Dear Michael Peck,

My views on your questions are as follows:

• Do you believe the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed?

Yes indeed, however I would go further and say that the modern approaches of both cosmology and particle physics are fundamentally flawed. You mention: “If a theory must be fine-tuned, then there should be an underlying physical reason for such values. However, the vast majority of fine-tuned theories lack explanation and only seem to exist for the purpose of reproducing reality in terms of ad-hoc mathematical formulations” and this suitably summarizes the alarming state of some fields of physics over the past 80+ years where mathematics has dominated theories without any, or with little, attempt to retain a physically objective view of the physics involved.

• Is a fine-tuned theory that is fundamentally wrong, but can still produce correct predictions, useful?

In my view the answer is “no” and the key issue is your reference to the “correct predictions”. To judge if a prediction is correct or not, depends on the ability to carry out experiments with an accuracy that permits physicists to reach a decision. In both cosmology and particle physics, the ability to experimentally test theories, and/or their fine-tuned versions, has become a “roundabout” centered on the position you show as “Gather More Observations” in your attached figure on “Mainstream Cosmology”. For the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology, the fine-tuned theory of “Inflation” is an event that happened in the first 10-36 sec of an expanding universe, claimed to have originated 13.8 billion years ago, while in particle physics the search for predicted particles requires finding and measuring particles with minuscule lifetimes (10-22 sec). In both the above cases, these time scales make measurements very difficult, inconclusive and/or impossible. In particle physics we have "sightings" based on experimental data plucked from signals with excessive noise.

The “roundabout” is clearly demonstrated by the ever on-going task of building new and better equipment to repeat inconclusive experiments (i.e. “gather more information”), with higher energy and/or higher sensitivity, in the hope of eventually proving the fine-tuned theories are correct. Except, in reality, the new equipment still fails to provide the significant results sought because of the - time scales, - even tinier signals, - more excessive noise and - the interpretation of results that always seems to be necessary. This “roundabout” has little to do with advancing physics and may have more to do with maintaining perceived scientific reputations and/or retaining jobs for the rest of a scientific working life!

• Was Richard Feynman correct when he stated “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?

Fortunately this is only partially true! In my lifetime (70 years so far), I have witnessed amazing scientific advances demonstrated by the many technically advanced products we are all using today. Here the conversion of theories into products obviously demanded sound experimental proof. However, when considering theoretical physics, I have not witnessed the expected "unifying" events of physics in my life time. Until I joined ResearchGate about a year ago, I had not fully appreciated the extent of the dominance of mathematicians in theoretical physics. I support mathematicians and their necessary work in physics however believe that we will only move forward in theoretical physics by using a significant degree of physical objectivity to guide the way and place a limit on the mathematical options. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” may well apply to the big bang theory, particle physics and the state of theoretical physics today. 

Obviously you have shown here examples in mainstream cosmology. But for example, in the model of the static Universe these problems do not exist in virtue of the relation: R=R0·ln(z+1):

• Redshift versus luminosity distance: does not require accelerated expansion of space, But keep in mind that the luminosity of object at far distances drops significantly stronger than the inverse square of the distance.

• The Faint Blue Galaxy Problem: disappearing galaxies, but galaxies should be born and disappear in the Static Universe.

• Dark Matter Cusp Problem: More dark matter are formed where there is more light, but the "dark matter" is rapidly converted into a "light matter" when it is too close to the galaxy.

• Local Galaxy Counts: local and global "hole" may exist in a static Universe.

• Horizon Problem: the horizon only exists because of the distance, plus light absorption and reducing the frequency of light from distant galaxies. The distance to the horizon doesn't depend on time.

• Size of Distant Objects: dimming the edges of the galaxy with increasing distance reduces the apparent size of the galaxy.

• Hemispherical Power Asymmetry: the Earth, the Sun, our galaxy move in the Universe, therefore the apparent asymmetry of the energy exists due to the Doppler effect and the distribution of energy in the Universe.

• Directional Dependence of Cosmological Constants: see previous paragraph.

• The Dark Flow: see previous point

• CMB Cold Spots: Massive voids proposed. And nothing contrary.

On your three main questions I will answer so:

1. Modern mainstream-approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed.

2. A fine-tuned theory can produce correct predictions.

3. Richard Feynman was right in part. Science is knowledge of the theory and where and how this theory can be applied.

---

Очевидно, вы показали здесь примеры в космологии майнстрима. Но, например, в модели статической Вселенной перечисленных проблем не существует в силу соотношения: R=R0·ln(z+1):

• Красное смещение в сравнении светимости расстоянием: не требует ускоренного расширения пространства, Но нужно учитывать, что светимость объектов на далеких расстояниях падает существенно сильнее, чем по обратному квадрату расстояния.

• Бледно-голубой Галактики проблема: требует исчезающих галактик, но галактики в вечной Вселенной должны рождаться и исчезать.

• Темная материя проблема особенности сборки: Больше темной материи образуются там, где есть больше света, но слишком близко к галактике темная материя быстрее превращается в светлую материю.

• число Местных Галактик: локальные и глобальные «дыры» могут существовать в статической Вселенной.

• проблема Горизонта: горизонт существует только из-за расстояния, плюс поглощения света и снижения частоты света от далеких галактик. От времени расстояние до горизонта не зависит.

• Размер удаленных объектов: снижение яркости краев галактики при росте расстояния дополнительно уменьшает видимый размер галактики.

• Полусферическая асимметрия энергии: Земля, Солнце, наша галактика двигаются во Вселенной поэтому видимая асимметрия энергии объясняется эффектом Доплера и распределением энергии во Вселенной.

• Направленная зависимость Космологических Констант: смотри предыдущий пункт.

• Темный поток: смотри предыдущий пункт

• CMB холодные места: массивные пустоты предлагаются. И ничему не противоречат.

На ваши три основных вопроса я отвечу так:

1. Современный майстрим-подход к космологии является принципиально ущербным.

2. Настраиваемая теория может производить правильные предсказания.

3. Ричард Фейнман был прав отчасти. Наука - это знание теории и того, где и как эту теорию можно применять.

I would not say that the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed, yet many problems, i.e. those connected with disappearing galaxies,dark energy and matter etc. indicate that something of basic importance is severely missing.

I remember that we have discussed similar things before. Although we did not agree, I think that you have collected a good list of problems, but see also the question by

Gerard t Hooft :

In GR, can we always choose the local speed of light to be everywhere smaller that the coordinate speed of light? Can this be used in a theory?

The simple answer is Yes it is flawed.

The one flaw that no one seems to understand is that Gravity Must Have Limits.  This fundamentally changes the look of cosmology.  Why has no one other than myself seen this?  In John Archibald Wheeler's words "How could we have been so blind so long". 

Dear Michael Peck,

My views on your questions are as follows:

• Do you believe the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed?

Yes indeed, however I would go further and say that the modern approaches of both cosmology and particle physics are fundamentally flawed. You mention: “If a theory must be fine-tuned, then there should be an underlying physical reason for such values. However, the vast majority of fine-tuned theories lack explanation and only seem to exist for the purpose of reproducing reality in terms of ad-hoc mathematical formulations” and this suitably summarizes the alarming state of some fields of physics over the past 80+ years where mathematics has dominated theories without any, or with little, attempt to retain a physically objective view of the physics involved.

• Is a fine-tuned theory that is fundamentally wrong, but can still produce correct predictions, useful?

In my view the answer is “no” and the key issue is your reference to the “correct predictions”. To judge if a prediction is correct or not, depends on the ability to carry out experiments with an accuracy that permits physicists to reach a decision. In both cosmology and particle physics, the ability to experimentally test theories, and/or their fine-tuned versions, has become a “roundabout” centered on the position you show as “Gather More Observations” in your attached figure on “Mainstream Cosmology”. For the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology, the fine-tuned theory of “Inflation” is an event that happened in the first 10-36 sec of an expanding universe, claimed to have originated 13.8 billion years ago, while in particle physics the search for predicted particles requires finding and measuring particles with minuscule lifetimes (10-22 sec). In both the above cases, these time scales make measurements very difficult, inconclusive and/or impossible. In particle physics we have "sightings" based on experimental data plucked from signals with excessive noise.

