Replacing Space-Time concept for the universe. An idea.

Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
I start with a brief discussion already in the public domain.
Astronomers have known that galaxies across the universe are behaving badly. Some are spinning too fast, while others are just way too hot and still others glommed into superstructures too quickly.
But they don't know why. Perhaps some new hidden particle, like dark matter, could explain the weirdness. Or perhaps gravity is acting on these coalescing clusters of stars in a way scientists hadn't expected.
For decades, astronomers have debated the possibilities. While most astronomers believe that dark matter exists, some still think that we need to modify our theory of gravity. However, new research has found a critical flaw in modified gravity theories: They allow for effects to occur without causes and for information to travel faster than the speed of light. This is bad … for modified gravity.
"It may change this … research area considerably, forcing it in rather new directions," lead researcher and Tufts University astrophysicist Mark Hertzberg told Live Science.
Something funny is going on in the universe. For instance, based on what scientists would predict based on the masses of galaxies, stars orbit around the centers of them far too quickly; the temperature of the gas inside of galaxy clusters is far too hot, and large structures appeared in our universe far too soon.
At galactic and cosmological scales, either astronomers' understanding of the force of gravity is totally off, or there's a new ingredient in our universe that exerts gravity but is otherwise invisible. The latter idea is known as cold dark matter (CDM), which the name is given to a hypothetical form of matter that is as yet unknown to physics. The "cold" is there to note that whatever exotic particle might be responsible for the dark matter, it moves relatively slowly, in contrast to other potential dark matter candidates like the neutrino — an example of a candidate for hot dark matter particles.
"If one gives up the principles of causality and locality, then it means we are essentially unable to explain the structure of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity." Said Mark Hertzberg, of Tufts University.
"If one gives up the principles of causality and locality, then it means we are essentially unable to explain the structure of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity, as they are some of the central principles that go into constructing these theories in the first place," Hertzberg said. "In other words, if causality were badly broken in nature, we likely would have seen it already in various corrections to particle physics in the lab or tests of gravity in space."
In other words, we should've noticed by now.
Concerning the above I propose the following:
I want to separate explanations for
‘1. What effects we observe or quantities we measure in our immediate surroundings of existence’ and
‘2. How we need to study, observe, explain the happenings in the entire universe from its creation to expansion and gravitational field effects’.
In (1) above, we need to define space and time intervals separately with units, etc. to understand, document, and communicate our explanations.
In (2), instead of the idea of Space-Time let us try to think in terms of energy distribution only. In describing activities in the vastness of the Universe at present we use space or time intervals.
If we keep it aside and think in the below-mentioned ways then what? Ignore consideration of space or time.
Thought:
Let us think of this universe as a limitless distribution of energy only. It is continuous and may be continually varying in energy density, form, or type of energy. A comparison for understanding maybe, viscous fluid inflow like a lava flow from a volcano. Energy density is totally random over the whole distribution and continually varying but never forms a void or absence of energy over the entire distribution.
Somewhere in this distribution due to randomness, energy accumulation may increase local energy density. This may be considered similar to a vortex formation in flowing liquid, forming an energy whirlpool. More and more energy gets concentrated in that whirlpool. So all other forms of energy may get transformed dominantly into energy similar to rotational energy. Due to enhancing energy density an energy pool of enormous density may form at the eye of the vortex, and in that form, it may continue to increase.
As it is a continuum so even if the concentration of energy increases at the vortex, energy density in the immediate surroundings decreases with the formation of turbulence but it never creates any void at some other part of the distribution. Continuity never breaks. Only variations in energy density occur. So around the vortex energy density lowers compared to that at the vortex.
This turbulence and vortex formation can be of different scales. Sometimes after some increase in concentration energy takes mass form. Energy in mass form is very much known to us. Mass again may get associated with many other known forms of energy in our scale of magnitude like mechanical, chemical, nuclear, electromagnetic energy, and so on. All the energy forms we know around us must exist only involving mass. But in the entire distribution, energy exists in many other forms, some of which may be beyond our perceptions. We named them Dark Mass or Dark energy. About 95% of the energy exists in these forms opine scientists.
