A Critical Examination of Cosmic Expansion and the Present-Day Origin of the CMB

[Jzz]

A Critical Examination of Cosmic Expansion and the Present-Day Origin of the CMB

The theory of cosmic expansion, as traditionally presented, contains profound logical and observational flaws. According to standard cosmology, the Universe is expanding uniformly at every point, with space itself stretching between objects. Yet, no trace of this expansion is detectable locally: not between atoms, not between planets, not between stars within galaxies and not in intergalactic space. We are told that both electromagnetic and gravitational forces are strong enough to resist expansion on small scales. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory. While electromagnetic forces do indeed dominate at atomic and molecular levels, gravity is a much weaker force. Galaxies — enormous, diffuse structures extending over hundreds of thousands of light-years — are held together only by the weak pull of gravity. If cosmic expansion were truly occurring everywhere, one would expect galaxies to show signs of distortion, stretching, or progressive unraveling. Yet no such effects are observed. The claim that expansion only occurs at cosmological distances — where direct observation is impossible — places it firmly beyond falsifiability. This is scientifically untenable.

Another pillar of the standard model, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), is widely regarded as the relic glow from a hot Big Bang. However, a much simpler and more immediate explanation arises from present-day conditions. Observations reveal that the vast majority of the Universe — roughly 95% — is made of matter we cannot categorize, known as dark matter and dark energy, or is nearly empty space. The average density of visible matter is about one particle per cubic meter. In such an extremely low-density environment, the natural equilibrium temperature must be very low.

Using Wien’s displacement law, which relates the temperature of a blackbody to the peak wavelength of its radiation, we can directly calculate the expected background temperature of the Universe today. Wien’s law states

where :

arranging for temperature:

The observed CMB peaks at a wavelength of approximately :

Substituting:

This is exactly the observed temperature of the CMB. — the 2.7 K background radiation emerges naturally from the conditions of the present-day Universe: a vast, cold, sparse cosmic environment in equilibrium.

Recognizing that the CMB reflects current cosmic conditions, rather than being an ancient relic, has profound implications. It removes the need to assume that it is relic radiation from the Big Bang. The supposed evidence for cosmic expansion — the observed redshift of distant galaxies — can be reinterpreted through other mechanisms, such as tired light or photon interaction with intervening dark matter, because based on the evidence the CMB is certainly not the result of redshift.

The combination of two facts — the absence of any detectable local expansion and the present-day origin of the CMB — gravely weakens the arguments for a perpetually expanding Universe, although Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND) theory does not contest the Big Bang, it does not support cosmic expansion taking place at faster than light speeds. If cosmic expansion were real, it should be observable everywhere, not just at unreachable distances. If the CMB reflects current conditions, not past events, then the Universe we observe is not a remnant of a violent beginning but the natural consequence of the conditions that prevail today.

Conclusion

These two facts — the lack of observable local expansion, and the natural present-day origin of the CMB — undercut the core arguments for an expanding Universe driven by a Big Bang origin. If cosmic expansion were truly a real, universal phenomenon, it would produce effects across all scales, not only at extreme distances. Standard cosmology claims that cosmic expansion is universal, yet only appears at distances so vast we can't directly observe it. That's not a strong scientific position — that's an excuse. If cosmic expansion truly affects all of space, why does it somehow fail to distort atoms, molecules, or galaxies — the very building blocks of the universe? Electromagnetic forces, which govern the stability of atoms and molecules, remain unscathed, and gravity, which holds galaxies together, also seems unaffected. The idea that the universe can expand in such a way that it spares the very matter and forces that constitutes its structure is not just implausible, it’s intellectually irresponsible. It's as though space is expanding around everything except the things that matter — a convenient, yet wholly unsatisfying, loophole. Furthermore, if the CMB is simply the thermal radiation of today's cold Universe, it means that a co-relation between redshift and cosmic expansion simply does not exist. The pillars of the cosmic expansion theory — cosmic redshift and relic radiation — both admit alternative explanations grounded in present conditions, not hypothetical pasts. A critical re-examination of these assumptions is not only justified but necessary if cosmology is to remain a truly observational science rather than an exercise in theoretical storytelling. In short: Expansion would not necessarily be "expansion of space" anymore. It could go back to Hubble’s original, more kinematic view — things moving apart through a pre-existing medium, a journey back through time. (Where things get faster?)

