Samir Touzani My opinion is that there is just one universe but the explanation of the evolution of the universe given by the Big Bang theory is wrong. I also think that the steady state theory is also wrong.

There is a much simpler explanation for the evolution of the universe based on the conclusion that the universe is finite with a space boundary. Then galaxies form over time from energy released from the expansion of curved space.

The first galaxy formed around 126 billion years ago and the number of galaxies increases by a factor of 20 (e^3) every 14 billion years. The CMB is not an echo of the Big Bang but radiation coming from galaxies held inside the event horizon of the universe.

So this explains why there is no sign of the uniform cloud of gas and dust from which the first galaxies were supposed to form. Instead we see galaxies right out to the observation horizon which is at 14 billion light years.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

As it seems, the space that was a dream for us in the past is becoming closer to us day after day, and who knows what the “James Webb” space telescope will bring us from the expected surprises, although it will not show us what it has until the summer of 2022, thus leaving everyone on the planet Earth A state of wait and see.

Riccardo C. Storti Just to be clear, I take the view that dark matter is real and comprised of dineutrons. Dark energy is an incorrect interpretation of the recession velocity data of distant galaxies. The unexpected recession velocity is caused by gravitational acceleration towards the centre of mass of the total population of galaxies. This interpretation is possible in a finite universe with a boundary but it is not possible if the universe is infinite or finite with no boundary because there is no centre to the distribution of galaxies in these cases.

Richard

Seeing a galaxy at the very early times just means that General Relativity is wrong. One cannot adjust Dark Matter (a catalyst for galaxy formation) to accommodate the early galaxy's existence. The amount of Dark Matter is fixed by the Supernova Cosmology Project (Cosmic Distance Ladder fitting).

That problem is solved by my theory. I derived from first principles, a law of Gravitation that has G (Newton's Gravitational Constant) inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe.

In other words, Einstein was wrong. Here is the correct model https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Obviously, the stronger G at earlier times would accelerate the coalescing of stars from the small density fluctuations - without requiring any extra mass.

The attached files show the parameterless predictions of SN1a distances from their redshifts. The short distance fitting shows that the Hubble Constant is 69.69 km/(s.Mpc) and that corresponds to a 14.03 billion years old universe.

The Cosmic Distance Ladder is predicted using this simple relationship d(z) = R0 * z/(1+z)

where R0=14.03 billion light-years.

so, if a galaxy has z=13, it would be 14*13/14=13 billion years from us and that would correspond to 1 billion years after the Big Pop.

For z = 20, d(20)=14*20/21=13.33 or 666 million years after the Big Pop. At that time, G would be 14.03/0.666=21 times stronger than our current G. That explains the accelerated galaxy formation.

The data only rejects the Big Bang. All the remainder is merely ad hoc metaphysics with no supporting evidence, so far. But then, the Big Bang is also with many ad hoc and problem observations.

I particularily like the Quasi Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle and Narlikar. The STOE then adds sinks of heat in elliptical galaxies to form galaxy clusters and a finite, bounded universe at least 75 billion years old. This galaxy clusters would be hunting the 2.718 K long term average and ( like air conditioning hunting the thermostat setting) oscillating about that long term average.

Marco Pereira I think that your proposal that the gravitational constant G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the universe requires a physical justification to explain why the gravitational constant should vary in this way.

Richard

Navjot Singh

The problem to me is NOT to define any universe, but a universe than may evolve to the data humanity has. It seems many of these speculations are weak or ignore how they evolve - or they ignore large chunks of data. The QSSC was better than the Big Bang. But there is data it needs to explain. The elliptical galaxies are part of the ignored side. hat is why I added the Sinks - to eject matter from our universe. As to the meta universe - sure, why not? The QSSC provides a evolution means to derive many of our observations. The meta concept, like others, is otherwise useless.

Richard Lewis

Yes. I derived that dependency here:

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/283/

The derivation is possible because I proposed a new model for matter based upon the Fundamental Dilator and a replacement to Newton's Laws of Dynamics (Quantum Lagrangian Principle).

A better derivation will be presented elsewhere.

Marco Pereira

You might want to watch my Hypergeometrical Universe Theory 101

Presentation Hypergeometrical Universe Theory 101

Navjot Singh

I don't know if you want the link to my article - a replacement to the Big Bang, model or if you want me to read the article in the question.

Here is the link to the Big Pop Cosmogenesis:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

In my theory, the receding galaxies are explained simply as inertial motion in 4D. No space is stretched (so, the silly article https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215 is preaching to the choir).

Unlike the article in iai.tv, my article contains a new model for matter (which was used to derive laws of nature), and the equation of state of the Universe, second by second, attosecond-by-attosecond...

That includes providing the conditions for nucleosynthesis and the CMB observation.

The problem with Eric Lerner is that one cannot trust his descriptions of the status quo. When he talks about

"One galaxy noted in the papers, called GHz2, is far more luminous that the Milky Way, yet is calculated to be only 300 light years in radius—150 times smaller than the radius of our Milky Way. Its surface brightness—brightness per unit area-- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe. Its density (and that of several other galaxies in the new images) would be tens of thousands of times that of present-day galaxies."

