Cover Illustration by J. E. Mullat THE BIG BANG AND THE BIG CRUNCH From Public Domain: designed by Luke Mastin OBSERVATIONS THAT SEEM TO CONTRADICT THE BIG BANG MODEL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SUPPORT AN ALTERNATIVE COSMOLOGY Forrest W. Noble and Timothy M. Cooper The Pantheory Research Organization, Cerritos, California 90703 USA HUBBLE-INDEPENDENT PROCEDURE CALCULATING DISTANCES TO COSMOLOGICAL OBJECTS Joseph E. Mullat AN EXPERIMENT COMPARING ANGULAR DIAMETER DISTANCES BETWEEN PAIRS OF QUASARS Joseph E. Mullat and Forrest W. Noble Project and Technical Editor: J. E. Mullat, Copenhagen 2019 ISBN‐13 978‐8740‐40‐411‐1 Private Publishing Platform Byvej 269 2650, Hvidovre, Denmark [email protected] I The Postulate COSMOLOGY THAT CONTRADICTS THE BIG BANG THEORY The Standard and The Alternative Cosmological Models, Distances Calculation to Galaxies without Hubble Constant, An Experiment comparing angular Diameter Distances For the alternative cosmological models discussed in the book, distances to galaxies are calculated without using the Hubble constant. Initially, in the present and in the future, a new space in the form of a quantum vacuum and matter will arise inde‐ pendently in the Universe as a result of parallel and simultane‐ ous gravitational interaction, forming a new quantum vacuum and visible matter. The average energy density in the Universe decreases, new regions appear, previously being hidden under the quantum transition from the hypothetical Background Gravi‐ tational Field. When a minimum (average critical energy density) is reached, the gravitational transition to quantum vacuum and visible matter will begin to decrease its acceleration. We recre‐ ated the inflationary phase of the Universe based on the postu‐ late of decreasing density. An experiment was also carried out to compare the angular diameters of the distances between pairs of quasars according to data from open access. Unlike all known geometric models of the Euclidean metric space, the gravitational transition of the Background Gravitation Field into matter, respectively, would presumably occur in the metric space of the stereographic projection into the three‐ dimensional surface of the four‐dimensional manifold. It doesnʹt matter how we describe energy‐field, calling it ether, gravitons, or vice versa, converting it back into the ether or energy‐field. It should be clear to everyone that this renaming does not change the essence of the gravitational transition. II About the Authors Pantheory Research Organization. Forrest Noble Director: Our published research papers to date relate to theoretical cosmology and related theoretical physics. Most of this work promotes alternative explanations and equations contrary to dark energy, dark matter, Inflation and Big Bang cosmology in general. Forrest W. Noble One of Tim’s interests in the contrarian theory herein is that it contradicts major aspects of most theories in modern physics yet it cannot be disproved by observations to date based upon alternative interpretations of them. Tim is a stress engineer in the aerospace industry and has a Master’s degree in Systems Engineering. Timothy M. Cooper Joseph Emmanuel Mullat currently works as Independent Researcher. Joseph does research in Game Theory, Public Economics, Optimal Taxation, Data Analysis and Cosmology. The most recent publication is ʹOn the Possibility of Describing Events in Cosmology at the Scale of Average Relativistic Density of Matterʹ. Joseph E. Mullat III Critical Views, credits from Public Domain It seems to me (ie., for the writer of this critical lines, which follows; the source will not be disclosed, ed.) that Scientists ʺinventʺ some concepts in order to prevent their old ideas becoming untenable. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ʺinventionsʺ that highlight the errors in current theory, they just do not really exist, and a modification to current theory is required to ʺfix this upʺ. For instance ʺdark matterʺ is supposed to be 80% of all the matter in the Universe. What it is telling me (author of these current lines, ed.) is current theories of Gravitation and the Big Bang are out by nearly an order of magnitude. You can ʺkeepʺ the current theory only if you ʺbalance the booksʺ using a ʺhuge fudge factorʺ. The real problem is quantum entanglement has not been introduced into theories of cosmology yet and that is where the problem is. Space‐time is not primary to the Universe and it is the pre‐existing geometry that is ʺrealʺ. It illustrates just how little science knows and how reactionary it is to any change. There are plenty of theoretical solutions to this problem but the ʺelephant in the roomʺ is there is a reluctance to commit to primary research in the areas that will cause real change because change is going to hurt a large number of established reputations. Therefore the question ʺWhat was first: The Dark or the Visible matterʺ, the answer is there