This is the third thread in the series, examining the extent to which alternative theories match observational data.

The first (How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories?) seeks to look at alternative cosmological theories wrt five sets of observations.

The second (How good are the best alternatives to modern astrophysics theories?), astrophysics alternatives, in the 'beyond the solar system' domain.

This thread addresses an aspect of alternative cosmologies that was explicitly excluded in the first thread - how well they match observational results, in terms the ATM cosmological theory itself sets great store by.

(In the next post, I will present a summary of the 'excluded' comments, from the first thread).

To clearly state some key aspects of the scope of this thread:

The intention of this thread is to see what BAUT members consider to be the strongest (ATM) cosmologies, from a quite specific perspective - ability to match several sets of good observational results.

The observations that are within the scope of this thread are the following:

1) astronomical observations which proponents of the ATM cosmologies claim are the most direct, or powerful, tests of those cosmologies

2) astronomical observations which critics of the ATM cosmologies claim are direct, powerful tests of those cosmologies.

I am stressing astronomical observations, not interpretations. And by "astronomical observations", I mean detection of photons (or the non-detection of photons, where detection was expected), and the observed properties of cosmic rays.*

Re mainstream ("big bang") cosmologies: this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match any observations (we have lots of other threads discussing that). This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits the two sets of astronomical observations best.

While speculation is interesting (e.g. "I reckon that {Y} theory can account for {X} data very well, but I've neither read any papers showing the match, nor done any work myself to check"), I am really interested only in demonstrable matches.

*I'm ambivalent about neutrinos and gravitational waves.

I have suggested a scenario in which an expanding energetic space creates matter as rotational space. To put it another way, space-time is energy, or to put it another way, space moves. The universe arises as an expanding sphere with a constant expansion rate of c at its edge. This means that the potential of space to expand at c is fully used only at its edge, while within the field of space the expansion is less than c, creating pressure, to which the field responds by creating rotating regions, i.e. matter. In the regions of matter, space does not expand since its energy is used maintaining the rotation of particles. Between these regions and the edge of the field, the same potential is re-created and matter is continuously created in cycles. As the volume of the field increases, the time between matter creation cycles increases and space is seen to expand at a greater rate.

In this scenario I find that the field has the potential to create ~10^60 particles of matter in one second. In this scenario there is no inflation since matter is continuously created. Nor is there an initial condition of a hot dense state. Rather the initial condition is simply the existence of space-time.

This scenario means that any measurement of distance, or change in distance between two objects, must include a measurement of the movement of the space within which the distance is measured. I do not know how this would be done.

This scenario may help to explain the apparent existence of dark matter and dark energy, and the existence of walls. Dark matter is rotating space and dark energy is the portion of the expanding field which is not subject to rotation. Since the field energy has the potential to create a volume of space twice the volume of the existing field, and this volume is compressed into the existing volume, the potential spatial volume is ~1.25 times the existing volume; i.e. ~79 percent of space is not subject to rotation while ~21 percent is subject to rotation. Walls of galaxies may represent the cyclical creation of matter.

I find that the idea of matter as rotating space is given a substantive character by the fact that the Josephson constant for deriving frequency from voltage in superconductors, when applied to protons and electrons as if they were electric circuits, gives a frequency close to that for protons and electrons if their masses in kilograms are equivalent to oscillations (rotations) derived from Planck’s constant and the frequency required to arrive at those masses.

In this scenario the microwave background is created not by an era of recombination but by an era of original combination, by protostellar clouds receding at near light speed, or is not cosmic.

#11 (Jerry Jensen):"This is an interesting challenge, but there are subtle straw men qualities. Alternatives are discounted because the BB is based upon a specific set of rules. If the rules are wrong, in most cases, so are the interpretations of the phenomenon."

#13 (Nereid): "You're right, Jerry, there are some unstated assumptions.

For example, given that the scope is 'cosmology', then an unstated assumption is that any cosmological theory will at least attempt to address all (good) observations of the big, the distant, the old, etc.

So, the list includes items which are big, distant, old, etc, in the best cosmological theory we have, today.

Only to the extent that, in an alternative cosmology, there are phenomena which are big, distant, old, etc that are not included in this list (an alternative cosmology should address all items in the list, at least showing that the things observed are not big, distant, old, etc).

And the OP specifically refers to the observations, not the interpretations of those observations (which may be quite different, in an alternative cosmology)."

#38 (Bob Angstrom): "Any new theory must rise or fall based on its own merits and not by its ability to bash the Big Bang or vice versa.
The means of testing a theory are not always obvious at first but they generally come with time.
If you want to talk observations, you have omitted the two most significant and those are the the ability to explain dark matter and dark energy.
This is your thread but you won't disvcover anything with blinders on."

#41 (Nereid): "Indeed, thank you for making this point.

In this thread, I am interested in one, just one, aspect of any merits which "any new theory" must have - the extent to which any such (alternative cosmologies) can match the five sets of observations (data) referred to in the OP.

Indeed.

In terms of looking at alternative cosmologies, I am "starting small" - this thread looks at only a subset of observations.

The scope does not include experiments (though some could be smuggled in, I'm sure)

Nor does it ask about what is big, distant, old, etc in any alternative cosmology (i.e. the things which, in an alternative cosmology, would be important to at least consider testing), other than those implied in the five sets of observations (e.g. the CMB, galaxies).

Quite frankly, many posts in this thread have surprised me.

And they have made me curious ... do these posts reflect a misunderstanding of what science is, and how it works?"

#57 lyndonashmore): "The point I was making was that even the BB does not answer these points so why should she expect other theories to do it?

Who was it who said, “Do not ask of other theories what your own theory is not prepared to do”"

#61 (Nereid): "Hmm, I'm not sure that anyone expects any theory to match any points.

Doesn't the OP simply ask about the extent to which an alternative cosmology matches the five sets of observations?

So, just so that I'm clear about this, are you advocating that alternative cosmologies do not need to be asked questions such as "to what extent does {alternative cosmology X} match {observations}?" Or are you advocating merely that alternative cosmologies need be asked only questions such as "to what extent does {alternative cosmology X} match {observations other than the five sets in the OP}?""

One more thing: Grey, in response to Bob Angstrom's post, started a thread: How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct? That thread contains discussion highly pertinent to the comments Bob Angstrom made; rather than duplicate discussion, please post in that thread comments etc which address How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct?

There's a Jerry Jensen post, in the "Grey" thread, that I think well captures the spirit of what this thread is about:Grey's comment on this is also worth quoting: