Discrete Scale Relativity's interpretation of the observed properties of the observable universe can be found at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw if you click on "Galactic Scale Self-Similarity".

Bottom line answer to original question: Same as it ever was.

Hi Amrit,

just because the standard big bang and standard inflation models do not add up to the natural observations (science) does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as The Pearlman SPIRAL does start with a singularity, and than Cosmic Inflation subsequent to a small initial cosmic expansion.

But after stellar formation.

Either way this thread is assume stellar formation was in a much more dense stage of the universe, and how to model that if that was the actuality.

best, r

Hi Robert,

would those ( http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ )  observations/models still be valid if the stellar/galaxy formation was when the universe was much more dense?

If you study and understand the page I referenced, then you will know how my model views and interprets pre-expansion, expansion, and post-expansion.

This would allow you to answer your own question and/or ask other questions that we could discuss.

But we need to start on the same page by your having read the relevant page.

No pain, no gain - as they say.

Technically, Atomic Scale systems, Stellar Scale systems and Galactic Scale systems are self-similar if you compare the correct analogues from the different cosmological Scales, and the analogues are in comparable energy states.

The (probably infinite number of) cosmological Scales are therefore highly or exactly self-similar to one another.

I do think there is considerable empirical evidence for this.

Robert, does that not indicate a closer proximity in time and in space during design/formation? which would back proto stellar formation was before inflation and not after it? as indicated by The Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis.

and on a philosophical note another testament to One common designer and creator of all Physical Matter?

If one has a working understanding of Discrete Scale Relativity, apparently a very rare thing, one naturally prefers a cosmological paradigm of a cosmos which is eternal, infinite and highly unified. In such a cosmos, there would be no place for any type of "designer" except in the minds of those who feel they need this artificial device for their mental comfort.

Hi Amrit,

if one holds by a standard model:

an initial singularity.

a visible universe 26 Billion light years in diameter.

a universe 46 x 2 = 92 billion light years in diameter

they kind of need it.

Per The Pearlman SPIRALL:

cosmological redshift is empirical evidence of a cosmic inflation  from a very dense universe say under 2,000 light year diameter, but most likely much smaller to a universe about as big as it is now, within one 24 hour period.

How many light year diameter do you hold the entire universe is?

how large do you hold the visible universe is?

what else do you hold as the structure and formation of the universe?

Hi Robert,

how would such a universe -

-deal with the law of entropy? (The longer something lasts implies greater design and maintenance, so eternal if forever and not just a much more recent start of time with the appearance/creation of physical matter, is a far greater claim and thus has a greater burden of proof )

-deal with Olbers paradox? (if CR not due to expansion even a 13.8 billion year old universe is far to old to match our natural observations of starlight.)

=deal with CMB blackbody? that implies an initial common start area followed by an expansion?

Either way let us try and stay focused on modeling the physical processes that could have resulted in proto stellar formation prior to (or even caused by) cosmic inflation.

assume there was cosmic inflation.

assume that the proto stars whose distant starlight, is still reaching us from all directions, formed prior to or by the start of that cosmic inflation.

in the Pearlman SPIRALL it points out how Heat, Time and Pressure are three variables in rock formation. That they should also be variables in stellar formation.

The more concentrated the universe the more matter, the more energy available for the heat and pressure, the less time required.

also assume we (all the physical matter in our universe) started out as a singularity, with some expansion prior to cosmic expansion.

either way assume in your model/s the universe was much more dense during stellar formation, preferably between 1 LY radius and 1000 LY radius.

TY,

r 

1. No conflict with the laws of entropy, anymore than a supernova has a conflict with them, which it does not.

2. Hierarchical models avoid Obler's paradox in an elegant manner. See papers by Charlier , as well as those by de Vaucouleurs

3. No conflict with general  CMB observations.

If the Big Bang was a metagalactic scale analogue of a supernova event, then none of these three issues is a problem.