 

[Astraeus]

I agree, Cosmic Expansion does not compute.

The CMB is an interesting phenomena. Universal Motion Theory regards the CMB as a start-up sequence. UMT predicts anomalies within the CMB that would be indicative of delayed recombination. Delayed recombination implies that matter didn't pop into existence, it emerged. Emergence implies some type of process. Much easier to wrap my head around a processes as opposed to instantaneous existence.

 

[Jzz]

I agree, Cosmic Expansion does not compute.

The CMB is an interesting phenomena. Universal Motion Theory regards the CMB as a start-up sequence. UMT predicts anomalies within the CMB that would be indicative of delayed recombination. Delayed recombination implies that matter didn't pop into existence, it emerged. Emergence implies some type of process. Much easier to wrap my head around a processes as opposed to instantaneous existence.

Astraeus

First regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background: All matter, even cold dust in space, emits blackbody radiation at a characteristic temperature. Planets, stars, and clouds all follow this. For instance, the earth has a black body radiation temperature of 300 K. It’s a universal law of thermodynamics. The CMB, traditionally seen as a remnant of the Big Bang, can therefore be viewed as the natural blackbody radiation emitted by the Universe in its current low-energy state. While the Big Bang set the initial conditions for expansion and cooling, the 2.7 K radiation we observe today reflects the Universe’s ongoing thermodynamic equilibrium, not a fossil from the past. This is simply the Universe’s present thermal signature.

Secondly with regard to cosmic expansion, given the parameters of the Big Bang, it more likely that the Universe didn’t have a single, simple diameter during its early expansion. Instead, it was composed of many overlapping regions, each about a few million light-years across, with causal influence growing over time. Structure formed locally from these small seeds, and as expansion slowed, these regions combined to form larger structures. The total Universe could have already been a thousandth its present size at the time galaxies were formed. Ther core of the milky way is thought to have formed 13.6 billion years ago, just two hundred million years after the Big Bang. This finding seems to call for an initial rapid expansion and a slower more gradual solidifying of form.

 

[Astraeus]

Astraeus

First regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background: All matter, even cold dust in space, emits blackbody radiation at a characteristic temperature. Planets, stars, and clouds all follow this. For instance, the earth has a black body radiation temperature of 300 K. It’s a universal law of thermodynamics. The CMB, traditionally seen as a remnant of the Big Bang, can therefore be viewed as the natural blackbody radiation emitted by the Universe in its current low-energy state. While the Big Bang set the initial conditions for expansion and cooling, the 2.7 K radiation we observe today reflects the Universe’s ongoing thermodynamic equilibrium, not a fossil from the past. This is simply the Universe’s present thermal signature.

Secondly with regard to cosmic expansion, given the parameters of the Big Bang, it more likely that the Universe didn’t have a single, simple diameter during its early expansion. Instead, it was composed of many overlapping regions, each about a few million light-years across, with causal influence growing over time. Structure formed locally from these small seeds, and as expansion slowed, these regions combined to form larger structures. The total Universe could have already been a thousandth its present size at the time galaxies were formed. Ther core of the milky way is thought to have formed 13.6 billion years ago, just two hundred million years after the Big Bang. This finding seems to call for an initial rapid expansion and a slower more gradual solidifying of form.

I think you may be oversimplifying some of these interactions. Also there is no real indication that the CMB is being caused by currently emitted radiation. I think you are taking a big leap with that conclusion. The CMB does carry measurable imprints from recombination. Your statement contradicts current observational data.

The suggestion or use of the world equilibrium as it applies to the universe would also seem to contradict observation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue, but the current structure of the universe does not reflect universal equilibrium.

 

[Jzz]

I think you may be oversimplifying some of these interactions. Also there is no real indication that the CMB is being caused by currently emitted radiation. I think you are taking a big leap with that conclusion. The CMB does carry measurable imprints from recombination. Your statement contradicts current observational data.

The suggestion or use of the world equilibrium as it applies to the universe would also seem to contradict observation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue, but the current structure of the universe does not reflect universal equilibrium.