One doesn't know if he considered that galaxies in the past could be denser (more stars per cubic light-year) or if GHz2 is a Quasar or a feeding black hole at its center. All these would explain higher brightness.

My theory explains that G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius. This means that the radius of galaxies will increase with time. This is supported by galaxy cluster diameter dependence upon distance. It is also supported by my parameterless predictions of SN1a distances from their redshifts.

With respect to "I and my colleague Riccardo Scarpa predicted based on a non-expanding universe, with redshift proportional to distance", BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

I also explained the Universe's creation, SHOWED the parameterless predictions of SN1a distances from redshifts, derived laws of nature that replaces Einstein's equations, and the standard model of particle physics. I also explained the galaxy recession using simply Newton's First law of Dynamics.

The only difference between Eric and me is that he is allowed to post his stuff on the Los Alamos Archives and I am censored.

He said: “Panic!” article showed that smooth spiral galaxies were about “10 times” as numerous as what theory had predicted and that this “would challenge our ideas about mergers being a very common process”. In plain language, this data utterly destroys the merger theory.

My theory explains and predicts that galaxy density and provides a different mechanism for galaxy formation. I also explain how a galaxy could be formed and have a z=20... No problem

Navjot Singh

In addition, Lerner said:

if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.

There is no reason to assume that. One can still consider that galaxies are receding and space is not stretching. That is the simplest possible hypothesis and that is consistent with observation IF the universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

In addition, he is wrong to say that redshift is proportional to distance. That is refuted by the photometric observation of SN1a by Dr. Adam Riess!!!

Dr. Riess was wrong in using the Stellar Candles Hypothesis. That said, linear dependence with distance does not fit the data.

No wonder he finds "unexplained observations".

Riccardo C. Storti

Where are your parameterless predictions of the SN1a distances from their redshifts? In other words, what is the cosmic distance ladder that you use? Mine is attached.

Without paremeterless predictions of d(z), your precise prediction of the CMB temperature has no meaning (it depends upon d(z))!

Dear Riccardo C. Storti

You asked: How have you solved the Hubble Tension problem ? .... It wipes away your point.

Of course. There is no Hubble tension in my theory.

You asked me why not use L-CDM?

Since you use the Cosmic Distance Ladder fitted by Dr. Riess, your model is wrong. It has been shown incorrect by the observation of galaxies with z=20.

The earlier a galaxy is formed, the more Dark Matter you need to make it coalesce faster. This means that ANY surprise in Early Galaxy formation destroys L-CDM.

So, it is totally useless to read your table. That said, a parameterless prediction (mine) is more credible than a fitting to a discredited model.

Why discredited?

It is discredited by the reason mentioned and for the fact that in 80 years there was never a detection of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

My theory uses the CMB to parameterless predict the galaxy distribution across observable and unobservable Universe.

Preprint THE BIG POP COSMOGENESIS EQUATION OF STATE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM

I even locate Earth within the Universe map and provide a prediction for the CMB as seen from any place within the whole hyperspherical universe.

You might say: HEY, has anyone double-checked your predictions? No. Real scientists (people with jobs in academia) avoid me like the plague.

My theory predicts large structures, which we observe just by looking into the sky. Those structures are not predicted by L-CDM!!! The Big Bang model has magic "Quantum Fluctuations" to be Gaussian (so, no long tail-distribution).

So, my theory conforms with:

a) Energy Conservation

b) Second Law of Thermodynamics

c) S8 and the observation of large structures in the Universe

d) Early galaxy formation

e) CMB observation and not only its spherical harmonic spectrum

In addition, I derived the laws of nature from first principles.

So, please make sure to pay attention to these details. L-CDM and Relativity have been debunked. People just refuse to accept it.

Here is a short introduction to my theory:

https://youtu.be/-Kunsv3jBy4

Riccardo C. Storti

I am not attacking your model. My beef is with Einstein's equations, Relativity, L-CDM, Higgs Model for Inertia, the Standard Model of Physics, Universe topology...

My model predicts the age as being 14.03 billion years and that corresponds to a 14.03 GLY 4D radius since the Universe travels at constant speed, thus refuting L-CDM, Einstein's equations, etc.

One doesn't need to make any predictions if one can predict the Cosmic Distance Ladders. All Cosmology depends upon distances and the distances are measured using redshifts (Cosmic Distance Ladder).

So, if my Cosmic Distance Ladder is better supported than yours (L-CDM) then my model is better than yours.

I gave you some of my theory's predictions (natural laws, SN1a distances, galaxy density for the hyperspherical universe, spiral galaxy, Tolman relationship, particle physics, etc).

As I said, if you cannot predict the Cosmic Distance Ladder, nothing else is correct. The same goes for incompatible Dark Matter across epochs.

You don't need to take my word for it.

Article Cannibal Dark Matter

This article tries to address the self-inconsistency of L-CDM. Dark Matter and Dark Energy have to change during the Universe's life...:) and they have to do that without leaving a trace...

That is a sign of a shitty model. With JWST it became worse... untainable... indefensible!!!

