Einstein introduced his "Cosmological Constant" in an attempt to allow a static model because at that time, nothing was thought to exist beyond the Milky Way (other galaxies were only widely accepted after the "Great Debate" in 1920) but the solution is an unstable equilibrium.

Hubble's confirmation of redshift proportional to distance and its subsequent refinement over the following decades ruled out the static model, even Hoyle who was an ardent supporter was eventually forced to give up on it.

RS: If that is a crisis in cosmological theory, ...

It isn't, it is an outstanding question for the QM people to work out why their guess is so far out, but because it is based only on crude dimensionality, I don't think even they would consider it a "crisis in QM theory".

RS: Maybe more needs to be known.

Definitely, and many people are working on future theories of quantum gravity.

We should ask:

Can we definitively exclude all alternatives to an expanding universe?

Is a curved static geometry possible?

Mathematically we are able constructing a static spacetime geometry, which is spatially homogenous, isotropic and periodically finite.

If we are able to explain redshift caused by an isotropic small constant curvature, we have a promising begin of an alternative theory.

The pure consideration of a direction independent metric excludes the possibility that a curvature exists, which is direction dependent and which is only susceptible for motions. This kind of curvature leads to the same impact for a motion from position A to B and B to A. The curvature caused by masses instead leads to an impact of opposite sign for reverse motions.

The relevant questions are:

Is it possible that a constant isotropic direction dependent curvature exists? Does this kind of curvature lead to a drag impact on all kind of motions including the propagation of electromagnetic waves?

Robert, if that prediction of quantum field theory -- about enormous energy density pervading the standard model vacuum -- were in in fact true, but only locally (think of galaxies as being embedded in energetic but invisible condensates) then we'd have a neat solution to the dark mass mystery: divide that local halo of energy by c^2.

Instead of halos of dark matter particles, we'd have halos of charge (localized Higgs type fields?). Dividing by c^2 allows us to begin modeling appropriate distributions of such invisible "mass-energy".

Wolfgang and Thierry, given that we define a (speed of light)^2 as 1/(mu_0 epsilon_0), if mu_0 and epsilon_0 turn out to be functions of the local state of the vacuum (see previous paragraphs), then our cosmology, being so dependent on assumptions about wavelengths and frequency, would indeed need some rethinking.

Nevertheless, there's no reason not to be nice as we reorient the apple-carts :-)

Nigel

Dear Nigel,

in a curved spacetime there might be a difference between the geometrical distance between two points A and B and the length of the way to be passed to get from A to B. Rethinking about spacetime properties therefore should be the first step. Some detailed corrections of formulas are then further steps.

In a finite and static spacetime geometry a big bang is impossible.

Big Bang idea is not only premature it has no physical or philosophical basis in the first place! It is a theological concept now imposed on natural science by the unholy alliance of resurgent theological fundamentalism and the regressive world monopoly capitalism. The only difference from older theology is that this new one is being made “credible” with make-believe “scientific proofs” commissioned and financed by monopoly capitalism. Please see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320065643_BIG-BANG_CREATED_OR_AN_ETERNAL_AND_INFINITE_UNIVERSE

“By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

A finite "spacetime" manifold with tangible physical/mechanical attributes that forms a so-called objective reality of the world is an axiomatic mathematical fiction and an idealist phantasm that has no basis in material Nature. The theory of general relativity (GR) is a tautology based on this axiom and other theories of official cosmology, like Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion, Dark/Black cosmic monsters etc. are tautologies of tautologies – conclusions that are already contained in the premise! For example, the redshifts are adjusted/re-calculated to conform to SR and GR, assuming both to be true and then these redshifts are used to “prove” an expanding universe! - a conclusion which is already contained in the premise of GR!

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

"… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results." ("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

Hi Abdul, your post would pack more punch if you let those excellent quotes from Burbidge and Hubble speak for themselves. No need to play the "outrage" and "theology" cards :-)

[NN] wrote: "no reason not to be nice as we reorient the apple-carts"

Nigel

Hi Nigel, Thanks for your response to my comment.