Moreover, the Big Bang can be understood as a well-known astrophysical event. It is just occurring on a scale that is 1034 times larger than its stellar scale analogue. No smoke, mirrors, ad hoc particle physics just-so stories, magnetic monopoles, "inflaton" fields, etc., etc., etc.,... necessary.

Why choose models that are so much uglier and untestable?

Hi Robert,

The Pearlman SPIRAL makes predictions and is testable.

I do not understand enough to know if what you are saying is compatible with The Pearlman SPIRAL.

If it precludes Cosmic Inflation subsequent to proto stellar formation, than it is not compatible.

Can they be compatible?

best,

r

Above, I have pointed to a basic general account of what Discrete Scale Relativity says about before, during and after the Big Bang. The relevant page could be read comfortably in 30 min to 1 hour. I would ask you to make the effort to read this material and then we could talk about compatibility or non-compatibility.

Just between you and me, one does not name a theory after oneself - unless already dead :)  .   It has very bad connotations.

TY Robert,

Let 'Pearlman' refer to my Dad OBM and big brother OBM who put me in a position to formulate The Pearlman SPIRAL. 

I hope to review and comprehend your reference, once i get out a review edition on a section of The Torah Discovery Chronology that helps reconcile the '400' and the '430' year spans and how to align that with Abraham being age 84 (as I make the case for) at The Covenant Between The Parts. By next week I hope.

Cosmology, Torah Studies and Commodities Trading, OH MY!

Irons in several fires it would appear. A most interesting mix of interests.

Alas, I have only one: nature.

Hi Robert,

Just 'Nature' reminds me of the old saying 

'womens faults are many, mens faults are few, everything we say and everything we do!'

To understand 'nature' in maximum available context it helps to use the 'owners manual' (ie Torah revelation testimony) we have direct from our One common designer and creator of the forces of nature and physical universe, aka G-d.

I guess not wanting to ask directions is one of mans faults :) 

If a man states something and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

Yes (if /when our wife reads this, which may have to do w/ Schrodinger and cats.)

Metagalaxy – observable part of a three-dimensional sphere – is expanding along with the three-dimensional sphere, though only from the time when the speed of light has ceased to be equal to zero. In the process of expanding, Metagalaxy covers all new and new volumes of space with galaxies formed at least sufficiently large cosmological time . Thus, to the observer's eye galaxies appear in his field of vision as really ready-made, though, of course, the formation of galaxies does not occur before the emergence of the Universe, but it occur for cosmological sufficiently long time after the speed of light has ceased to be equal to zero, and the Universe expanded to cosmologically large sizes.

I. A. Urusovskii, Multidimensional   Treatment of the Expanding Universe,

 Physical Science International Journal, 4(8): 1110-1144, 2014.  

Thank you for input Igor,

under this model:

how long is the minimum for light speed to go from zero to current light speed ?

how long a minimum to expand to the observable universe?

why do we think we know still expanding and did not inflate to it's current approximate size early in the history of the universe? (If cosmological redshift, that may explained better by The Pearlmamnn SPIRALL than it is by any ongoing expansion.).

best,

r

Oh, thank goodness

New info-graphic first draft preview comparing The Pearlman SPIRAL to the standard cosmology model (SCM),

for peer review especially to make sure i accurately portray SCM,

has been added to my publication on my profile if anyone wants to check out before you check out for the week, 

have a good week end.

best, r

Dear Colleagues,

 I send you the paper

I. A. Urusovskii, Multidimensional   Treatment of the Expanding Universe,

 Physical Science International Journal, 4(8): 1110-1144, 2014, 

Containing answers on questions of Dr. Robert Oldershaw (see the Figure 6 in the paper).

Best Regards,

I. A. Urusovskii

[email protected]

The dispute between The Pearlman SPIRAL and Hubble Expansion regarding the explanation of cosmological redshift reminds me of Shakespeare:

'to expand or not to expand, that is the question'

Per the pearlman SPIRAL there is no ongoing expansion,

yet we did start at a singularity, and

stellar formation was prior to or at a cosmic inflation

that cosmological redshift is empirical evidence of.

so what could the natural processes have been like to form those proto stars under those premise?