For this new topic I would like to start by following the criteria for the alternative theories forum: 1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena. 2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one. 3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory. 4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in order to determine which is superior. 1. The alternative theory differs from the standard Big Bang model in proposing that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. Matter formation took place in an already existing spacetime. 2. The alternative theory provides an explanation for the expansion of space and a source of energy for the formation of matter. 3. The flaws in the standard Big Bang model are that the basic concept has always had to be revised in the light of new observations and calculations which has led to the doubtful concepts of inflation, dark matter and dark energy. 4. The alternative theory requires further analysis to show that the model is consistent in every respect with observations regarding the quantity of mass in the universe now and in the past, the expansion of the universe, the formation of the first galaxies and the evidence provided by the CMB. A more complete description of the theory is at: http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Space.htm#UNI Harmony
Universe Well in a way yes, but I was not sure of the precise concept of the luminiferous aether so I have avoided using that term. I prefer to talk about the medium of space emphasizing that it is space itself which is supporting the wave propagation as a curved spacetime local disturbance. I found that the ideas of the origin and structure of the universe are closely tied to the ideas of physics on a very small scale. In both topics: The nature of mass http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Space.htm#MAS The evolution of the universe http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Space.htm#UNI the ideas are closely related being heavily based on the idea of the equivalence of mass, energy and spacetime curvature with a single law of conservation. Harmony
I have moved the web site to a new location: http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Universe.htm I would very much welcome feedback on any point. For example the assumption behind the standard Big Bang model that the energy for mass formation was created in the same instant as space-time. This seems unnecessary because the formation of mass can occur from the expansion of space-time in an initially empty space. Harmony
No, it isn't. The BB model says nothing about the t=0 moment. The BB model is that the universe used to be (about 13.7 billion years ago) very small and very hot and it underwent massive expansion following particular rules. Just like evolution doesn't deal with how life got started the BB model doesn't deal with how that very small and very hot universe came about. You're creating a straw man. Rather than misrepresent mainstream physics I suggest you learn what it says first.
I take your point that the BB doesn't deal with t=0 but it attempts to deal with times as close as possible to t=0. I have seen estimates of the temperature at time 10^-12 seconds and earlier. My point is that the assumption is made in the Big Bang model that mass/energy existed in space-time as t tends to t=0. In the theory that I have developed, this assumption is not necessary as the expansion of space-time has the stored energy for mass formation at a later time. http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Universe.htm Harmony