I did play the "outrage" and "theology" cards; because "Big Bang" is being trumpeted with such deafening and frightening noise; even more than the supposedly loud "Bang" itself - as the "science" of all sciences, the "truth" of all truths!

In addition to reference to Burbidge and Hubble; I also based this comment on my own work (approved by (Late) Chip Arp), given in the references. So, I think that I deserve some minimum freedom to spill few apples from the carts! Cheers! Abdul

Dear All,

In my article at my project I have elaborated on this issue quite a lot. The theory of the Big Bang is based on observations. Since everyone can repeat these observations we have, by no means, to discuss them. However we have to discuss the explanation of these observations. If we want to explain our observations then we have to combine them with known facts and assumptions. It is here, at the assumptions that we can discuss. So first we have to see what is an assumption and what is a fact. For me a fact is something that can be independently verified. When the police uses the laser distance/speed tool to measure my driving speed then this observation using light is verified with an object moving with reference speed. When Hubble measured the redshift and correlated that redshift with the distance he measured he was never able to verify that the cosmological redshift is movement. You can try to verify the blueshift of the andromeda galaxy with two distance measurements of the galaxy over time. Our current distance measurement accuracy is about 6 orders of magnitude less accurate than needed to see a difference in distance when we use a time separation of 100 years. When we have problems to prove that the blueshift of the andromeda is movement towards us using the independent distance measurements then what about distance measurements to those galaxies that are so far away that cosmological redshift is dominant. For all that want to react that we know that the andromeda galaxy comes to us, let me say that I also don't doubt this. This is movement of a galaxy through space. However the cosmological redshift means that we talk about galaxies moving away with the fabric of space (what ever that fabric might be or not be).

Based on above elaboration I show that interpreting that the cosmological redshift has its origin in movement has never and can't ever be verified. So we have to see what assumption is used to come to the interpretation that this cosmological redshift is movement. The assumption that is needed to interpret this as movement is that we assume that we are the reference of size for the universe in space and time. That means that we think that our size is constant over time. It is fine that we take that assumption and then try to explain our observation. However when we come to conclusions we have to check if these conclusions will not result in clear irrationalities.

Galileo helped us get away from the assumption that we are the reference of rotation and translation in the universe, that we are the origin, centre of the universe. If we hold that assumption then we see that at larger distance from us objects move around us with a tangential speed that has a linear relation to the distance like the Hubble law. This speed can increase unlimited. The light speed will be reached very soon. But who cares? it is not movement though space but movement of space. When we assume that we are rotating then immediately these tangential speeds disappear and we observe that our earths radius along its equator is increased by the centrifugal force of our rotation. We blame this elongation to our rotation. The divergence of the spherical shape is explained by searching the origin of this observation in the object it self and not in a feature of space.

Now we look at the expansion of space. Here we see that we have a Hubble law where the speed linear increases with the distance and with no problem surpasses the speed of light. But who cares, no scientist, because it doesn't violate the Special Relativity. Why not? Because it is movement of space and not movement through space. Now let us make the same daring step that Galileo did against the ruling belief of his time.

We assume that space is constant in size.

This means that the well known comoving reference frame becomes the general accepted reference frame at rest. At that moment we have to conclude that all matter in space has to shrink. We never are allowed to ask the question if matter can shrink in a cosmological view that has as its assumption that size is constant. But we have seen here that this leads to loads of irrational problems, Big Bang singularity, Dark Energy with negative value, Energy density disagreement with 120 orders of magnitude, etc. On the other had, when we question if matter can shrink, then we can easy come up with a theory that is in agreement with GRT, STR, QM that assigns a new property to matter: matter reduced its size and mass while increasing its internal time speed all together linear to the observed redshift so matter shrinks. This is similar to adding a property to the earth that it can oblate at the equator because of its rotation.

