Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
In a quick summary then, how does the ISU/EEP idea account for five key cosmological observations?
1) Olbers' paradox: what do sight-lines end on?
2) Hubble relationship, including that traced by high-z 1a SNe: expansion of spacetime (just like the LCDM models?)
3) the CMB: thermalisation of early stars (for the BB spectrum); the angular power spectrum is not explained
4) primordial abundance of light nuclides: should be soley H; existence of primordial D, 3He and 4He is not explained
5) large-scale structure: same as LCDM models (gravity dominated hierarchical structure formation), except that there is no CDM (so the details of the large-scale structure are not explained).
Oh, and there are no numbers, so no quantitative matching is possible.
What did I get wrong?
|
I can see where these questions though ”just a quick summary” as you say, can be used to qualify a cosmology based on a fit with the referenced observations.
My answer to all five is that I don’t know.
But I will go on to say that nothing in the content of my posts leads me to believe that those observations pose a problem. They are the kind of questions that will need to be addressed but it is too early for my particular cosmology to address them.
I’ve mentioned before that my cosmology is being built from the bottom up and so far, the only science that I have violated as far as I know is the “taboo” on speculation.
To address that objection I have defined “responsible” speculation and how it is part of the bottom up process that is behind my posts.
What “responsible” speculation?
1. There is a “before and beyond” the big bang, i.e. preconditions that caused the big bang.
2. There is a unifying particle that has not yet been observed.
3. That particle would have to have some particular characteristics in order for it to be behind the missing physics necessary to explain the “pre-existing cause” of the big bang.
I have done a good bottom up analysis of such a particle, and I have described a greater universe that is consistent with such a particle and that could explain the “preconditions” the lead to the big bang if such a particle existed.
It is the key content of my posts that should be addressed and shown to be incompatible with science. Key content in my posts and in those descriptions include these characteristics of such a particle:
1. They are the tiniest possible increment of energy; a quantum of energy.
2. They are self-contained perpetual energy “machines” that pulse by expanding and contracting.
3. The expansion and contraction provides the power behind all of the energy in the universe.
4. They are indestructible and have always existed.
5. They make up the energy density of space.
6. Energy density fluctuates as the “energy to matter to energy” process plays out in small “arenas” like our expanding universe; our finite observable universe is expanding within a greater universe that is potentially infinite.
7. Matter forms from the energy density of space as expansion occurs, and matter is “negated” back to energy in the form of individual unifying particles under the force of gravity in a big crunch. Matter can only exist within a certain range of energy density. When the energy density gets too low gravity defeats expansion and crunches form and when the energy density gets to high (due to gravity) matter is negated back to energy which then defeats gravity and bursts back into expansion.
8. Matter forms in this order: Protons first, electrons form around protons, and electrons emit photons. All other matter and observable particles form later under high energy circumstances that require the forces within stars or when matter is accelerated.
All of the characteristics of the undiscovered unifying particle and the fluctuating energy density of space that characterizes their existence combine to defeat the entropy predicted by BBT.