The crisis in cosmology

[C C]

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Cosmol...9-115.html

EXCERPT (Josh Mitteldorf ): . . . Conservative leaders in the field speak of a crisis in cosmology. Two such articles have appeared in recent months. The one that I just linked (by my Harvard classmate of 50 years ago, Joseph Silk) notes that theorists have indulged in a kind of cheating to make their models appear consistent with the data. They have chosen parameters for the expansion and the density of the universe that are halfway between values measured by two kinds of methodologies.

If you compare Observation A to the model, it is just on the edge of being plausible. If you compare Observation B to the model, it is just on the edge of being plausible in the other direction. But, as Dr Silk points out, if you compare Observation A directly to Observation B, you realize that the two are too far apart to be compatible, and that our research and analysis methods must be called into question.

Dr Becky Smethurst [second video below] emphasizes that one implication of the new perspective is that the universe is closed and finite and will not expand forever.

The other recent article notes that all of the measurements that pointed to speed-up in the expansion (and the need for dark energy) came from one direction in the sky. If you look in the opposite direction, the expansion is slowing down. Maybe it's not that the whole universe is changing its expansion at all, but only that our little neighborhood has shifted direction. But we're out of the frying pan, into the fire, because the same evidence suggests that the universe may not be completely uniform and symmetrical, as theories have always assumed. The trouble with asymmetrical models is that they call into question the very simple equations that are our hope for staying within 6 or 7 free parameters. There's a worse problem, actually: The equations of gravity (Einstein's General Relativity) are so insanely complicated that they cannot be solved even with the largest supercomputers we have except in the case where the equations are enormously simplified either by (1) a very high degree of symmetry that vastly reduces the complexity, or (2) weak fields, called the "Newtonian limit".

Sabine Hossenfelder does a good job of explaining the context in this video. (MORE - details)

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/oqgKXQM8FpU

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/cnn_5YMpo3Q

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/c6Eq2sI1NDY

[Taormina]

For answers to all your questions, read my book: The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe: With Explanations of Space, Time, and the Creation of Gravity.
Robert J. Taormina It explains all those anomalies, as well as what CAUSED the s0-called "Big Bang" and thereby resolves the dilemmas of modern cosmology.
The book can be found worldwide on Amazon (and other European and Australian online book sellers):
https://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Theory-...oks&sr=1-1

[Syne]

For answers to all your questions, read my book: The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe: With Explanations of Space, Time, and the Creation of Gravity.
Robert J. Taormina  It explains all those anomalies, as well as what CAUSED the s0-called "Big Bang" and thereby resolves the dilemmas of modern cosmology.
The book can be found worldwide on Amazon (and other European and Australian online book sellers):
https://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Theory-...oks&sr=1-1

I wouldn't use your book to wipe my ass, even if it was free. Much less read it.

[Yazata]

I've always suspected that the whole idea of the expansion of the universe speeding up might be more experimental error than anything else. Dark energy has always seemed like a cosmological fudge factor.

[stryder]

I had one of the spurious Eureka moments this morning in regards to the Universes Observational volume and expansion and came to a weird conclusion theory that I'll mention.

The wave of influence from the Big Bang supposedly continues to move forever outwards beyond out observational range. If it was possible to catch up with the wave and look back, what would we expect to see?

In current theory supposedly you'd see the sprawl of the known universe before you but that's basing it on a time that's flat with the one with are use to seeing things from (our relative perspective), it could be possible that to look back towards where we came we wouldn't see the universe at all... the main reason for this is down to the universe actually existing in something similar to an Event Horizon or a compressed space corona. I guess what I'm saying is if you reached the edge of the ever expanding universe and looked back you would probably be moments after the universes birth. Of course it does bring into question dimensionality, since our perspective in this universe is a lowly dimensional construct where as the edge of the universe would be the equivalent of a hyper-dimensional state. (An elevated dimensional level)

Such an explanation would actually generate some interesting hypothesis in regards to universal topology, since while their might be the concerns that an ever expanding universe could bring a universal death from eventually dispersing energy over distance, there is still the lingering possibility at that upper dimensional level the universes topology is still held in place (It could possible explain some of the anomalies in regards to things like dark matter, although that could just be a limitation of my own understanding as to what is usually meant by it since there is a convoluted reasoning as to it's meaning caused by peoples own confusion on the subject.)

The consideration of an Event Horizon corona would also aid in understanding the increase in speed of universal expansion (which incidentally is also the curvature that would be faced to elevate dimensionally) So the theory itself could generate a rather interesting change in reason should someone take the chance and attempt modelling it.

I couldn't suggest what the "Big Bang" would look like though, for all I know it might not be moving at all and be frozen in place, however at the end of the day it all comes down to Relativity (the position you are observing it from).