This removes the need for a Big Bang, for Dark Energy, and, because the total sum of mass and energy in the universe has nothing to do with the size of space, the 120 orders of magnitude disagreement can be settled in favour of the larger value. With that we can discuss how the zero point energy could have a relation to the value of our gravity 'constant' G. If this value changes over large areas of space we have no need for Dark Matter.

You want to explain space? Don't look up and try to change the universe; look down to your self and accept your ow change. The observation into the past in space tells something about us: we shrink.

This is a long addition to this thread and I hope it convinced some of you that the conclusion, that there was a Big Bang, is a premature irrational conclusion.

I would feel honoured if you could give a comment on my article,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322358060_Analysis_of_the_expansion_of_space_and_a_theory_of_the_Big_Implosion?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=HeXI0ktheozcY3h7zX9kLYJZ&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=projectUpdatesLog&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A322358060&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

Paul Gradenwitz

Hello Thierry de Mees,

Maybe for you the acronym MMX is obvious. I happen not to know what you mean with this trick.

Hello Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

QM and GR are theories of the current mainstream Science. I try to look at them with my reservation. What I have tried in my article is to analyse a special side of these theories and came to an inconsistency. On one side we can see if my reasoning was correct, on the other side we can see if the results are in line with the observations. To throw away all current theories and think that we can start from scratch is for me a little bit to much.

Your statements in this thread, stand alone, didn't allow me to understand from what background your conclusions come.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

The issue resides within three answers to Einstein's Field equations: 1- static or steady state, 2- expanding Universe or 3- contracting. The steady state is out as we understand the Universe is in a state of change, we know part of its history and can understand it is not static/steady. Hubble's redshift was observed and Hubble's;e's expansion has carried the day since by consensus.

The cosmological constant was inserted for what Einstein considered, a static stead state Universe. He admit that was an error.

Hubble's redshift has the Cos Constant out and 'expanding at an increasing rate ' Universe requiring 71% dark energy to oppose gravity causing expansion.

But where the heck does dark energy fit into the equations?

It does not.

But also, expansion of the Universe is a false conclusion; that is obvious by momentum, observations and the equations/math.

All baryonic matter existing today is from a history of contraction, significantly most all baryonic matter observed today resides within contraction events, spiral galaxies.

The 3rd alternative in Einstein's equations, the one without any cos constant, is a contracting Universe. The math tells me this, besides the history of the Universe and its present contracting state.

Cosmological redshift is simply an effect, gravity affecting light over large distances; increasing with distance and with time. It is gravitational lensing that we know and account for on the x and y axis, my advance is on the z axis or a 3d accounting for gravity's affect on light.

Cos redshift is not motion induced, as in expanding Universe. Forget that erroneous blunder, it has the consensus looking for nothing in the dark, and that is exactly what they will find, nothing.

The evidence seems obvious once we understand the theory, the data and the observations. Thesis The general presentation of: The Foundation of Ξ Theory- A G...

Cosmology was premature in having a consensus on the big bang and Hubble's expansion.

douG

The universe is eternal, infinite and dialectical – this is the position of all dialectical thought since Epicurus. The contrary view of all other philosophies, natural science and mathematics arises because of their lack of understanding of the “dialectical infinite”. Hegel called all anti-dialectical view of the infinite as “spurious or bad infinity”! Please see:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

For an infinite (universe), beginning or end; increase, or decrease, expansion or contraction, quantity, measure etc., has no meaning. The universe from the macrocosm to the microcosm is composed of matter in eternal motion and in ever-resolving (“the negation of the negation”) dialectical contradictions, through which everything in this universe (from the galaxies to the elementary particles) “eternally comes into being and goes out of existence” exactly the way Heraclitus first intuited. This dialectical truth dimly perceived by Heraclitus as a crude intuition is now substantiated at a much higher level of knowledge of modern natural science including quantum electrodynamics. This is the “absolute truth” (if there is such a thing!) of dialectics. But even in this; dialectics must have its negative side too, because it recognizes temporary stages (forms and structures like galaxies, for example) in this eternal change, motion, development etc., of matter; but only so far that the temporary stages are relative; its motion is absolute.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Thierry De Mees, Thank you, I could have known it.