The “roundabout” is clearly demonstrated by the ever on-going task of building new and better equipment to repeat inconclusive experiments (i.e. “gather more information”), with higher energy and/or higher sensitivity, in the hope of eventually proving the fine-tuned theories are correct. Except, in reality, the new equipment still fails to provide the significant results sought because of the - time scales, - even tinier signals, - more excessive noise and - the interpretation of results that always seems to be necessary. This “roundabout” has little to do with advancing physics and may have more to do with maintaining perceived scientific reputations and/or retaining jobs for the rest of a scientific working life!

• Was Richard Feynman correct when he stated “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?

Fortunately this is only partially true! In my lifetime (70 years so far), I have witnessed amazing scientific advances demonstrated by the many technically advanced products we are all using today. Here the conversion of theories into products obviously demanded sound experimental proof. However, when considering theoretical physics, I have not witnessed the expected "unifying" events of physics in my life time. Until I joined ResearchGate about a year ago, I had not fully appreciated the extent of the dominance of mathematicians in theoretical physics. I support mathematicians and their necessary work in physics however believe that we will only move forward in theoretical physics by using a significant degree of physical objectivity to guide the way and place a limit on the mathematical options. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” may well apply to the big bang theory, particle physics and the state of theoretical physics today. 

Yes. The BBT is a massive contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The problem is not that cosmology and physics is flawed, it is in many ways that it too successful.

Quantum field theory was viewed as a stop-gap by its inventors in the 1930's - it just swept its frequent infinities "under the rug" and would surely be replaced by something more mathematically proper. (Oppenheimer, for example, strongly felt that way.) And, yet, here is it 80 years later, and its competitors have mostly died (and physicists have largely learned to live with renormalization theory). Next, the "standard model" (which is a specific QFT with 128 free parameters) seems to many to be too jury-rigged to be a true theory - and yet, no current particle physics data is opposed to the standard model. Meanwhile, General Relativity continues to show no conflicts with experiment, while its competitors have either fallen by the wayside, or (Brans-Dicke) appear less and less compelling. And, the one apparent hole in all of this, dark matter and dark energy, appear to be completely explained by cold (non-interacting) dark matter and a cosmological constant (which is standard General Relativity, as much as the particle physicists like to pretend otherwise. (I have recently heard that TeVeS has also fallen, which may take MOND out of contention too.) Nowhere is there a chink, nowhere (except for the actual nature of the dark matter) is there a _observational_ sign that there is anything left to discover. And yet, physical intuition says otherwise.

Well, we shall see. Note that many particle physics types would say by this point, "what about quantized gravity?* That has infinities you can't renormalize!" That is (mathematically) true, but at present there is actually no _need_ to quantize gravity. Note that QFT are theories of fields in spacetime, while GR is a theory of spacetime as a field. These are different things; maybe spacetime is not quantized, and the high frequency QFT limits popular in the 1930's will come back.

At any rate, we are like people who have discovered an elaborate multi-course banquet all set out for us. We (or many of us) feel sure that there is a kitchen behind the scenes somewhere, and that all these dishes were prepared from simpler set of ingredients, but all of our poking around has yet to find any evidence for it.

* Yes, I am ignoring string theory. I am with Richard Feynman on this - there are no experiments there, rendering it, at least for now, something more like fantasy than physics.

Dear Mohamed,

there are things demonstrated experimentally to a certain extent and other only conjectured.

The impossibility to join Quantum Physics with Gravitation is basically due to the GRT approach.

Yurij Barishev is right when he says that GRT is good in predicting static situations. Gravitation cannot be modeled in a dynamical way with the EFE.

There is a subtle mistake which has been made at the beginning and about principia we can all discuss:

[   d2x/dt2 + tensor( xi, xj )=0  ] represents the basic equation with a test particle which replaced the Newton's law of gravitation. Are we really sure that we could in principle simplify the masses and find such law? I don't argue against the equality of mg and mi.

But are we really sure that we don't have to review something?

for relativistic speed did we actually make a test of mi=mg?

in such case can we still write  mi d2x/dt2 + mg tensor( xi, xj )=0 ? I don't think it can be written in such a way...

George,

I do not think that your critique “that no one seems to understand that Gravity Must Have Limits” is valid. There is no problem to formulate a Zero Energy Universe Scenario, ZEUS, using existing classical and quantum theories, see enclosed paper on RG.

Glenn,

The trick is to understand that the deductive build up of a thermal equilibrium inside an enclosure, from black body radiation to dissipative systems far from equilibrium necessitate a more general framework than the presently consensus opinion, whatever this means in the individual case.

A black hole should not follow the law of conservation of energy stating that the total energy of an isolated system should remain constant.

Oct 26, 2015 from Tom Andrews, Westbury, NY

I'll just answer the first question  -- Is cosmology fundamentally flawed?

Yes to the above question.

You must, however, go "back to Einstein" if you want to understand why cosmology is fundamentally flawed. In 1917, Einstein wrote his first paper on cosmology titled "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity (Ref "The Principle of Relativity", Dover Books, page 177) 

The introduction in the first three pages of his paper considers a static, infinite universe based on the Seeliger equation rather than the Newtonian Poisson equation. Einstein describes this static model approach as merely a foil to his General Relativity solution. However, the Seeliger approach, in my opinion, dwarfs the General Relativity solution. (So, forget his General Relativity solution - It's also wrong.)

First, Einstein indicates in the three pages why a finite universe in a flat universe is not logically possible. Note that all expanding universe models are derived assuming a finite universe. This fact alone is a fundamental flaw in modern cosmology.

Second, and most important, Einstein shows (by determining an equilibrium solution of the Seeliger equation) that the mean potential, phi, and the mean density, rho, of the universe are constant everywhere in an infinite universe. Also, with respect to it's gravitational field, the Seeliger universe has no center. These are quite important results.

But Einstein missed a second solution of the Seeliger equation which would have shown that the potential must decrease between all points of the universe. As a result, this would have theoretically required the occurrence of cosmological redshifts.

This second solution is given by

                              phi = phi_o exp(-r/R_o)

where R_o is the mean radius of the universe, phi is the potential relative to a distant galaxy and r is the distance to a galaxy, given by r = R_o ln(1 + z). The phi equation is derived based on the existence of  gravitational shielding. In fact, gravitational was observed for the first time during a 1997 total eclipse of the sun in China (Ref Q. Wang (2000), Physical Review D, 62, 041101 (R)). The decrease in the gravitational potential over a distance, r, is given approximately by z =  r/R_o which is the redshift factor. This effect is completely analagous to the observed decrease in frequency of a photon rising in the Earth's gravitational field. Thus, the cosmological redshift is a gravitational effect, not a Doppler shift. This derivation completely changes cosmology as it exists today since it definitely shows the universe is static. No longer is there any reason to postulate an expanding universe.

Now, imagine what Einstein could have accomplished, i.e., if he had discovered the second solution to Seeliger's equation, and how this would have changed the future development of cosmology.

If you would like to comment (after reading Einstein's first three pages), my email is [email protected].

Yes Michael.   It is indeed fundamentally flawed.  To discover how and why, please visit my published papers on the Continuum Theory page of my personal website . There you will find (and much more) that it has been demonstrated experimentally, using caesium clock transmissions over ground-wave paths, that the cosmic redshift is a transmission effect, not a velocity.  It is only by treating it as velocity that the need for dark energy has been inferred.

Also please note the following dictum which appears at the foot my every e-mail :- "It is what we think we know that often prevents us from learning" (Claude Bernard) to which I have added "if what you think you know leads you to the absurd, then the choice lies between piling on more absurdity and starting all over again".

I see the big bang, making everything out of nothing, as the greatest of all the absurdities in physics. Have fun and do write - Miles

It should be flawed. Here below I give you another example of problem due to GR (w(A)=w(B) and RA-5000m=RB is not possible following time dilation of GR)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283083046_Relativity_problem_comparison_between_two_altitudes_of_the_rotation_of_earth_since_its_existence_in_billion_years

Conference Paper Relativity problem: comparison between two altitudes of the ...

Modern approach to cosmology has perhaps reached its limits imposed by the limitations of the two physical eyes of the observer of the general relativity theory. Probably the observer needs to utilize his/her third eye in order to probe the deeper mysteries of the universe. This will definitely create some problems with mathematical constructs of Lorentz invariance and Diffeomorhism. But the greater problem will be in getting the third eye to function. Here I refer to some work already done in this area.

Occult Chemistry [A. Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, C. Jinarajadasa, Theosophical Publishing House, 1908] states that the structure of chemical elements can be assessed through clairvoyant observation with the microscopic vision of the third eye Observations were carried out between 1895 and 1933. "The book consists both of coordinated and illustrated descriptions of presumed etheric counterparts of the atoms of the then known chemical elements, and of other expositions of occult physics.

