Continued from the thread: Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the...'

Observation that might align better w/ a hyper dense proto-stellar formation are:

The asserted 'black-holes' by the center of each galaxy, perhaps what we are looking at is evidence of hyper-dense start to proto-stellar formation.

The times the galaxies have rotated may be because they started rotating when they were hyper dense!

The measurements of cosmological redshift (CR) of distant starlight if SPIRAL. While SCM asserts far greater than SPIRAL distance the stellar objects are now than where they were when they formed 46.5B-4B = 42.5 B vs within 1 LY if SPIRAL and hyper-dense to where they are now. and up to 13B LY ad years ago (SCM) vs under 1M LY and years ago (SPIRAL and 5,778 LY if RCCF) where they were when the light visible here now departed them. George made a good point that if SCM the average cosmic expansion rate / rate of recession is about 3 times the sight speed whereas assuming the universe has/had a radius of 2B LY by the end of cosmic inflation and that event took up to one day. it appears the cosmic expansion itself was at a much faster rate, somewhere between cosmic inflation speed and ongoing cosmic expansion speed of SCM. one solution is if the proto-stars were hyper dense and expanded proportional to the cosmic expansion then the observations would fully align with SPIRAL. another possibility is the cosmic inflation was not linear but geometric , doubling every x span, thus what we see now from 5778 was from before the expansion really picked up momentum, thus even w/o the hyper-dense start SPIRAL fits the Hubble expansion measurements as well as SCM. and or another possible solution with SPIRAL to meet that concern is it is not 2B LY radius to the most distant objects but well under 1B LY. either way SPIRAL claims far less cosmic expansion, far less time elapsed, and no ongoing cosmic expansion, so no need for the missing dark matter, so SCM makes the far greater claims, thus should have a far greater burden of proof vs SPIRAL. while you mentioned SPIRAL has the burden of proof as it is the new kid on the block, that merely helps entrench consensus science which many of us know is a recipe for scientific stagnation.

also what appear to be 'black holes' at the center of each galaxy may in fact be what we would see if a hyper-dense proto-stellar/galactic formation.

also hyper-dense galactic formation may better explain the number of rotations of a spiral galaxy w/o it having lost it's structure.

Your theories are interesting.

There is however one point you didn't question. Is Cosmic Redshift, CR, really an empiric evidence of expansion?

What assumption is needed to conclude that CR points to expansion?

That assumption is that our reference of length is stable over the whole duration of the universe.

We make the assumption hat our metric, our unit of length is constant and then conclude that our universe expands. However there is no proof that galaxies move away from us. Such a proof can NOT rely on spectral measurements. It has to be independent. This independent distance measurement has to be done twice. The difference in distance then can be used as movement speed. The accuracy of distance measurement is many orders of magnitude, powers of ten, less accurate than the accuracy needed to decide if a galaxy moves towards us or away from us.

So inorder to decide if our assumption of a constant length reference is sound we have to make other analysis.

We have many reference frames. They all serve different purposes. One reference frame is relative to our self. It is anchored in or body. It is not general purpose. Another reference frame is anchored to the earth. We use it to navigate through a town or a country. It is very useful but not general purpose. Another reference frame is anchored in the sun. We use it to travel though the solar system. Yet this is not the general reference frame. All these reference frames have something in common. They rotate with respect to the most distant objects we can observe. And in these reference frames these objects then seem to have a speed larger than the speed of light. But if on of the above reference frame would be the real general reference frame then these objects still would obey Special Relativity because we would conclude that space itself is moving and dragging those objects with it.

I would agree with you that the choice of any of the above mentioned reference frames as the general valid reference frame would bring you in disagreement. The general opinion is that space doesn't rotate. So any relative rotation leads to the conclusion that the object rotates inside space and not space around the object.

I hope you agree with me till here. Now why then, if we agree that any frame, that makes part of space move in an angular direction with a speed faster than the speed of light, is not the global reference frame, why then we accept the reference frame, where a part of space moves faster than the speed of light in radial direction, as the frame that has absolute validity? This is inconsistent. With the same logic that brought us to the notion that space has to stand still and not rotate we have to conclude that space doesn't expand. We have to chose the comoving reference frame as the global valid reference frame. From there we have to conclude that our reference of size is dynamic over time. Length, mass, charge and time shrink throughout the course of the universe. This gives the same changing size relation thus it is 100% in agreement with all observations. Only it puts the properties of scale change as properties of matter instead of as properties of space.

I have proven in my article and repeated in some other threads that the Friedmann equations are invalid. With a homogeneous and isotropic energy density distribution in effect the energy-momentum tensor Tuv becomes zero and thus space stays flat. Only for that part of the energy distribution that is not constant this tensor has a value.

Why this long text?

You try to explain the earliest universe under the assumption that it was dense hot and short. That assumption is wrong. Space had the same size as now; only matter was much larger and time as measured with that matter did run much slower than how we interpret time with our current matter.

I look forward to your comments on this.

Paul Gradenwitz

Hi Paul, TY for the initial feed-back, if SPIRAL there is no ongoing cosmic expansion subsequent to a cosmic inflation expansion event

the near black-body CMB is claimed as evidence of this hyper-rapid cosmic expansion early on. if SCM it was before proto-stellar formation if SPIRAL it was after proto-stellar and Galactic formation.

The observations match best if the proto stellar/galactic formation was hyper-dense.

If the actuality, that is an additional relevant question the how of the process of that past hyper expansion.

if you do not hold by a start at a hyper-dense start like SPIRAL or SCM the question would be how did everything get out there to begin with? I would not want to get into that here, as I have cause to think it is a vastly greater claim thus requires vastly greater proof if a scientific hypothesis.

here I am trying to focus on if SPIRAL how, if you had unlimited design time and matter/energy to get to where we are now from a hyper-dense start by or close to a singularity, and made the proto-stars/galaxies prior to the hyper-expansion event what would the most parsimonious process have been if you could at will by that central processing space, manipulate the 4 forces such as electro-magnetic radiation..?

In my representation rapid expansion occurred at scale 4 in the Hierarchy of Planck constants. At scale 4 the vacuum is spontaneously filled with worm holes of 4D flat space in 6D warp fields. Before rapid expansion the scale was 5 with 6D, 10D, 12D, or 26D space time depending on your choice of cosmologies and symmetries, but at least 6D for the simplest representation.

Higher dimensions answer the question of how previous events could occur before expansion.

My representation tells why rapid expansion started and ended.

Looks interesting I hope to check out Jerry, can you put a link here please?

TY