The trick with the MMX experiment is that there are several publications that state that this experiment outcome has to give a null result under all conditions. So this is inconclusive. The experiment if we rotate or that the earth rotates has a clear outcome. The equator bulges out because of centrifugal forces. The experiment, if we translate or wether space translates around us, is, in mainstream science, settled with the assumption that we translate through space with ~600km/sec. Only the view if we shrink or if space expands is in mainstream science settled with the assumption that we are constant and space moves, expands. That is irrational and lead to lots of problems. Now everybody tries to come up with the most exotic equations and models to explain how space could expand and nobody looks down to the matter to study how that matter could shrink. I try to redirect the focus to where, in my eyes, the real action is. I try to redirect the interest of science to where I think that we can get better answers.

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, In your interesting book I see that you use equations that assume curvature of space. The mathematics of space curvature are great. However they are a model to describe something easier. To expect that space will behave according to your model is another issue. Any model with space change, expansion, curvature, waves, can be transformed in a model where other properties inside space are distorted. When the model is good then the predictions of these models will be confirmed by the experiments. That the predictions are confirmed by experiments gives an indication of the correctness the model. It says nothing about if space does it in exact the same way.

In electrotechnics we use calculations with ejω to express complex number system frequency dependent processes. There is no way that I expect that the electrons involved in the oscillating process will travel into imaginary number space. my model predicts in very good way the outcome. I can make money with it. Yet the real physics is far different from the model. This as example to show that the attempt to prove, that a theory describes reality, is correct when the predictions are confirmed only gives a conclusion about the analogy of the theory to reality but not its congruence.

I did read in your answer that you think that you have explained how the world is in your book, but I didn't see why and where you see a deviation with respect to what I presented before. In this way you leave me, and those following our discussion, to search and deduce what kind of differences there could be.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Hello Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

Thank you for explaining here in short the key features of your theory. The fact that you manage to explain the different observations with your theory is a big positive argument for the correctness of your functions. You have a lattice of balls without gaps. I know that cubes, octaeder-tetraeder mixes, and parallelogram-dodecaeders, can fill space. Balls can touch at points but don't close the gaps. Now you create a process that generates excitations that you name inert units, inertons. You assign properties to the inertons and mathematical functions of their movement. Then you use them to explain space. With your constructed theory you turn out to be very successful to describe the observed phenomena. This means that your theory can be an excellent method to predict many physical properties.

Now I have seen how those people, that support the GTR, have predicted the existence of signals that can give message that extreme massive object in space collide. They have invested a huge amount of money to create observing tools to find these signals. They were successful. We found what they call Gravity waves. So there is no DOUBT that there is a signal that could be related to large mass objects mergers. Yet this is by no means the confirmation that only this GR theory is the right theory. Even more, I have seen other theories that predict the same signal that are based on a completely different principle. Now you have your proposed inertons and have given them properties. You now find that these objects should give a certain kind of signal that should be possible to detect. You were successful on that. With that you got the confirmation of the usefulness of your theory.

However it reminds me of a big learning moment in my life. I had to correct some financial errors in the bookkeeping of a company and didn't have access to the previous year numbers with respect to the year I was looking into. So I used my understanding and bank statement information to reconstruct the numbers. I took the moments that some actual payments had happened, calculated the deficit that was created and applied interest figures. The result, after rounding to the accuracy of the currency, was equal to the outcome of the other bookkeeper. Then later I received that year bookkeeping and learned that the other bookkeeper had made a last year day correction to the bookings with a one day interest, with a different value, to obtain the results. I want to state with this example that genius calculations are no warranty that the reality did go accordingly.

