Modern cosmology is a house of cards. The big bang of the LCDM model cannot be as described. Inflation is at best a fudge factor to make math work out. They invented an 'inflaton' field that comes into existence, makes the universe expand just the right amount to make their math work out, and then decays with no trace left).
They are now finding an anisotropy in the Hubble constant--it's not constant but changes depending on direction in which you look. Does that seem like a property of the universe? Perhaps redshift is caused by interstellar medium, like dust or dark matter (whatever that may be), in which case slight anisotropy is to be expected.
The universe is static and eternal and while redshift correlates with distance, it's caused by something other than radial velocity.
It'll be fun seeing how long they can keep adding epicycles upon epicycles upon epicycles to make their model consistent with reality.
Perhaps redshift is caused by interstellar medium, like dust or dark matter (whatever that may be), in which case slight anisotropy is to be expected.
Atomic hydrogen ("dark" hydrogen) (or charged plasma as NoisySilence says) would do the trick there. Alternative cosmology is much more plausible than the retarded big bang.
or perhaps redshift is caused by interstellar medium
And/or charged plasma. Charged plasma, which we know exists, would provide red shift, illusion of larger distances, expansion, black holes, and I expect accounts for "dark energy" and "dark matter."
They've built (catholic church - bbt) a house of cards which doesn't survive scrutiny and requires impossibilities. Any physics which requires infinity is wrong. Infinity is a mathematical ideology which has no basis in the physical world.
Just a few years ago they found half (!!!) of 'missing' matter in the universe because... wait for it... the particles were charged:
For some reason I'm not surprised.
Btw, good comment above, to which I originally replied. Ty.
Any physicswhich requires infinity is wrong. Infinity is a mathematical ideology which has no basis in the physical world.
Infinities are fine if used in an intermediate calculation. Calculus uses infinities and so do infinite series. They're just tools for modeling the universe. As long as the predictions are well-behaved, there is no problem.
Of course, when infinities show up in the prediction, like in black holes and in the big bang, that's obviously a problem with the model.
Infinities provide a theoretical position to model something. People forget physics describes a model of reality, not actual reality. So long as you are describing a model and not reality, that's fine. Which is why your assessment is accurate. But anyone attempting to declare infinity is a property of reality is wrong. Infinity isn't a property of reality (we have no evidence to support a contrary position and everything implies finite measurements).
For example, infinity of e=mc2, but we already know it's broken at the cosmological scale. But they keep piling on and pretending otherwise.
Starting in the 1920s (especially with Einstein), the world of physics took a terribly wrong turn.
I don't like any constant that can't be explained. I guess to Newton gravity was some nebulous constant but relativity made sense of it.. I don't see anything capable of explaining the dark matter/dark energy numbers they keep pulling out of their asses.
(post is archived)