of star velocities in a galaxy, the energy properties of dark energy and correlation to the cosmological constant.

With respect to MQ, the temporal cannot be ignored. It is a property of observation. So, it seems confusing why the temporal approach is never mentioned nor accommodated. Outsider interpretations as to how the temporal properties of observation are resolved are valuable. Papers that directly address the coincidence of temporal classes in comparison to the human groupings to which we allocate all variety of properties (i.e. dark matter) are highly valued. Research not in a major journal is not particularly useful.