can only be one form of matter. Too many people are watching Star Wars and have turned to the ʺDark Sideʺ for answers and are not keeping a weather eye on their instruments. If they finally find ʺthe elephantʺ, they will be attacked and savaged by those who have their pensions to protect. Contents Preface 7 Public Domain: the Big Bang and the big Crunch Introduction 23 The Expanding Universe and the Hubble’s Law 26 Cosmic Background Radiation 31 Dark Matter 34 Cosmic Inflation 39 Timeline of the Big Bang 46 Accelerating Universe and the Dark Energy 51 Antimatter 57 The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip 60 To fully understand Superstrings and Quantum Gravity 64 Conclusion 71 Support of an Alternative Cosmology Introduction 75 Discussion I 76 Problems 1.1—1.9 77 Summaries of the Above Problems 97 Explaining of the Pan Theory 98 Conclusions 107 References 110 Distances to Cosmological Objects Introduction 113 Preliminaries 120 The Model 125 The ‐equation 138 Results 148 Discussion 158 Concluding remarks 160 Mathematical derivation 162 Appendix 164 References 169 Angular Diameter Distances 175 Postscript 198 Name Index 205 VI Comments edited by J. Mullat & F. Noble “In the beginning, there was nothing. Well, not quite nothing—more of a Nothing with Potential. A nothingness in which packets of energy fleeted in and out of existence, popping into oblivion as quickly as they appeared. One of these fluctuations had just enough energy to take off. It inflated wildly out of control—one moment infinitesimally small, mo‐ ments later light‐years across. All of space and time was created in that instant, and as that energy slowed, it cooled and froze into matter— protons and neutrons and photons. This baby Universe kept expanding, over billions of years, and those particles coalesced into stars and plan‐ ets and eventually humans.” Source unknown PREFACE Cosmological phenomena are not exactly a subject of physical sci‐ ence as many might think. We cannot perform experiments on the Uni‐ verse. In contrast, physics is a science, where researchers can conduct experiments on various natural phenomena that can be reproduced by others in a laboratory. In cosmology, we can only look at the skies and speculate what stands behind the light reaching our telescopes. 1 We can predict the location of planets and stars at closer distances by applying classical Newtonian mechanics, when we use the ordering of the events on the time scale. Still, cosmology relies on numerous pic‐ tures of the Universe, aiming to shed some light on phenomena at far away distances. Of course, researchers can verify the correctness of the mathematical reasoning performed by their colleagues, but this does not bring them closer to the truth hidden in the vast expanses of the Universe. The dark matter is an example of such speculation that is inherent in the study of the Universe. Cosmologists call something that cannot be explained as dark matter, and have even introduced the concept of dark energy. Yet, despite these many assumptions and speculations, cosmol‐ ogy is very interesting and useful, even if it is not an experimental sci‐ 1 Disney, M. J., “The Case Against Cosmology,” Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3YB, Wales, UK. 7 Notes from the public domain ence. Remember Aristarchus, who with his primitive tools needed only common sense and the knowledge of trigonometry to calculate the dis‐ tance from the Earth to the Sun with great accuracy, using only the di‐ mensions of the Earth’s shadow projected onto the Moon’s surface. Aristarchus from Samos, fl. c.310 BC — c.230 BC, was a Greek astrono‐ mer and mathematician of the Alexandrian school. It is said that he was the first to propose the heliocentric theory of the Universe. As cosmologists also speculate about the origins of the Universe, they posit neither existence of some point prior to which neither time nor space existed, and refer to it as singularity problem of time. Space has a density of energy, which largely determines the dynamics of cos‐ mic objects and the Universe as a whole. Given these many assump‐ tions, it is reasonable to speculate about the Universe dynamics, as many researchers claim that it is expanding and its density of energy is decreasing. Space and time despite the speculations still are subjects of physical science and are defined in general terms, by presently accepted theory, as fundamental structures for coordinating objects and their states: a relationship system that reflects the coordination of coexisting objects (distance, orientation etc.), together form space, and a relationship sys‐ tem that determines the consistency of successive states or phenomena of flow‐series events, ordering, preferences, etc., together accordingly form time. The space in which we live—the usual three‐dimensional space—is a physical object bounded by a certain set of parameters, the change of which over time is described by dynamic systems.