An alternative to the ΛCDM model in modern cosmology is the model of the rotating spase of the Universe :
"ROTATING SPASE OF THE UNIVERSE, AS A SOURCE OF DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER."
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01329145v1
Evidence presented in preprint:
"Analytical evaluation of the numerical values of the Hubble constant and main spatial-energy characteristics of the observable Universe."
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02045149v2
Main evidences:
1. The vacuum pressure in all points of the Universe is constant. To expand the space required the pressure drop.
2. The source of dark mass is the kinetic energy of rotation of the space of the observable Universe. Elementary particles of dark mass does not exist. Therefore, numerous experiments for several decades in their search did not give a result. Prediction: these particles will not be detected in future experiments at the Large Hadron Collider.
3. The preprint gives an analytical estimate of the Hubble constant based on the characteristics of elementary particles. Consequently, this constant is an immanent property of the observable Universe. It cannot be a characteristic of dark energy.
4. Modules: the forces of Planck, the forces of gravitational compression of the observable Universe and the imaginary forces of dark energy are equal to each other. But there is a red space from distant objects of the observable Universe. This is possible only if its space rotates.
5. The Hubble Sphere, as the observable Universe, is located inside the Schwarzschild Sphere. Hence the observable universe is a black hole.
6. The observable Universe, like an electromagnetic fractal of the Universe, is a slowly rotating black hole in a gravitational fractal of the Universe: "FRACTAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE." https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01330337v1
Since the Big Bang, one incomplete rotation of 345 degrees has been made.
Dear Valery!
There are many theories gathered in your question.
But I see many contradictions within the system of theories in physics.
Is a 'rotation of space' possible at all or only a rotation of material objects in any manner?
Results the observed red shift of radiation from movement or is it actual the result of a steady decrease of energy on the way through the universe and the background radiation the average remaining energy of the radiation?
If we belive in an expanding universe after a 'big bang' we have to accept that a considerable part of all material matter in universe moved with relativistic speed. This would lead to sdeady icreasing masses of all concerned celestical bodies an also to increasing gravity on the border of the universe. Are there any observations?
The movement of radiating bodies like fixed stars would lead to an deceleration caused by uneven emission of energy (Doppler-effect). The higher the speed the higher the deceleration.
And many others.
My Regards! Hans
Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...
Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt,
1. The estimated mass density of the observable universe, as the Hubble sphere, is 1.73x10 ^ (- 26) kg ^ (1) m ^ (- 3). That is, it is appropriate to speak about the rotation of the space of the observable Universe, and not about the rotation of the Universe as a body. 2. Redshift due to aging of light is currently not relevant in cosmology. 3. With a relativistic speed, an insignificantly small part of matter moves only at the boundary of the Hubble sphere. The influence of this substance on the gravitational state of the observable Universe is minimal. 4. The Doppler effect is a change in the frequency of a signal on the observer’s side, which it receives from a source that is radially moving relative to it. Key phrases: "change frequency" and "radial motion." Everything beyond the framework of this coordinate system has no relation to the Doppler effect.
Best regards, V. Timkov.
The paper quoted doesn't present an alternative, since the cosmological constant is a property of general relativity anyway (that's what Λ refers to).
``Rotation of the Universe'' doesn't mean anything and can't affect individual galaxies the way dark matter does.
The question answer is yes. The STOE explains many observations the standard model fails, has predicted several features of the universe, corresponds to both GR and QM. It is simpler than other current models ( it is a scalar model without the need for i -squareroot -1). The tests have been comparison of actual observation values rather than hand waving.
In article:
Research A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS (Published HJ 2014)
shows a cyclic model of the evolution of the structure of galaxies.
At the heart of the cyclical formation of the structure of galaxies is the Big Bang. A substance that was the basis of the formation of galaxies, with an explosion in static space, could not form such regular galaxy forms as a disk-shaped, spiral ... Then the facts should be recognized: 1) the singularity point before the Big Bang was structured, which contradicts all scientific provisions in cosmology, 2) the space of the observable universe before the Big Bang rotated, which is most plausible.