In my theory I try to convey as the main message that we should interpret the universe as static and that we should explain the observations with properties of matter. I also give an indication that I think that a zero point energy could be present. With that I assume that some kind of ether is present and that there is a notion of absolute movement. Your method of generating a fabric of space out of your principle space balls is another method to describe an ether. Then you describe a way how matter interacts with this fabric of space. I would like to encourage you to continue in this way and to add onto this whole system some more properties of matter that can explain that all matter changes its size. For that you could take as a record of observation the redshift that Hubble used for the expansion interpretations. All these observations give us a record into the past that can serve as time stamps of the shrinking process. Out of that I conclude that the length and the mass of objects reduced by a factor of 2 over about 10.3 GYR (z=1) while in that same time the duration of the second, as measured with that shrinking matter, also reduced with a factor 2.

In my understanding I have no judgement on how close your theory is to the reality while I also have no problem to give you credit that you managed to give excellent observational results to your predictions. But I mis in your theory the above mentioned shrinking of matter.

In my article I propose to explain the Dark Matter with the assumption that the Gravitational constant G should be taken as variable and that the value of this variable can be obtained by the observations. You have created a mathematical construction of the gravity process and claim that you can recreate the observations out of your theory. With that you fill in the gap that I left open. I purposely didn't declare a theory to explain the observations. I only showed that I would want to stick to the observation with respect to the available matter and then modify a parameter to fit the equations in stead of assuming a parameter to be constant and then to propose a kind of gravity generating matter the has the property to be invisible to many simple observers and only might be visible to the smart few. This reminds me of the fairytale of the cloths of the kaiser. I would be interested how your predictions, with respect to dark matter, relate to the observations in the bullet galaxy cluster system.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

Thank you for the kind answer and that link. This is how communication should work. I was not aware of that file, and there will be loads of publications that would be of help for me and I never have seen them.

I have problems with a bound universe. When I look into that article

THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IN THREE NUMBERS , then I see a lot of relations that all are multiplication and divisions of other numbers. So I think we can get the same relation, from mathematical point of view, when we decide that other numbers are principal numbers. When you keep the size of the universe constant then you end up that the size of the primary elements in that article, the electrons and the protons, is oscillating. This also would imply that the Planck constant would change. That constant then would be the smallest value we can measure with matter of related size. This kind of thought we first have to dare to think, then we have to se the consequences, and finally we can judge. I have less problems with matter that shrinks than problems with an universe that expands.

In the bullet cluster galaxies collide and in this collision the stars continue to move more or less uninterrupted. The gas in the galaxies collides and changes position with respect to the stars. There are modified Newtonian gravity theories, MOND, that depend on a modification of the gravity based on the amplitude of the gravitational field. The more mass involved the more modification. I hope I give the right extract here. When the MOND is applied on the bullet cluster then we would expect that the Dark Matter effect would follow the gas. When we assume Dark Matter as non interacting matter then it would follow the stars. The observations agree with a model where the Dark Matter follows the stars.

I hope this gave some answers on your questions. I also do work for money that is not direct in the Astronomical field. So I understand you situation. I know I didn't respond much on you view of an universe with boundary conditions. Simply, because I didn't study that enough to make an opinion.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Keyword "Universe with boundaries"

Boundaries are not stable in nature, because they lead to gradients and gradients allow gaining energy. This simply implies that the universe cannot have boundaries.

The universe is either flat and infinite or curved in a circular way. Because "infinite" also causes unsolvable problems, the universe must be finite and curved in a circular isotropic way.

Dear Wolfgang Kohle,

You state that boundaries give problems. One boundary is assumed. That is the start of the universe. We know of the many theory problems there. You say that infinite all has problems. Could you tell me what problems you see there. I see a lot of problems in a curved circular universe. An expanding sphere has a surface without a boundary. But it has an inside where it has been and an outside where it is moving into. These are in the radial 3rd dimension. If you propose a circular universe then you have to define the 4th dimension where this universe is moving through. This dimension can not be the time.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

I try to answer your questions as follows:

Problems with boundary-less and infinite:

Boundary less implies that there is no major density gradient, which leads to an infinite mass of the universe.

Structure of curved circular universe:

Time is like real numbers with a range from -infinite to + infinite.