The distribution pattern of the CMB is often cited as evidence of its early-universe origin, but such a pattern could just as plausibly result from present-day emissions uniformly distributed across space. The interpretation is not uniquely tied to recombination-era radiation.
At least my approach seeks to engage with observable phenomena and address known issues directly. In contrast, the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

 

[Helio]

The distribution pattern of the CMB is often cited as evidence of its early-universe origin, but such a pattern could just as plausibly result from present-day emissions uniformly distributed across space. The interpretation is not uniquely tied to recombination-era radiation.
At least my approach seeks to engage with observable phenomena and address known issues directly. In contrast, the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

How do you explain the Lyman Alpha Forest?

 

[Jzz]

How do you explain the Lyman Alpha Forest?

Helio,
Interesting point but misses the main gist of the OP which is that no-one is claiming that light does not red-shift.
The Lyman-alpha forest shows that redshift occurs, but this doesn’t prove that the CMB is relic radiation. According to AND theory, atoms cannot emit microwaves—they lack the energy to do so—meaning optical light cannot simply redshift into microwave or radio wavelengths. These bands originate from entirely different physical processes, a fact supported by laboratory experiments. It’s therefore deeply questionable that cosmologists continue to claim optical light redshifts all the way into the microwave region.
Even when redshift does occur, it remains within the optical range and should still be detectable as light—not as relic microwave radiation. The idea that we’re observing microwaves redshifted from the visible spectrum is not only implausible but physically unjustifiable.
If the CMB is not relic radiation but instead a result of the current large-scale matter distribution, then foundational assumptions of the cosmic expansion model collapse. Most notably, the so-called “Hubble tension” disappears because we no longer require the early-universe anchor point the CMB supposedly provides. Without this relic framework, expansion-based models lose their empirical grounding, and the interpretation of redshift reverts to something more in line with Hubble’s original Doppler-based view—sub-luminal recession speeds, no present day inflation, no need for dark energy.

 

[Astraeus]

the Universal motion theory, you had referred to earlier and which I had unfortunately failed to address, lacks any clear foundational framework or empirical grounding.

This is a false statement. Universal Motion Theory has a mathematical framework anchored in empirical observation. UMT also has a clear falsifiability table, which no modern theory has presented. This table includes a set of predictions. If these predictions turn out to be false, then UMT is severely discredited. Conversely, if these predictions are observed, then UMT is strengthened.

UMT’s falsifiability table is a declaration of scientific integrity. It doesn’t avoid criticism — it invites it. UMT offers clarity about its failure conditions, and that clarity warrants a measure of due diligence.

 

[Jzz]

This is a false statement. Universal Motion Theory has a mathematical framework anchored in empirical observation. UMT also has a clear falsifiability table, which no modern theory has presented. This table includes a set of predictions. If these predictions turn out to be false, then UMT is severely discredited. Conversely, if these predictions are observed, then UMT is strengthened.

UMT’s falsifiability table is a declaration of scientific integrity. It doesn’t avoid criticism — it invites it. UMT offers clarity about its failure conditions, and that clarity warrants a measure of due diligence.

Astraeus
Any theory like Universal Motion Theory (UMT) that claims to explain everything from a more fundamental starting point — such as motion rather than particles or fields — cannot simply plug into existing models. It must redefine the electron, proton, and neutron — not as particles, but as persistent motion structures and replace the atom as a nucleus with orbiting electrons, with some new stable arrangement of motion. The same would hold true for all other particles and forces. The inescapable conclusion is that UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

Science must not only describe what happens but also explain how and why in terms that are connected to physical reality. When theories begin to define particles as pure motion, or fields as mathematical abstractions with no anchor in mechanism, they risk becoming untethered from the empirical foundations that make science credible in the first place. UMT must first reconstruct physics from the ground up before its predictions become concretely testable.

‘Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND)’ does not try to implement such a radical science instead it seeks to restore physical causality and structure to the electron, photon emission, and the workings of atoms, all while retaining the core insights of 20th-century physics (like virtual interactions and the Planck constant). This approach preserves both the predictive accuracy of modern theory and the mechanistic elegance of classical physics — a balance worth striving for.