One of the main problems of modern cosmology is that the Hubble constant describes with equal success two mutually exclusive hypotheses: the expansion of the space of the observable Universe and the rotation of this space. An unambiguous answer requires additional information from an independent experimentally verified source. This source is not yet known to us. The second way is the theoretical and experimental accumulation of a set of indirect features that will unambiguously be able to confirm one hypothesis and disprove its counter-version
The following is an alternate theory for the Structure of the Universe:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/The_Life_Cycle_of_Spiral_Arm_Galaxies.pdf
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/The_Unified_Theory_of_Stellar_Evolution.pdf
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Theory_of_the_Infinite_Universe.pdf
We should recognise the reality on the basis of facts and not of the basis of mysteries and wishful thinking what means all the theories from the day before yesterday in contemporary physics.
- It is impossible that electromagnetic radiation crosses the universe unaffected over billion years without any influence or interaction. This leads to a lost of energy and it is observable as red shift.
- A moving and radiating object (a fixed star, a whole galaxy, ...) radiates in the direction of movement more energy than in the opposite direction. This leads to a breaking moment and it is visible by the increasing spiralic paths of the stars around the centre of each galaxy.
- Every particle decay and interaction ends up in energy, electrons and positrons. It ends up never in 'quarks' or any theoretical particle. This means, material matter is very uniform in its structures. Dark matter is a theoretical conclusion but impossible in reality.
- and many others
Dear Valery, I will respond strictly to your question: yes, it is. And more, all "unexplained" facts lie dark matter, Universe expansion or black holes can be calculated. (can see in chapters B.3.1 and C).
I recommend you to study my project Graviton Physics, the files from preprint section. Is there an article already published and the full text (more interesting for you).
Your feedback is important for me.
Enjoy!
Marcel Richard Balseanu:
You can calculate what ever you want if you find any theory or other basis.
The question is: Does the assumed facts, relations and numbers exist in reality?
This is the fundamental difference between natural sciences and mathematics.
Agree. You can follow the observations and conclusions from project LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914. Some conclusions are below Planck's limit that means speed of light is not the higher speed and Plank's constant is not valid anymore.... Where is the truth??
Yes. the STOE
https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-replaces-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics
No \lamda, NO DM From Newtonian physics.
Dear Balseanu Marcel,
I do not see mathematical errors in your works, but I have doubts about the realism of your physical approach. First of all, I doubt the graviton is realistic as a carrier of a gravitational field. And the scale with which you operate does not allow to carry out not only an instrumental verification of the reliability of your hypothesis, but even an analytical one. Further. Yes, the proton is the basis of baryonic matter, but the electron has the lowest mass. At present, an electron is not a divisible particle, and quarks are part of the proton. Therefore, your choice of a proton as the initial reasoning to justify the existence of a graviton is in doubt.
With best regards, V. Timkov.
Data GW150914-FactSheet
Dear Valery, in GW 150914 fact sheet you can observe an affirmation about
graviton mass bound < 1.2 x 10-22 eV which in fact is smaller that I found in my calculation. I try to explain myself this difference. Maybe can appear from measuring deviation ( instrument error margin ?).
To verify the method I choose three particles not only the proton. I choose the electron and the neutron too. These three particles were choose taking in consideration following:
- have well-defined mass
- have different electric charges
- are stable
The result in all three situations confirms that the method works. Indeed this value can't never be confirmed by direct observation, but can be estimated like in above fact sheet results for other measurements.
"the electron has the lowest mass" - can be this because our actual detectors accuracy?
Can be a limit our understandings, our actual technological level?
Have you read the summary article or full text? I have a doubt because your affirmation about the proton only.
Dear Balseanu Marcel,
The baryon mass of the Universe consists of more than 75% protons. Proton consists of quarks. Quarks and electrons are structureless. And if gravitons exist, they should be sought on the basis of structureless fundamental particles. You took the proton as a basis, and then with the help of the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron 1836.15 passed to the electron. In my opinion this is not correct. If we proceed from one of the fundamental principles of the structure of matter, namely its quantum nature, then the graviton is a quantum of the gravitational field. That is, it is the smallest unstructured fundamental particle. It must be sought on the basis of and among the same structureless fundamental particles.
Dear Valery, math is the same. You can put the electron mass in the model and calculate or you can split the proton mass to 1836.15. In my full text you will find the result for electron in both situations and result is similar.
Quarks are confined inside hadrons and are not observed as physical particles. Quark masses are not measured directly, and are determined indirectly through their influence, any quantitative statement about the value of a quark mass must make careful in reference to the particular theoretical framework that is used to define.
Because of this become logical to chose the proton mass in my calculation not one from the three quarks inside.
- Badges
- Science topic