And I also refer to one experience of viewing the cosmos with the help of the third eye.

Autobiography of a yogi, P. Yogananda, 12th ed., 165-168, Los Angeles: Self Realization Fellowship Pub.,1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult_Chemistry

http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Self-Realization-Fellowship-Paramahansa-Yogananda/dp/0876120826

@Thomas «   phi = phi_o exp(-r/R_o) where R_o is the mean radius of the universe, phi is the potential relative to a distant galaxy and r is the distance to a galaxy, given by r = R_o ln(1 + z). »

This solution for the gravitational potential is impossible in the model of the infinite Universe, so Einstein rejected it. However, this model is sure to give a dependency for distances r=R0·ln(1+z), where R0 is the distance between galaxies when 1+z=e=2.71828.This dependency is not related with the theory of relativity or with gravitational redshift.

---

Такое решение для гравитационного потенциала невозможно в модели бесконечной Вселенной, поэтому Эйнштейн отверг его. Однако в этой модели обязательно будет зависимость для расстояний  r=R0·ln(1+z), где R0 – расстояние между галактиками при 1+z=e=2.71828. Эта зависимость не связана с теорией относительности или с гравитационным красным смещением.

Erkki,

Thank you for the reference.  I should have said that no one believes that this is the case.  If they did then the model of the universe would not look the way it does today. 

The fact of the matter is as long as we use an equation that either has gravity as a force that has an influence over an ever increasing distance with time going to infinite or has to have a factor (the cosmological constant) to counter the force that is infinite, then we will never have the true story of the universe and how it has to work.  

Dear Michael,

"Do you believe the modern approach to cosmology is fundamentally flawed?"

Yes I do agree on this.

My view is that we have limited knowledge on Cosmos, thus it is preferable to declare our ignorance than inferring with such a superiority, like modern Cosmology does.

See my modest proposition.

Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Dear All,

Thank you for the responses, I’ll try to keep this question productive as I catch up on previous posts.

It appears that the majority responding to this question do not believe the modern approach to cosmology is correct. However, those who have the closest ties to academic settings believe the approach is correct, albeit something may be missing. This likely has to do with the level of exposure to conventional theory and thus the level of confidence in it. At the same time, many of the issues in LCDM cosmology require extensive time, research and knowledge to understand. Therefore, I would hypothesize that the resulting complexity imposes at least some belief upon big bang supporters.

In terms of support for the theory, I can understand both sides of the argument. LCDM provides close fits to many observations, but at the same time it fails to fit every observations. For example, polarization data from the CMB fits predictions with high precision. However, the value provided by sigma_8 does not match what is observed in optical and x-ray cluster surveys; I believe it was off by 3-5x. Varying sigma_8 would also vary the polarization fit, as some of the CMB/LCDM parameters had not yet been fine-tuned to the later observed values. This creates a major issue for LCDM because some ad hoc mechanism must now be proposed to explain why the CMB versus optical/x-ray cluster counts are off, otherwise the theory would not fit CMB polarization data.

It appears that many of the issues could be related to the volume element and angular scales. These are firmly constrained by other observations in LCDM through several parameters, which originally brought me to this question. If it turns out that the vast majority of observations fit a static metric but we keep fine-tuning a time-dependent metric theory, then there will be serious difficulties in arriving at the correct theory. I suppose this really directs the argument towards the first step in the diagram, i.e. should a big bang (expanding metric) foundation be undisputedly considered and no other possibilities seriously explored? (I believe that this is what Feynman was pointing out; that it would be somewhat naive to think we have thought up every viable possibility in terms of the correct foundations in QFT and cosmology).

Geometry Related Issues:

• Redshift versus Luminosity Distance - Various possibilities
• The Faint Blue Galaxy Problem – Fits static metric in B-band, towards the infrared bands many galaxies could be missed due to redshift distribution and resulting angular size.
• Local Galaxy Counts – Fit static metric in all bands
• Size of Distant Objects – Vast majority follow the predictions of a static metric
• Planck Sigma_8 Problem – Could be due to biased selection criteria of clusters in optical/x-ray surveys via incorrect gravitational lensing and angular scales.
• Horizon Problem - Various possibilities

Universe Homogeneity Issues:

• Directional Dependence of Cosmological Constants – Non-homogenous universe
• Hemispherical Power Asymmetry – Non-homogenous universe
• The Dark Flow – Non-homogenous universe
• CMB Cold Spots – Non-homogenous universe

Some times the simple solution is better.

The quest of modern physics has been to develop a model which correctly describes the role and dynamics of the interactions by which Nature works at all scales. In order for the model which describes these interactions to be robust, it must not only accommodate phenomena which are known to occur, but must also accommodate all rigorously documented phenomena, predict phenomena which are as-yet undiscovered, and allow for the inclusion of all rigorously observed, impeccably documented, accurately reported data derived from all sources. To be adequate, any universally applicable physical model must also accommodate the contemporaneous interaction between Descartes' 'physical stuff' and 'spirit stuff' with equal cogency and grace. The standard physical model fails to rise to this standard. The physical model in general use today is based on a number of fundamentally flawed, incomplete and arbitrarily imposed assumptions. In the 35 years since the Standard Model was improved by the Copenhagen School, the reductionist methodology which typifies scientific research has run up hard against the most daunting of all Nature's mysteries. Experimental results provided by the most powerful microscopes, largest telescopes, fastest linear accelerators and other advanced devices, demonstrate that there is an underlying order in the cosmos which has not yet been understood or articulated but which has been specifically prohibited by the standard model. The shortcomings of the Standard Model are ameliorated by the application of the rules of Self-Organizing Criticality in complex, open systems [SOC][[i]] as characterized by the Fibonacci Series of numbers when integrated with the dynamics described as Y-Bias and Angularity. 

Every useful model is based on a set of assumptions. To the extent that the underlying assumptions have been properly validated, the conclusions extrapolated from them can be relied on to accurately describe any set of related properties, functions, or behaviors observed thereafter by others. Moreover, valid assumptions make it possible to predict interactions and outcomes not previously unobserved or reported. The list of assumptions which have not been validated, reported, or repeated experimentally, but which are nevertheless accepted as primary underpinnings for the standard physical model, is long and growing longer. Among the most egregious of these presumptions we find the following:

 ·       The Invariance of the Alpha Constant

·       The Speed of Light as the upper limit to transport velocities

·       The Planck Constant as the primary limit of time and spatial dimensions

·       Four Primary Field Effects regarded as mutually exclusive, a priori, and     dispositive

·       The Big Bang Cosmological Model of the Universe

·       Black Holes

·       Dark Energy & Dark Matter

 A proximate result of Science’s compulsory reliance on these and other equally flawed notions is that an equally long list of fundamental physical attributes observed in the natural world remains completely unexplained. Chief among these are the primary nature of such things as

·       Matter

·       Mass

·       Energy

·       Magnetism

·       Gravitational Field Effects

·       Superluminal velocities

·       Simultaneity, defined as non-local effects at a distance

 Since Hubble observed the red shift in photons originating from far distant astronomical bodies, the standard physical model has come to rely exclusively on the validity of the theory of cosmological origins [referred to as the Big Bang Theory] as the basis for all subordinate considerations. The Big Bang model holds, among other things, that everything in the observable universe was created at some far distant moment in the past as the result of a single inexplicable instantaneous singularity. Defenders of the model insist, and the standard model proclaims, that four primary field effects pre-dated the Big Bang event and caused the eventual outcome to dynamically evolve over some indefinite period of time to become the observable Cosmos. Indeed, it is a dictum of the Big Bang model that the four primary a priori field effects which controlled its evolution are the only naturally occurring field effects that operate universally in the cosmos. An explanation of how and why this is so is assiduously avoided by proponents of the model.

Accordingly, what Science has failed to recognize is that in point of fact, the Big Bang model is not a fact at all. It is an idea. It is an idea which cannot be reasonably defended by any rational extension of scientific logic or evidence. Therefore, the assumptions which have been invented by the model’s proponents to defend it violate the most fundamental precepts of Science and the scientific method. Consequently, Science now finds itself unable to come to grips with a whole new world of discoveries which hold the keys to understanding how Nature works at all scales. As a result, the list of experimentally verified, impeccably reported, and repeatedly demonstrated phenomena not accommodated by the standard physical model is also getting longer with each passing day.