The space is three dimensional. If starting from any point in an absolutely straight direction with the speed of light, you will exactly reach your starting point after about 14 billion years. In a virtual 3D-image space your travel path is a circle. In that virtual space during your travel you see the universe as rotated around the axis of the circular path.

Dear Wolfgang,

An infinite universe with a finite density has an infinite total mass. I agree with that.

Your universe with a radius of 14 billion lightyears needs some more analysis. Let us assume this universe. It has a radius. In your 3D image the path is a circle. There radius is 14 billion light years divided by 2 PI. Now you have to take into account the expansion of the universe. There is a nice property in a circle. The expansion of the radius and the expansion of the distance between two points that are one radial away is equal.

On a globe when sailors calculate distances they do that over greatcircles. A greatcircle divides a sphere in two equal parts. So a distance measured along a greatcircle is the shortest distance over the sphere. The unit is equal to the angle unit. One nautical mile is 1/(360 x 60) of the circumference of the earth. This to explain why I use angular units as distance units.

When we look further about this expansion speed we know that the maximum speed of separation is found (PI x radius). That is the opposite side of the circle. We can go all the way around and say the total circumference expands with (2 x PI x radius).

We have the Hubble observation and we have the assumed expansion of the universe where z=1 means that objects drift on the fabric of space away with the speed of light. W can go further away. The maximum redshift I can find in Wiki is the redshift of the CMBR. That is stated as z=1079. The distance this light traveled to reach us is about 13.5 billion light years. Even if this would be right around the corner of your maximum distance of 14 billion light years, then you can't make the math.

with z=1079 the speed of expansion is 1079 times the speed of light. This then, assuming your maximum radius of 14 Billion lightyears, be 13.5/14=27/28 of the expansion of the whole circle. So the radius expands with (1079x28)/(27 x 2 PI)=(1079x14)/(27xPI)=178.1 times the speed of light, c. The light has traveled the distance from the CMBR with 1c for 13.5 billion years. But the redshift indicates that the expansion is 178.1c. So this universe can't be old enough to support the numbers. Your radius is 2.228 billion lightyears long. So with the obtained expansion speed it can only be 12.5million years. At that time the Dinosaurs were gone for more than 50 million years.

When you calculate the radius of an orbit of a satellite around the earth and you get a value below 6371 km, then you know that you need to dig a trench to let it fly. Something similar is with your universe model.

If you disagree I would love to see the corrections on my calculations. Even If you disagree with the 1079 c, you have to agree with z=1 is 10.3 billion light years. Since that distance is not yet one radial (because we have values above z=10 for sure) your expansion speed is above c and your universe is younger than the oldest stars.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

An infinite universe with a finite density does NOT need to have infinite mass. Mass is essentially an integral of density (yeah it's a complicated one, but still) and there are plenty of functions when integrated to infinity converge to something finite. In other words if the density is small enough, such an integral could still converge to a finite amount of mass.

I would agree that finite uniform density would produce a divergent mass integral. But with only being able to see out to 14 billion years away in any direction, who's to say that there isn't some significant density fall off somewhere? There is no evidence for such a thing and given the current cosmological model, it wouldn't make sense. But let's not get too caught up in our paradigms to not consider that there are things we might not see. We could just be in the really dense region of the universe and not be able to see beyond it.

None of the above is intended to reflect my personal opinion about the nature of the universe, only to point out that mathematically there are lots of ways for it not to work out the way the models suggest.

I would ask also, what the problem would be with an infinite mass anyway? I agree it seems strange, but the fact that the real numbers go to infinity in no way makes the number 3 see his neighborhood differently. Just some thoughts.

Dear Paul,

" Now you have to take into account the expansion of the universe."

This statement does not fit to the model of a static curved geometry of the universe. With an impact on light passing curved space, red shift can be explained without expansion.

Dear Alan,

it is obvious that a non uniform large scale mass density leads to the big bang model with a periodic bounce. But the isotropic appearence of the objects in our universe is in contradiction to such a model.