The standard model of cosmology is assumes an arbitrary number of antigravity energy infusions in order to counteract an arbitrarily-assumed global gravitational contraction force. What alternative theories are being examined.

My theory is one alternative. You can find it through my profile on this site, or you can google “Redshift from accelerated contraction” and find the latest version, which is Nov 2019.

I can offer the attached should you be interested. It is a cosmological topic inasmuch as it denies the accepted notion that length contraction might help us reach far distant stars.

You might find my work interesting, it is certainly an alternate theory with far-reaching implications. I was trying to equate dark matter with the ether by assigning a magnetic charge to dark matter. My definition of magnetic charge is that the charge produces a magnetic field proportional to its velocity, hence, it is NOT a magnetic monopole. With that definition, a transverse wave in dark matter has the EM properties of the photon, thus logically equating dark matter with the ether. By an appropriate assumption on the localized properties of the wave, the EM energy came out to be proportional to frequency. Taking the theory further and assuming that all matter has a magnetic charge, a longitudinal wave in dark matter would have the properties of the graviton. In addition, small vortices, created by the ground state vibration of a particle, created the means to propagate the Coulomb force. There are several results from the theory that can apply to cosmology, namely: an explanation for why the universe's expansion appears to be accelerating with it is not, an explanation for space-time that is based on the local speed of light, and the matter ejection from an accretion disc due to a strong electric field generated my the matter spiraling in. Another very interesting fallout of the theory is that the rest energy of a particle can be calculated from its EM field energy generated from the ground state vibration of its electric and magnetic charges, hence, mass is a calculated property of a particle and gravity is a magnetic attraction. So, all-in-all, there is a lot of positive fallout from a simple assumption.

The two papers that generate these results are (a third paper is in the works) (the second paper corrects the photon results from the first paper):

The concept that a star behaves as an equivalent electrodynamical polarity because its plasma (free charged particles) nuclear fusion activity is generating some electrodynamical-field unbalancing could maybe give also some cosmological relectures.

“…Is anyone on this site doing original work regarding alternate theories of co seesmology?….”

- yeah, there is. That is at least Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s rational informational physical model of Matter’s Beginning, which includes the explanation – why Matter no practically don’t contain antimatter; more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 , Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe”

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, at least Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”.

This problem was already discussed in a short thread on the RG, see, first of all the SS posts in

Cosmology is totally flawed since Zwicky 1929. His correct non-expanding eternal cosmos was confirmed by the new fundamental-physics science of Cryodynamics, sister of deterministic Thermodynamics, less than a decade ago. With Klaus Sonnleitner and Ramis Movassagh having provided the first, mutually independent, cogent evidence in 2010.

We need a physical model of Mega space. And in this model, we should not fantasize, but choose the real possibilities. We have matter and electromagnetic field only. The field is the medium, that ether that we have lost. You will be convinced of this whenever you bring a mobile phone to your ear. Vortices of the field surround galaxies, stars and planets. We call it gravitational fields. The pressure gradient of the external environment of the field is created due to the Bernoulli effect.

More in the article "ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK MATTER" in my profile.

Indranil Banik: There is definitely something to that, with its strong relationship between galaxy rotation rates and a universal centripetal (inward) acceleration rate. My paper (on this site, see the November 2019 version) derives a matching acceleration rate based on SR Doppler for the entire database of 580 supernovae type 1a. Whether you find my theory reasonable or not, the matching MOND acceleration rate must be more than a coincidence. (For others, MOND is Modified Newtonian Dynamics). My rogue theory is that the acceleration rate is the accelerated contraction of the universe. I hope you will consider taking a look at my paper. Maybe you can derive the empirical MOND relationship from a theoretical structure related to my theory of collapse, a universe in free fall.

Yes .. Please see my paper "Combined Notes on Mirror Symmetry and Understanding Dark Energy". The central new idea is that the Rindler event horizon, at the co-moving cosmic boundary, beyond which no signal can reach us in a finite time, prevents free fall acceleration below that required to replace Cold Dark Matter CDM with Dark Energy DE effects on space. DE effects space in just the right way to replace CDM. And General Relativity GR and DE and inflation emerge together from the IKKT matrix model, that's the only theory of everything that I have in my tool box. The CDM effect is caused by space and not by the matter in the space. The original idea is due to Mike Mcculloch using Casimir photons at the Hubble scale, where I use the IKKT matrix model to turn Mike's photons at the Hubble scale into gravitons that cause space to act like CDM. Thank you, George Soli

yes, pls find our new paper on Gross-Pitaevskiian model of solar system and galaxies..this is result of many years of testing hypothesis. Thanks for asking this question. yours, Victor

I have a preprint on this site “Redshift from ccelerated contraction....” which presents a kinematic theory of cosmic expansion/contraction. It is not a full cosmological theory in that it does not integrate nucleogenesis nor CMB. If you look at it, please find the latest version (Nov 2019).