A New Model of Physical Interactions

In the alternative, the Y-Bias model of fine scale physical interactions provides a simple, elegant model of scalar interactions which accommodates heretofore not accommodated phenomena, predicts new interactions and  remediates other cosmological deficiencies in the standard physical model by describing how the fundamental processes of Y-Bias Interactions [[iii]] originating in the Physical Vacuum operate with optimal concomitant Angularity in their interactions to operationalize the autopoietic processes found in Self-Organizing Criticality [SOC] [as described by Bak etal [[iv]]] to produce the space-time continuum [described by Minkowski as 4-space [L4]], defined in terms of time, matter, energy and Local-Linear/Non-Local, Non-Linear [L2/N2L2] field effects.

The Y-Bias model of scalar interactions posits a regularized set of dynamic processes which operate from the timeless, infinite, holographic expanse of the physical vacuum to the infinite vastness of the universe as a perpetual cycle of self-organization and catastrophic annihilation at all scales. The Y-Bias model proposes that everything in the cosmos is comprised of information. When the rigors defined by self-organizing criticality are imposed on what we think we know about information, a completely dynamic process can be constructed which operates with absolute regularity from top to bottom, from the inside out.

The Y-Bias model operates within the construct of ten (10) quantized scales of complexity. These are defined as:

1.     Physical Vacuum

2.     Virtual Ensembles

3.     q-bits [sub-quarks]

4.     Quarks

5.     Hadrons & Leptons

6.     Atoms

7.     Molecules

8.     Local Complex Open Systems

9.     Solar Systems

10.  Galactic Systems

 At each scale the laws of self-organizing criticality operate with invariant regularity. The set of rules which apply to the organization and dynamic interactions in complex, open systems to create and disaggregate time, mass, matter, local and non-local field effects, light and energy. The primary factors are defined as:

1.     Punctuated Equilibrium

2.     Fractal Geometries

3.     1/ƒ Noise Thresholds

4.     Logarithmic Power Laws

5.     Fibonacci Series of Numbers

Dear all,

              In a humble effort, it has been recently shown that our understanding of gravitation in terms of GR is grossly incomplete despite its success on certain aspects. We have perhaps misunderstood the true nature of a geometric theory of gravitation because of the way the theory evolved historically. A correct approach to the GR solves all these problems and many others [ IJGMMP, 2015, 12,1550116 (arXiv:1508.03331); Pramana J. Phys. 2015, DOI: 10.1007/s12043-015-0946-3 (arXiv:1409.3758); Phys.Scripta 2013, 5, 055901 (arXiv:1306.1809), Astrophys.Space Sci. 2012, 340, 373 (arXiv:1204.1553)].

There are a lot of strong statements made about the fundamental flaws of modern physics, not only as regards cosmology, but seemingly also on other areas of physics.

As a professional chemical physicist and an avid consumer of classical statistical mechanics, quantum theory and relativity theory and their combinations, I am far from ready to throw out everything we know today, from deductive reasonings and rational theory based on experiments and observations, just because the number of fundamental problems today increase as we encounter more and more experimental data produced by more and more sophisticated instruments, which themselves are the results of evolving physical theories.

To launch a statement like: The physical model in general use today is based on a number of fundamentally flawed, incomplete and arbitrarily imposed assumptions, indicates at best a misunderstanding of physics as an enterprise of communication and the formulation of the natural laws by a succinct language that we call mathematics; and in particular do ignore the importance of the deductive element of the scientific discourse.

Alternatively some nonconformist ideas are expressed in terms of new locality paradigms, whatever this means. By painting an incoherent portrait of physics in terms of non-digested questions that reveal blatant misunderstandings of physics as a whole and proposing axiomatic principles based on fundamentally flawed thinking in particular, one tries to advance a misleading picture that physics is more or less bankrupt.

Make no mistake: I do indeed think that there does exist fundamental issues in physics in general and cosmology in particular, but the term “fundamental flaw” is not the expression to utilize – the fundamentally flawed thinking is revealed as some self-educated “scientists” are ready to throw any constraint over board to save a particular paradoxical result in a particular situation without any concern for the larger picture of deductive science.

Note that I am not saying that a self-educated person by default is wrong, but the complexity of science today makes the probability for “hitting a homerun” vastly harder today than yesterday.

I tend to agree with most of Erkki J. Brändas' remarks, and would like to add a few on methodology of physics. The question ``Is the modern approach to cosmology fundamentally flawed?'' suggests that theories can be `fundamentally flawed'. This question stems from the idea that theories are either true or false, and should be falsifiable in Popper's sense. This, however, is not like physicists are actually dealing with theories. For instance, classical mechanics is thoroughly falsified, but it is still widely used for describing things happening in the macroscopic domain. Physicists, in particular experimentalists, have a pragmatic attitude, not dealing with truth or falsity of theories, but with their applicability to a certain physical domain. Alleged flaws of theories usually point into the direction that a theory is being used outside its domain of applicability. The question stems from the idea that we are close to the `theory of everything', being universally valid on the whole domain of physics. The points mentioned by Michael Peck are evidence that this `theory of everything' is far out of sight.

I agree with Erkki and Willem,

Like we say in french, you shouldn't throw away the baby with the bath's water. Nevertheless as I posted before, Einstein and others did a big mistake, which has a lot of implications on the whole physics theories and experiments of today BUT NOT ON THE METHODS ! I think our discussion depends on our definitions of science: a whole of knowledge OR a community of scientists.

By the way what is wrong with my last post? Could someone tell me please?

Erkki,

Math is one of the problems.  It explains exactly what we tell it to as we are the creators of the rules.  The universe does not have to play by the rules we make up.

"No one" should throw out a theory that approximates reality with such accuracy.  This how ever does not mean that that people should not look for the truth.  The comment that "just because the number of fundamental problems today increase as we encounter more and more experimental data produced by more and more sophisticated instruments" as you just said is exactly why we should be questioning the line of thinking.   As we make the math more and more complex we set ourselves up for problems.  Nature is not math.

If the line of thinking were not flawed one would expect that going forward would produce less and less problems as the picture of the universe and physics in general became more clear.  This is not however the case.

The big bang still can not explain nor has it ever explained how if all the mass and energy were in one place at one time how it could have been endowed with so much "more energy" that it could explode out.  This would mean that the laws of thermodynamics, motion, relativity, gravity, and conservation of energy would have to be violated to make this happen.  If one wants to violate these laws at the beginning of "time" then they do not have to hold true at other times making the whole of Physics a lie.  This is not however the case if the big bang is not true.

One of my first clues that the big bang was totally wrong other than that gravity must have limits was in the understanding of the field equations of general relativity where Albert Einstein added a cosmological constant?  He looked into the sky and saw that for thousands of years we see the sky exactly as it is today.  This in and of itself is not a problem as something a trillion trillion miles away could move a lot and we could not tell it but in that if the universe were moving away from us as it is said to be expanding as an expanding rate that over time galaxies would disappear and stars would disappear.  The Universe would also not look the way it does if there were some event that started it all moving away from the center. 

In general there would be a void in the center.  We do not see this void because it does not exist.  Ask your professor of engineering what would the universe look like if there had been a big explosion at the center where the masses would have to be located?  This does not even address the horizon issue.

As a boy of 13 or 14 I knew that the big bang was a bad theory.  Also think about Who explained the big bang..  George Lemaite was a pHD in Physics and a Jesuit priest.  His motivation for the big bang even at the time was transparent.  He wanted to prove that the math and science of the time could prove his religion to be true that there was a beginning of time and that was the creation event. 

He was able to manipulate the field equations of general relativity to prove his point.  You can also manipulate the field equations of General Relativity to show that the Universe must be a cylinder rotating around an axes that goes off in two directions only with out end which is not true either.  The equations of general relativity can be made to make the universe look like lots of things that it is not.  Just because the equations work to give us a mush more accurate prediction of the perihelion of Mercury does not mean that it can accurately predict the beginning of time if there ever was one.  This also points out that there does not in any physics that I understand have to be a beginning.  A beginning is a human imposing a belief on science.  This is again not science.     

My point is that we as scientists must question the old theories and try to prove them wrong to prove them right, "if they are".  The problem comes when we do not let the really bad theories go when it is apparent they are incorrect.  How bad does a theory have to get before we say it is wrong?  What are we afraid of???   If there is a better theory of the universe that does not have a big bang it does not mean that there is not a god it just means that we missed the clues that we were suppose to get and that the old theory was wrong.