Navjot Singh

You said: The moment you say energy conservation and second law of thermodynamics, all your constructs get reduced to dust.

You might be enjoying to match some numbers in the meantime and asskicking giants like GR (which is OK) but this model isn't going to run long. When all the dust has settled down - one is almost guaranteed, like the ancients, to be barking up the wrong tree.

I would love to have faith in what you say, but Talk is Cheap. Prophecies are even cheaper...:)

Riccardo C. Storti

Well... I was kind enough to provide a 10 minutes video describing my theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuGlDECvifc

I know from what you wrote, that you abide by L-CDM. That is how much I need to know since my arguments are against L-CDM.

You misdirected the conversation by asking something that L-CDM doesn't deal with (RMS Charge Radii of the Proton & Neutron). That is irrelevant if L-CDM doesn't have a leg to stand.

So, my replies were focused on something you based your model upon.

If you don't want to learn from me, you are more than welcome to learn from others.

Somehow you will learn that L-CDM is nonsense and by association, your model is not relevant either (because of the connection).

Take your time.

Riccardo C. Storti

In HU, the Hubble Constant is a short-distance measurement that yields c/R0, where R0 is the 4D radius.

The short-distance fitting is shown here: HU_short_distances

Once I get the 4D radius of the Universe, H0 does not enter into my model again. So, L-CDM has H0 tension because those are model-dependent. In other models, they don't exist.

Don't be blind and consider that your model is the only possible.

You might ask, what about CMB?

I wrote a whole article describing the evolution of the Universe, including the CMB. It is here: Preprint THE BIG POP COSMOGENESIS EQUATION OF STATE

My theory replicates the CMB OBSERVATION (shown as CMB_SMICA). The model simulation is given by CMB_Best.

In other words, my theory uses the CMB as input to derive the hyperspherical harmonic acoustic oscillation spectrum.

With that spectrum, I calculated the galaxy density in the Universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqkbCAzcJM

Needless to say, L-CDM cannot do that, and neither can your model.

My theory also predicts the distances to SN1a using

d(z) = R0*z/(1+z)

My parameterless predictions using the d(z) above are shown here: HU_long_distances

So, I explained SN1a (Supernova data using H0=69.69 km/(s.Mpc)) and the CMB (including the CMB observation).

I explained this already, but I am happy to explain it again.

My H0 is not out-of-spec. The H0 you talk about is model-dependent and in your model, it has three values. It is not my fault that L-CDM is not even self-consistent.

So, my H0=69.69 km/(s.Mpc)) is the correct value for my model and my model is better than L-CDM.

Please, let me know if you finally understood what I wrote.

Riccardo C. Storti

Is H0=69.69 km/(s/Mpc) inconsistent with "measurements"?

By Primefac - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32089452

I don't see any error in my H0.

It explains perfectly the data (it is the best fit for the SN1a data).

I don't use H0 for CMB. I use R0 but the modeling of CMB is not dependent upon R0.

Here is a pdg pdf file:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2019-rev-astrophysical-constants.pdf

where you can read in the references (where the numbers come from):

[2] Planck Collab. 2018 Results VI (2018), [arXiv:1807.06209].

H0=(67.4±0.5)km/s/Mpc

AND

[32] Distance-ladder estimates of H0 tend to give higher values than those derived from the CMB, e.g. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016) give h = 0.732 ± 0.017; for discussion see O. Lahav & A.R. Liddle, “The Cosmological Parameters,” Sec. 24 in this Review.

In other words, the PDG document has two incompatible measurements (CMB and SN1a). You decided to just adopt one of them (the CMB) to FAKE your point!

Why would you adopt one value over the other? Is this because that is the value that is convenient to your model?

The SN1a data is the one that resembles the paradigm (short-distance measurement) that defines the Hubble Constant. After all, that is a linearization of a more complex phenomenon.

Is this still comical? I guess you were right. Your argument is really comical.

Read my reply above yours and let me know why you chose one value instead of the other.

The pdf you provided has two values for H0 (see the references where the values come from).

Ricarda,

I used the link you provided. I showed you that the H0 has two measurements (at least) associated with it, namely:

a) Dr. Riess group, the one that received the Nobel Prize for its measurement of SN1a. That group concluded that H0=73.2

b) Planck CMB H0=67.4

These two results are equally "impressive" and incompatible with each other.

Why are you choosing one over the other?

Yes, Ricarda

Saying that between two numbers one is Official, is a scientific argument.

Compare that with what I provided:

and why aren't my prior answers and arguments appearing in this conversation.?

Here is a related discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_you_can_prove_the_Big-Bang_then_the_universe_is_finite

I expect that there was a angel named Gabriel fighting with another angel named Michael. Because angels are made of light, when they fight, a spark of light is released, which is what the James Webb Space Telescope observed

Dear Samir Touzani,

ST: ... there could be several Big Bangs that resulted in other universes

That possibility is generally called a "multiverse" and is a common hypothesis.

ST: ... convergence between the two resulting universes took place.

A search for any indication of that has been done and nothing was found. An upper limit of 1.6 was set on the possible occurrences:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2011/aug/first-observational-test-multiverse

Article First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation