No Expanding Universe, No Dark Energy?

Might be?

So, how does he explain the stretching of the so called "Cosmic Background Radiation"? The theory I proposed for dark matter requires the expansion, but might get rid of the dark energy by making the universe smaller. In other words some of the expansion would be an illusion.

There’s a number of so called steady state models that imply no expansion and no big bang.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

MIlls would have us believe that Dark Matter is due to Hydrinos. The assertion of the non-expanding universe jives with his GUTCP predictions.

And that contributes how much weight to the discussion?

We have red shift correlating with other measures of cosmic distance. We have as has been pointed out CBR. An expanding universe looks a good simple explanation for that.

Not to say there are things we do not understand about exactly how it works. It is not at the moment entirely clear with too many arbitrary (= we do not know why) things. e.g - inflation - dark energy - dark matter.

But those are just detailed stuff we do not yet understand clearly - and they do not affect the overall take home of an expanding universe with an initial big bang or (can't be sure) big bounce.

It is folly to reject the understanding we do have - juts because that understanding is not complete.

THH

Maybe everything is wrong

The universe may be twice as old as we thought: a venerable 26.7 billion years

A new study challenges the age of our universe and offers insight into early galaxies)

The universe may be twice as old as we thought: a venerable 26.7 billion years

A new study challenges the age of our universe and offers insight into early galaxies)

www.zmescience.com

You never answered my question. Instead of sending us on wild goose chases how about providing the information here. This is, after all, a forum.

Everywhere you look people say the expansion of the universe stretches the light causing a red shift and ultimately the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation". Even Neil Tyson says that. What is interesting about that radiation is that there is no point source for it and only one example. One is not to ignore what the universe tells us. That leads to defective science.

Abstract Cosmology in Minkowski Space

ShieldSquare Captcha

Theoretical and observational challenges to standard cosmology such as the cosmological constant problem and tensions between cosmological model parameters inferred from different observations motivate the development and search of new physics. A less radical approach to venturing beyond the standard model is the simple mathematical reformulation of our theoretical frameworks underlying it. While leaving physical measurements unaffected, this can offer a reinterpretation and even solutions of these problems. In this spirit, metric transformations are performed here that cast our Universe into different geometries. Of particular interest thereby is the formulation of cosmology in Minkowski space. Rather than an expansion of space, spatial curvature, and small-scale inhomogeneities and anisotropies, this frame exhibits a variation of mass, length and time scales across spacetime. Alternatively, this may be interpreted as an evolution of fundamental constants. As applications of this reframed cosmological picture, the naturalness of the cosmological constant is reinspected and promising candidates of geometric origin are explored for dark matter, dark energy, inflation and baryogenesis. An immediate observation thereby is the apparent absence of the cosmological constant problem in the Minkowski frame. The formalism is also applied to identify new observable signatures of conformal inhomogeneities, which have been proposed as simultaneous solution of the observational tensions in the Hubble constant, the amplitude of matter fluctuations, and the gravitational lensing amplitude of cosmic microwave background anisotropies. These are found to enhance redshifts to distant galaxy clusters and introduce a mass bias with cluster masses inferred from gravitational lensing exceeding those inferred kinematically or dynamically.

Maybe every universe is the inner of a black hole of another universe, and our universe is expanding from the mass it extracts from the outer universe which makes our universes space expand as well? So we can not leave our universe but other "things" can enter our universe?

Quote from Alan Smith

cosmological model parameters inferred from different observations motivate the development and search of new physics.

Such claims are outraging as all involved people have no clue of basic physics and still believe that with one sided field equations you can describe the "two sided" world. (forces interact not just act)

So these folks first should learn to identify the garbage in the so called standard model...

Its like blind mice in front of a dessert telling the other I will find the apple tree.

If experiments = measurement tell that the cosmos expands then this is a fact and a "model" that tells otherwise just is garbage.

The problem of tuning/evolving constants is that it messes with stellar evolution in the early universe, and the universe might not end up at all like it is now if that part gets messed with.

PhysicsForDummies

You say that you don't understand the math yet you feel empowered to waste our time investigating something that doesn't interest us individually. I have no interest in Minkowski Spaces, period. You should at least explain why you think we should waste effort on it.

That said, I am interested in the possibility of eliminating the dark energy, but it may be a lot simpler than that. The standard narrative for the Big Bang states that the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation has been stretched by at least 1000 times. That is, the radiation (light) left over after baryonic matter was created has lost most of its energy. This radiation had a very narrow energy range and after billions of years of stretching the result also has a narrow range of energies. The stretching should still be going on. Let's assume that the rate of expansion of the universe has always been constant. Consider two galaxies one twice as far away as the other. The light from the farther one would be twice as stretched into the red as the light for the closer one giving the illusion of the expansion speeding up. This should affect the amount of dark energy.

Note that I did not invoke my theory for dark matter in the previous paragraph. All I did for my theory was invoke the principle of the Conservation of Energy. Where did all that energy go? The answer was that it went into the dark matter. I also had the stretching start at the moment of the Big Bang. Why?

You might be better off if you would study and

comment on the ideas presented on this forum.

Quote from GRMattson

The standard narrative for the Big Bang states that the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation has been stretched by at least 1000 times. That is, the radiation (light) left over after baryonic matter was created has lost most of its energy.

If you stretch something by 1000x also the range is stretched 1000x...

Quote from GRMattson

Note that I did not invoke my theory for dark matter in the previous paragraph. All I did for my theory was invoke the principle of the Conservation of Energy. Where

I will repeat me once more. Most mathematician have no clue of basic physics.

Energy is only conserved in a closed system!!

So please prove first that the universe is a closed system!

And as a dessert: Gravity does not slow down photons. Gravity can only bend photons as the coupling is all orthogonal only!