I would have to see more than just an equation or some math to think that I was wrong on this issue.  It does not mean that I am not wrong but that I believe that the bulk of our science points to the thought that the big bang is a bad theory and is leading us to some very bizarre conclusions.

This has lead me back to think of what if there was a beginning it would have to look like.

There are some logical steps to start a theory and I will show them here.

1)   There is mass that exists today therefor something like that had to exist in the past and will exist in the future. This is not such a hard concept to except as there is mass all around us. Only if we think that there is no mass overall in the universe which is not a logical conclusion from the evidence that exists today would be believe this to not be a starting point.  Remember there is a logical theme to this work not supposition.  

2)  Most of the physical understanding of motion and gravity should have existed regardless of the time foreword or backward.  This means gravity still worked at earlier times.  

With even just one simple assumption you can start a new model of the universe that can lead us to where we are today without a big bang or some bizarre ending point like us flying off into space to burn out.  

3)  Start with the smallest of particles randomly spread out in space.

The first thing that you will notice is that from this or any other starting point other than a singularity at the beginning you get a natural progression that is unmistakably similar to what the universe looks like today.

We have to give up the old and start fresh to even see it.  The great thing is that this also leads us to a better understanding of how there is a higher order in the universe just given the simplest of the physical laws.

If we start with the random matter at some point there are two particles closer together than all the others these two will fall together.  From a logical stand point these particles with respect to the rest of the universe of we do not impose any other rotation or general movement in the distribution would be rotating.  The statistical chance that two random bits of matter that were none perfect in shape, charge, and, rotation would fall together so perfectly that they were not rotating is one change in an infinite number of possibilities.  This means they are rotating.  If you think this is wrong look into the sky and show me how many things have no rotation at all.  So they are rotating.  This is the same sky that Albert Einstein saw.

From this point the mass is now larger than any other part out there and has a stronger force of attraction on other parts of matter.  It starts to form a sphere that has a rotation.  It will grow and if the universe is infinite in space then this will happen all over the universe to start.  In other words the starting point is everywhere and will form at random places.  Some of these starting points will be close to other ones and will also fall into the other masses giving some starting points a wobble.  All of them will have an increase in angular rotation over time as things fall in faster and faster.

From this point the rotation increases as more matter is drawn in.  At some point the thing that you see is that this mass has an axes of symmetry, rotation, a bulge at the equator, and poles.  If the correct types of charged matter fall in to the ball it will develop a field and flux lines around the poles from the rotation.   This is an example of a simple motor. 

So, what I have just now shown is that from total chaos and disorder comes total ordered systems given the science we have and know today.  What ever you want to call this order is up to you.  but the fact of the matter is that it exists.

One does not have to believe in magic to believe in a higher order in the universe.  However if we call ourselves scientists and learned we must strive to understand not just except.   

To Alexander Chepick - in response to his comments on "Is cosmology fundamentally flawed" --

Alexander, you are wrong to suggest that Einstein rejected his solution of the  Seeliger equation for the infinite universe. As far as he went, Einstein said that the Seeliger solution to a static infinite universe was very satisfactory. He planned, as a result, to carry over his result to General Relativity what he learned from the Seeliger solution. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to apply it to an infinite universe. What happened next is unfortunate. He hit upon the idea of a closed finite universe in General Relativity. This eliminated the the problem of an infinite universe but opened up other serious problems. As you know, Einstein's closed finite universe could not exist since it was unstable to pertubations and consequently was a failure. 

However, as I said, Einstein missed the second solution of the Seeliger equation -     Phi = Phi_o exp(-r/R_o) - which introduced the concept of the cosmological redshift. This equation really describes the effect of the physical process of gravitational shielding in the universe and requires that gravitational shielding replaces the Doppler shift process. At the same time, Seeliger's equation requires it as a theoretical result. So, therefore, it is very nice that there actually is the physical effect, gravitational shielding, to back up Seeliger's equation.

Before you reply, please read very carefully Einstein's words on Seeliger's equation (in the first three pages of the reference I supplied) and you will understand what I am saying. Also, note that Einstein's comments on the problems of an infinite static universe and Seeliger's equation have generally been ignored by cosmological theoreticians. Thus, no model of a static infinite universe has been developed in the last hundred years or so. This is another reason why cosmology is fundamentally flawed.

Tom Andrews

Dear Michael,

The ‘modern’ approach to cosmology will remain fundamentally flawed as long as any new idea will be rejected by the establishment. I consider myself a winner including valid past discoveries.

The main significant hindrance in the science of physics and cosmology is the objection by key-keepers to any publications which do not come from academic institutions. Even the attempt to publish from the astronomical department at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) has to overcome the intra-academic barriers before being allowed to submit her manuscript to scientific journals. This re-enforces the dominance of past and frequently non-productive science. My own submissions, which did not come from an academic institution, were returned without critical review. I submitted several times a manuscript solving ‘When and Why did Mars change from Water to Ice?’ (Answer: about 3.6 billion years ago). Twelve years later, this question is still not answered by the cosmological establishment. For me, publishing in Research Gate came to the rescue, e.g. the papers on Mars, the Big-Bang, Expansion of the Universe, and other manuscripts.

P.S, I recall that you set out the same question many years ago. At that time, my answer caused serious questions about my understanding / knowledge of the state of cosmology. Since then, I have published many manuscripts at Research Gate using my discoveries during the modeling of the mechanisms of the Big Bang as a crystallization process. The key of the discovery was that gravity is anti-energy. This allowed modeling of many processes in the Universe without being trapped in the belief that ‘gravity is bending of space by masses. The latter has dominated the publications in cosmology. I am in full agreement in my work with the Relativity-concept and its key in physics and cosmology.

I wouldn’t say throw everything out, as there are accepted facts in science. No one is really questioning if relative motion will induce a Doppler Effect or if redshift can occur in gravitational potentials. The proper Lorentz transformation has been settled for some time now. So there is a ground to stand on; however, there are some major assumptions being made that are not on solid ground.

The three founding aspects that I’m seeing are:

The main argument against the 3rd appears to be the cosmic background radiation and age of objects. Yet, LCDM is unable to fit the CMB through many fine-tuned parameters. It is highly unlikely that we have exhausted all possibilities for the source of the CMB as with many of these other aspects. I also do not like the shell-game that is played in QFT and think a more natural solution exists (even if we are somewhat on the right track). Ingo is correct however about the difficulty in publishing alternative ideas. At the same time I have personally gone through many alternative proposals and the vast majority (not all) fail to hold merit.

'The Pearlman Spiral'  cosmological redshift hypothesis cosmology model indicates a static universe and should reconcile many of the issues caused by following hypotheses that hold the cosmological redshift is due to continued expansion post the inflation epoch, rather than the pearlman spiral understanding.

This in my view was Einstein's  biggest blunder, thinking his position of a static universe was a blunder. 

I apologize for posting again.

But I think you should pay a particular attention to this file and try to understand the meaning of it.

It is a new insight of what can be deduced from GR and if it were right, GR and maybe SRT couldn't be accepted anymore (meaning also today's cosmology).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283083046_Relativity_problem_comparison_between_two_altitudes_of_the_rotation_of_earth_since_its_existence_in_billion_years

Else I would be thankful if someone could explain me this paradox.

Conference Paper Relativity problem: comparison between two altitudes of the ...

George,

Thanks for your detailed comments and honest suggestions! Nevertheless I have some unambiguous comments to make regarding math and the black hole singularity, BBS.

I have discussed in earlier threads whether mathematics is a human contrivance or being innate to nature. My argument relates to the paradigm of evolution. For instance a language (like mathematics) is an immaterial part of an evolving universe and hence innate to nature. The question then is a misnomer, since humans are parts of both material and immaterial evolution. Communication drives evolution as a teleonomic process, i.e. a process governed by an evolved program, cf. the genetic code.

In a rather trivial way a Big Bang singularity is naturally built into general relativity, simply from the axioms of relativity and the adherence to the conjugate relationship between space-time and momentum-energy. Throwing the BBS on the pile of used commodities is really to get rid of the baby with the bathwater.

Physics is a complex endeavour and changes, additions, removals etc. come with a price, which may be surprising and hidden in situations that is not obvious to us.

For instance Manuel Morales super determinism is built on two mutually exclusive acts of selection, i.e. the direct and the indirect selection. The problem is that they are not mutually exclusive in modern QM.

I agree with Erkki (even if he continues to ignore my problems),

The redshift of stars and the CMBR measures (which are Newtonian physics too) are good proofs to hypothetize a BBS.

The systematic violation of Bell's inequalities tends to demonstrate a non deterministic universe.

I will add that QM as searched at CERN seems to be a good way in finding theories, except that we have to reject String theories.

Dear Michael Peck,

Thank you for your three fundamental questions. 

1-‘Modern’ cosmology is fundamentally flawed, as developed below.

2- Fundamentally wrong theories end-up to be very costly, as indicated in conclusion.

3- Feynman was right, and might have loved noumen mechanics (NM), see below.

Indeed, I fully agree with Alan Dennis Clark, the problems are much deeper; their common solution might be published shortly by Gerard ‘t Hooft journal ‘Foundations of Physics’ in the paper “Complex Spacetime and the Standard Model.”  The article is a follow-up to two articles published in 1970 (Rocher E. Y., “Éléments d’une théorie unitaire d’univers complexe”, IBM Research Report RA 10, 39 p.) and in 1972 (“Noumenon: elementary entity of a new mechanics” JMP 13-12). 

For the last 40 years journals, and thus funding organizations, have rejected systematically (more than 40 attempts) the idea that we live in a complex spacetime.  This time, after five months (decision two-month overdue) the paper has not yet been rejected.  Therefore it seems that the idea that special relativity was not fundamental enough might be catching up.  The FoP paper compares the Euclidian (based on observation) and Cartesian (based on pure reason) approach to physics.  Then it concludes that the Cartesian approach leads to the notion of a complex spacetime.  If the proposed direct tests of the isotropy of complex spacetime are positive, NM, the mechanics of points in a complex spacetime (noumen) will provide the source of quantum mechanics; it will provide the tools to calculate the dimensionless constants of physics; also it will have a deep impact on cosmology; at the other scale it will explain the recent failure of the NIF.

Dear Edouard,

Following Minkowski, Noumen mechanics keeps a curved space-time. This conception is impossible if you follow what I try to make you understand.

Dear Roger,

I am sorry that you are so much trapped by the present, ‘classical’ cosmology. The past century added tremendously to all sciences. Willingly or not, your note indicates the ‘fossilization’ of the past. Fortunately for me, enough was left over which gave me the opportunity to make my own novel contributions. As far as the expansion of the Universe is concerned,   Einstein was convinced by Hubble’s observations and interpretations. The interpretation forced him and many others to accept the expansion of the Universe. He was limited by the lack of a mechanism by which the expansion would happen. I am providing novel insights.  As a chemist, who is fascinated by changes and kinetics of reactions, I quickly derived the universal reaction and kinetic. The connected loss of mass was kinetically modeled using the well-known first-order radioactive decay. Applied to the solar and general planetary systems led to amazing understanding from the origin of the solar system to its final state. The rest of the World insists that the solar system is static and did not change since its formation. Wrong.  Next, the model was applied to the Universe and the sum of all radiative mass-losses of different kinetics led to the correct prediction of the Hubble-Einstein expansion of the Universe. It also led to a generic prediction of the observed  Hubble-constants, their relation to the universal mass-loss rate, and that the Hubble values could not be a constant, but that it depends on the relative distance of the observed galaxy and of the observational place of Earth relative to the center of the Universe. It allows determining the center of the Universe. This is only one area where the present classical cosmology has been impotent. My cosmology results are listed under my profile in Research Gate and Linked-In.

With best regards, your comrade in science, Ingo

Dear Manuel,

I have given the proof in two other threads and I do not want to "hijack" the present discussion with it again.

Ni Ge,

I am not sure I understand your problems.

Dear Erkki

If you compare the sky seen by two observers (one at A the other at B) separated from 5000m altitudes. The bottom observer live in a 4.5 billion years earth and the upper in a 4.5 billion years +22h because of time dilation due to gravitation (here everything is approximated).

Because the earth rotates (at same rate for both altitudes), if you follow an interpretation of GR, the moved sky should be shifted by 22h (at least 6h if you consider also "wrong" SRT corrections).

This paradox can be solved if you consider a perpendicular length contraction (not given by Lorentz transformations), but the problem arise about the radius of such an hypothetical perimeter (like the trajectory of moon for example).

It is a little like Ehrenfest paradox, but here the two observers are moving too and the time dilation should affect the radius not the perimeter (so it is not the same paradox).

Another solution, could be different speed of earth rotations (actually not proved), but space-time would remain flat.

I hope it is more clear. I think it is a real new issue of GR.

@Ni Ge. Your globally inspired understanding does not make sense to me since what matters here is the difference in gravitational interaction between the observers A and B. This is also why the GPS works in the local formulation, while your global interpretation does not succeed.

The difference in gravitational interaction is that A is supposed to be delayed of 22h relative to B since earth existence. Do you agree?

Try to imagine what a GPS satellite delay will be in 4.5 billion years (only gravitational).

If they are delayed: what will be the speed (period of earth rotation) of the satellite for both observers (satellite and A) and B if possible?

If the speeds are the same (should be): what will be the distance gone (speed x time) for A, the satellite (and B if you can)?

If the distance are not the same: how can the satellite be an amount of time further ahead than observation on earth of this satellite?

What is the consequence in terms of day/night?

P.S. I am talking about a geostationary GPS satellite.

We should be cautious not to claim redshift or CMBR measurements are proof of a big bang and I will demonstrate why.

The truth of the matter is that LCDM still does not fit observations. So what we have is a highly tunable theory, based upon several ad hoc hypotheses that lack direct confirmation, which further fails to match observations. Furthermore, an event horizon or singularity has never been directly observed. We have never directly observed gravitational waves, even though chances are that we should have by now. The conflict between QFT and gravity is also quite severe; how can we expect to properly describe the universe at the largest of scales if we can’t even explain them at the smallest of scales? Should we just assume that our simplistic macroscopic formulation is correct and base the entire field of cosmology on it?

I can think of only one alternative that would produce the correct observations, and it requires a non-homogenous universe with gravitational potential. At the center of this gravitational potential would be the source of the CMBR (black body, big bang, whatever). This of course is a highly testable theory that would produce many of the same observations as a big bang foundation. However, the two theories are distinct and thus differentiable with observations. If I can publish a self-consistent alternative theory by myself and without any funding (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AstRv...9c...4P), then it is highly likely that we have only scratched the surface in terms of viable or proper cosmological foundations.

Is there a difference between LCDM (CDM for short)  and the standard cosmology model i normally abbreviate SCM? does anyone else use SCM?  edit - it appears LCDM is a version of the standard model.

Here is an article w/ some issues re (L)CDM 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4684

here is the wiki link on LCDM

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/WIKIPEDIA/Lambda-CDM_model.html

The Pearlman Spiral would at the least provide an alternate cosmological hypothesis to Hubble's 'Law' 

Which would make it not a law,

not a proven theory,

but a disputed hypothesis,

the pearlman spiral has a much greater probability of being the actuality, and would thus be the better science. (the highest probable explanation of our natural observations, taken in maximum available context.)

Ni Ge, I do not see the problem. The clocks at A and B, let us say they are satellites at different altitudes, can always be synchronised with the clocks showing a difference of 22hrs, if they had been up 4.5 billion years. Now add a third satellite C, using ABC as a GPS set up – absolutely no problem and we do not even need to refer to geostationary satellites.

I do not see how your delay scenario in any way would have any consequences for experiments like the Hafele-Keeting regular flight tests.

Hi Manuel,

if i understand you,

in the case of cosmological redshift,

let us say there are 3 potential causes:

1- an expanding universe

2 - The Pearlman Spiral hypothesis 

3 - any other possible explanations.

one problem i see is many who know of one possible explanation may not even know there is one or more other possible causes for the observed outcome..

Manuel,

Your answer reveals that you did not understand my reasoning and disproof.

Furthermore there is no reluctance to change, but as Poincaré said so well: It is not enough for a theory not to affirm false relations; it must not conceal true relations.

Dear Erkki,

It is not a matter of synchronization, but a matter of time flow. You cannot synchronize a distance traveled.

Or you don't understand, or you didn't read my last post where i can't be more clear.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

(In another way, I am stating that period of earth rotation has no relativistic corrections due to gravitation (it should have), it is the same everywhere)

I am sorry, i will try not to disturb you anymore.

Your questions are in line with Lee Smolin works.

The answers to these questions would be in a physical model which firstly results in the whole theory of general relativity, secondly results in the fundamental laws of quantum physics (the latter can not be reduced to a single theory that is not purely mathematical), and finally explains the mysteries of modern physics (dark matter, etc.) while being physical and not mathematical in nature.

Such a physical model is already well developed, but not yet freely available.

Much of what is said in this thread, relating to the sorrow present state of Theoretical Physics, is true, but Cosmology presents some specific issues.

The first one is philosophical. Cosmology (as commonly understood) aims to give a full, comprehensive SCIENTIFIC theory of the whole universe. Actually this goal has been shared by almost all philosophies, the - proclaimed - big difference is that Cosmology claims to be scientific. To be scientific a theory must be based on concepts, related to measures, from which one can deduce laws which can be checked by doing reproducible experiments. And we see immediately that this is not possible in Cosmology : one can at best produce models which fit with measures, but one cannot experiment with another universe. So the issue of "fine-tuning" cannot be avoided : cosmology can provide a representation of the universe which fits with the data, which tells us "what it is", it will never be able to tell us "why is it so". One can try to go further and further, enlarging the scope of the study, to a "theory of everything" (as in the standard model), but the further one goes, the most pressing this issue arises, and of course it comes sooner in cosmology.

The second issue is related to a theory of gravitation. So far the usual models rely on a theory one century old, a single equation, and a mathematical formalism which ignores all the mathematical progresses achieved since 1920.I do not agree with a common belief that we have too much mathematics in Physics : most breakthroughs in Physics have come with a step forward in Mathematics (Newton's Mechanics with integral calculus, Electrodynamics with differential equations,...). The problem is that for a majority of physicists it is more rewarding to fiddle with old models than to try to incorporate new mathematics, even if it would be easier and more illuminating. And for some others it is fancy to launch a new theory based on some magical mathematics, without much regard to its physical meaning. It is a pity to see very complicated computations dealing with metrics, when nowadays we have the fiber bundles and connections theories. And, by the way, the true innovation of the Standard Model is just the introduction of gauge theories, that is connections. So, if we strive to accomodate QTF and GR, it would be wise to look this way.

There are certainly many things that can be said from observations of far aways galaxies, but it would be worth to get a better understanding of gravitation at a smaller scale, say at our scale. This is one of the two most common forces, by far less powerfull than electromagnetism, that we use so well, and we are not able to do much with it (we use only its effects, we do not generate them). It is critical, and mostly for the potential technological applications, to be able to get a good understanding of gravitation and inertia. So far we take it as a "God given" force. Science should aim for more. And of course all cosmological models will be flawed as long as they will rely on such a poor knowledge.

hi Jean Claude,

by QTF do you mean quadratic transfer function?

edit -  OK TY Jean Claude for answering my Q below,

I also see that as 'QFT' best, r

I used only, what I assumed to be a common acronysm, Quantum Theory of Fields...

 to: @jean

I liked your reasonings:"The problem is that for a majority of physicists it is more rewarding to fiddle with old models than to try to incorporate new mathematics, even if it would be easier and more illuminating. And for some others it is fancy to launch a new theory based on some magical mathematics, without much regard to its physical meaning. It is a pity to see very complicated computations dealing with metrics, when nowadays we have the fiber bundles and connections theories. And, by the way, the true innovation of the Standard Model is just the introduction of gauge theories, that is connections. So, if we strive to accomodate QTF and GR, it would be wise to look this way."

At the same time, it is interesting to observe that  many strange and crazy suggestions in astrophysics about the behavior of stars and planets, like dark matter and    hidden dark energy, Hubble space-time accelaration etc,  not supported by really  true and well devised mathematically  theories,   entailed similar  crazy claims in the modern quantum field theory and gravity, thereby making water from the theoretical physicists minds, as it was recently demonstrated by Li Smolin in his book...

Dear Ni Ge,

I admit that I did not understand your “paradox”. Since I am quite stubborn, here is another try. I will formulate the background portrait so that you can insert your problem in a way that I can understand.

Let us start with the model of a black hole universe (with mass M) modelled by the Schwarzschild metric (leaving out the angular part), see my RG page for more details:

–c2ds2 = –c2dt2(1-2𝜅(r)) + dr2 (1-2𝜅(r))-1 ; 𝜅(r) = GM/c2r  in obvious notation.

Using the correspondence rule for quantum representations one obtains trivially, i.e. iℏ∂/∂t = E(t) = iℏ∂/∂s ∂s/∂t = E(s) (1-2𝜅(r))½ and ∂s/∂t  = (1-2𝜅(r))½ and s = – iℏ∂/∂E(s).

Now E(s)= msc2 defines an intermediate mass that fulfils ms = m0 (1-𝛽2)-½ in obvious notation. The correspondence rule thus displays the relation between GR and STR and also explains the factor 2 when comparing STR and GR in situations like the perihelion movement of the planet Mercury and light bending in a gravitational field.

Finally if you can insert your “paradox” in this simplified picture maybe we can find something constructive.

Best

erkki

PS

For some reason RG does not work with formulas as it used to do! Please correct the erroneous technicalities associate with fonts etc.

DS

Dear Erkki,

My problem is not dealing with the gravitational Force.

You must put yourself into the center of the black hole and see how the light is coming to you from the sky (should be curved by the angular momentum). But this curving is not seen on earth (skies remain the same at all altitudes).

I will try to explain you another way.

1. The period of rotation of earth is a constant (stellar day):

86164s + 093ms + 903ns + 691ps

2. But, the delay of time dilation is given:

1s per 1'800'000'000'000s between 5000m and 0m

3. So we should state defferent periods of rotation following GR:

86164s + 093ms + 903ns + 691ps AT 0m

86164s + 093ms + 903ns + 691ps (+47ps) AT 5000m

4. The speed of rotation should be the same (principle of relativity)

Then after 4.5 billion years (of rotation) the difference is 22h of distance rotated.

Dear Ni Ge,

In the framework that I have portrayed it should be easy to resolve your paradox.

Let us first assume that at the time point t the energy is E = E(t), independent of gravitation. In a given gravitational field the energy at space-time point s is given by E(s) = E (1-2𝜅(r))-½.  For a weak gravitational field s is essentially the Minkowski eigentime, i.e. –c2ds2 = –c2dt2 + dr2, hence the principle of relativity can be applied with E≈ E(s).

Now in order to determine the time delay one need to take into account that E(sA)≠ E(sB) since the space-time point sA≠ sB.

As you can see the paradox is just due to inconsistent approximations concerning the domain for the principle of relativity and the domain for determining the time delay.

I hope this clears out the conundrum.

@Erkki J. Brändas

A good way to get a solution!

sA≠sB

Following this, if you go from sA to sB on earth you should see a lot of sky rotations.

No you do not see it since your conclusion is not correct.

Ok, then I have tried.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Paradox/The_Paradox_of_the_Clocks_in_the_Canaries.html

Congratulations to this circumspect big question, Michael Peck!

TodayI sent a text to James Blodgett which gibes with your description. I hope it is not too pessimistic:

Neophoby is back in Science

The love for the new (neophily) is what distinguishes science from dogmatism.

This tradition is gone to date. Deep breakthroughs are abhorred.

A recent example is cryodynamics, the new sister discipline to thermodynamics. It predictably enables interactively controllable hot plasma fusion, thereby promising to solve humankind's energy problem.

A second recent example is c-global, the return to the less than 28 years old Einstein. It likewise rules out cosmic expansion but drastically alters the safety equation of humankind's currently running black hole factory.

Even though these results are published for up to 7 years in the literature, no scientist quotes them or supports the logically required safety conference for the currently running LHC experiment.

During the lifetime of Einstein, such behavior would have been unthinkable. To date, we have ten times more scientists and a million times less good ones. Only strong individuals can create new schools of thought. Traditionalism is deadly. For example, the theoretical physics curriculum in the German-speaking countries no longer includes general relativity.

The wonderful new option to unite computer modelling with Einstein's thought exper8iment of the constantly accelerating rocketship with its internal light rays is beyond the range of interest of modern computer science.

just like the brain equation is for 41 years. The "juicy" is no longer believed to be allowed. Although only big progress is big fun. Beauty is what distinguishes the new.

For J.O.R.

Dear Otto, 

What in reality 

Juiciness is reality: "The Gift."

Hi Manuel,

sometimes without assumptions we are very limited in what we can investigate.

so the keys are:

are the assumptions being used clearly disclosed:

are the assumptions the most reasonable?  

based on which hypothesis, theory or law of science?

are the alternatives by those who dispute the hypothesis and or theory listed?

is a possibility there could be other alternatives the researcher is not aware of yet noted?

Ni Ge,

If you do refer to energy and momentum at appropriate space time points “s” and distinguish this from the individual “t” and “r”, you will get what the physical law of general relativity commends. We know that this might be in conflict with what we have learnt to expect in our daily milieu.  Common sense may be treacherous companion in our strive for investigating physical laws particularly in the microscopic domain as well as in the cosmological perspective.

Hello Roger, I am with you that the hypotheses that are the starting point must be pensioned at the beginning. I began seriously using this approach after learning Gödel's theorem. It is also essential that the hypotheses are not results of the modeling. Such an event is circular arguing and invalid. In the best of cases, the resulting model should either explain experiments of suggest real experiment. keep it going!

Cheers, Ingo

Thierry,

It is pathetic to state: However, only GM explains within an error of 1% the Gravity Probe B results and the fit with the Lunar Laser Ranging is within 0.1%. And GM (as Heaviside and Jefimenko exercise it) is a common sense science.

When Nicolaus Copernicus publicized De revolutionibus orbium coelestium the Ptolemaic model was far more accurate than the heliocentric approach. In fact Ptolemy’s astronomical system can become as accurate as you want by adding as many terms in the Fourier expansion as you want. Where does contemporary “common sense” ultimately lead us when applying it to cosmos?

Manuel,

As an emeritus professor, scientific collaborator and editor etc. I enjoy life without anticipating and having to defend any future opportunities – though I would not turn my back to any such scenarios should such prospects open up.

If you could convince me of something new and dramatic as far as present paradigms concern, I would most probably be as happy as you would be.

Your super deterministic model is very enticing, but I cannot make it commensurate with my own worldview as well as my experiences during a whole life as a researcher.

I am not saying that you should stop your reasoning and persuasions, I only recommend you to pause and ponder what we say and perhaps try to find another angle that may be more convincing.

To Errki,

I agree with you about the Ptolemaic system and Copernicus. The last one was a big improvement because it was simpler, easier to understand and to learn. But these were the reasons why it was not popular with the officials astronoms of the time : they were also astrologers and courtiers, they defended their job ! What would it become if anybody could provide the same service, regarding the calendar ? 

So, we can wonder, why Cosmology becomes more and more confusing, with a new riddle every decennium. Or why the CERN demands 1 b€ to be able to study more Higgs bosons (or perhaps to find another mysterious particle), meanwhile nothing useful has come up from 40 years of their work. Sure, Academics can dismiss what independant searchers do, but at least the latter cost nothing to the community. As a tax payer I think that I will ask my money back.

Yes Michael. It is indeed fundamentally flawed. To discover how and why, please visit my published papers on the Continuum Theory (CT) page of my personal website . (I am embarrassed to see that, in my original reply, this address had a typo in it - it should now work OK) There you will find (and much more) that it has been demonstrated experimentally, using caesium clock transmissions over ground-wave paths, that the cosmic redshift is a transmission effect, not a velocity. It is only by treating it as velocity that the need for dark energy has been inferred.

Among my CT publications you will also find that, by following up the 1860s proposals of William Thomson (Kelvin) and James Clerk Maxwell, I have achieved, apparently as never before, a rewarding insight into how the external mass property of particles, and the resultant gravitational force of assemblages of them, is developed by what's going on inside the particle. Einstein skipped the question by regarding the property as 'intrinsic'and, for mathematical convenience in his GR equations, assigning zero volume/infinitesimal space to each! That is absurd. As an introduction to my work and why it is called Continuum Theory I suggest you have a look at my abstract and session-opener talk at EPSC2013, entitled - "A fresh look at the Sun, from core to corona, illuminated by new insight on the physics of gravitation". To do this, go to 'EPSC2013 Home' - programme - browse day and time - enter 'Osmaston' in the slot - press 'submit'.

Also please note the following dictum which appears at the foot my every e-mail :- "It is what we think we know that often prevents us from learning" (Claude Bernard) to which I have added "if what you think you know leads you to the absurd, then the choice lies between piling on more absurdity and starting all over again".

I see the big bang, making everything out of nothing, as the greatest of all the absurdities in physics. Have fun and do write - Miles

Hello Miles (Osmaston),

The Universe EX NIHILO

Your statement that the Universe is made out of nothing is a religious belief taken out of the Christian Bible, the Genesis chapter. It is generally known under the title ‘Ex Nihilo’ (out of nothing). Since at the time when this was proposed, around 300 AD (Nicaean Creed), there was nothing known that would have given another logical answer.

The problem is that many physicists (including you) took this belief-statement into modern science. Ex nihilo also gives no guidance how to proceed from nothing to the present Universe. Similarly, the future of our Universe was not known and a bunch of ideas were proposed, but led to nothing.

To me, only the backward extrapolation to the point before the Big Bang gave a logical answer. The mass of the Universe is accepted to consist of energy, and thus, before the Big Bang (‘BB’) and before the formation of particles, all energy of the Universe was gathered into an energy-singularity. No one had any idea what this ‘energy singularity’ meant in this context. The reverse of the mass to energy direction has its reversal of the pre-BB energy into the particles of the Universe. The presence of photons continued to be an enigma.

Crystallization Science: During my industrial life I was working on the controlled crystal formation for products. The theory of crystal formation, and especially the initial formation of crystal nuclei, was utterly useless for our needs. Two of my colleagues, with me, developed a new model for crystal nucleation. This led to experiments that gave predictable crystal sizes and included all known crystallization processes.

I continued modeling after my colleagues started working at other jobs. I used this information for consulting to industry and academia. In 2010, the theory and experimental proof was published by CRCpress as a book (see below). In the past years, I extended the model further and led to new control of other crystallizations. For information on the book and of the four publications on the ‘Three sisters of Crystallization ‘are listed in Research Gate in my profile.

I discovered the process of Universal particle formation and modeled it in my first astronomical paper. The model not only led to the process of particle formation, but also to the discovery that gravity is anti-energy. Further, the process also revealed the reversal of the BB-formation in the present Universe, and its final state. Many discoveries followed that are also listed in ResearchGate under my name. A number of further research and its results are at the stage before publication. I am hoping that you will follow-up with my published work to learn about the Universe formation.

Best regards, Ingo H. Leubner

‘Precision Crystallization’ – Theory and Practice of Controlling Crystal Size; Ingo H. Leubner, CRCpress 2010, for free viewing: http://www.CRCpress.com , search under ‘author’, Ingo Leubner

And: Big-Bang: NOT BASED on ‘ex nihilo’:

Leubner, I. H., ‘Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and the Evolution of Gravity’

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264339506_Formation_of_the_Universe_as_a_Crystallization_Process_and_the_Evolution_of_Gravity?ev=prf_pub

Article Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and t...

Current cosmology is bad. But who can propose a better one?

To Rinat,

"Current cosmology is bad. But who can propose a better one?"

The true question is : do we think that, in the current state of our knowledge, we are able to build a "cosmology", with its ultimate grandiose goal, which can be more than a speculative, not really scientific, theory ? And as a consequence, the issue is to assess how much the community should invest in this kind of studies. I am fully for the freedom in Research, but I have been also Director of Research in an industrial multinational company, and I know that responsability involves the need to take decisions, and to make choices. In Science, the scientists should be the first to propose guidelines about the domains in which to invest. And I am shocked when I read so many academics who pretend, for the large public, that they "know" the evolution of the universe from the first second, or that the universe is made for 75 % of a dark matter. Why not ? But Stars Wars provide a better entertainment, and do not mobilise talents which could be useful elsewhere.

Yet human curiosity is irresistible

I just posted this question, in conjunction with publishing the second review edition of The Pearlman Spiral:

What conditions were required for Stellar formation pre inflation epoch? as is advocated in The Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift hypothesis.

Assume stars formed prior to the inflation epoch as hypothesized in the Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift hypothesis for various reasons. The stars would have been much more condense (as the universe was moving from the initial singularity) prior to the universe expanding 13B light years +- during the inflation epoch.

Under what conditions could stars have formed during that span prior to cosmic inflation?

TY for suggesting any possible scenarios.

r

God is Infinite, so are His Tales.  This is the real status of cosmology.