After the energy concentration attains a threshold at the vortex, in some cases energy density may start to diffuse again, since changing energy density everywhere is a continuous happening. The whirlpool starts to open up and the variation of energy flow reverses. From concentrating at the vortex energy deconcentrates there. But then nature or type of energy may take new forms. Due to the property of conversion of energy, plenty of different forms of energy start building up. Many of those forms are known to us as heat, light, mass, etc. with many other forms of energy unknown to a great extent to our limited knowledge like dark matter and dark energy. This transformative process may be continuously happening at many parts of the energy distribution in various magnitudes.
So what we call, universe formed at Big Bang, may not be the full explanation. Whirlpool-like formation and its reverse-like unwinding may be taking place in other parts of the energy distribution too. It’s our inability we don’t observe. Big Bang we talk about maybe just one such occurrence only of whirlpool unwinding. The universe is not only that.
We being mass ourselves became engrossed in knowing about small energy involving or associated with the mass of different forms as chemical or physical energies like potential, kinetic, heat, light, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, etc. We understand these energies cause forces on masses in four different types of force fields namely Gravitational, Electro-Magnetic, Weak Energy, and Strong Energy force fields. In studying them and their actions we need to take the help of space or time intervals. We thought of different quantities to understand, measure, and predict actions using mathematics.
But details of the rest 95% of energy still quite in the dark to our knowledge.
Scientists conceived the idea of space and time. Relevance of space and time became useful only when we thought of space intervals or time intervals. We formulated measurement and thought of starting and ending points in space and time scales. In our idea, we think of space and time intervals to understand happenings around by generating other physical quantities like velocity, acceleration, force, etc. This led us to get the measure of every happening somehow in terms of intervals or parts of space and time, keeping space and time concept as a whole illusive. Do we really know as a whole what is space or what is time? If not, then how come we think of their start at some particular event in space like Big Bang?
In this present idea, I suggest we do not need to think of space and time at all in knowing the nature or behavior of the universe. By considering Big Bang-like theory we are limiting ourselves to one of many energy whirlpool formations. Applying the concept of interval in space and time we get involved in the start time of unwinding of the vortex and conceive the start of time and space etc.
To understand our day-to-day activities concept of space and time intervals in discreteness works very effectively, but this concept of space-time fails to explain many phenomena we only observe. Such as we tried to get an idea of the size of the universe. Here we brought in the idea of space expansion. Space interval expansion we understand when an object expands on heating its volume may increase to occupy more space. But space and time dilation or contraction in high speed seems to be conditional, and understandable mathematically too.
I propose to look at the universe as energy distribution only.
Here, I will try to bring in the idea of Gravitation and Gravitational waves.
In the process of vortex formation, energy may exhibit in the mass form of different sizes (of course may not too). Let us take an example; when the concentration is of some magnitude at two different parts of the whole distribution close by to each other, then in the region in between two such formations energy density reduces. But energy distribution remains continuous. Like fluids in a whirlpool energy in and around vortices create rotating or winding tides of waves. These tides are like waves of energy. A winding ripple of crest and troughs in energy distribution around the vortex form.
Let us now conceive what might be happening. Energy density increases at each vortex and energy accumulations at vortices cause a reduction of energy density at the immediate surrounding of each whirlpool.
If the created vortices are close enough, they may tend to merge or come closer to each other due to the effect of tides around. It is like the energy distribution continuum tends to bring in uniformity by filling up the lower energy density region. This phenomenon creates new turbulences and redistribution of energy all around. If the two vortices are two masses then they may appear to attract each other. When the vortex is very deep and a concentration of very large energy density occurs, then surrounding smaller vortices may appear to fall into it. They appear to be attracted to each other. This attraction may be described as gravitational force. This may also explain why there is no repulsion in gravitation. So all the so formed masses only attract each other. We may call it tidal force too.
In the region in between two vortices energy density dips away from one vortex the energy density variation as seen from any one of the vortices inversely proportional to distance. E α r-1 where E is energy at a point and r is the distance from a vortex. Therefore we may think of a force which is F = dE/dr, and proportional to F α –r-2. The negative sign represents attraction and variation of force is in the Inverse Square of distance. Inverse-square law of gravitation.
Again where dipper is the vortices more is the tendency to come closer, so obviously, we conclude more the masses is the force. This process appears to be as if the two masses attract each other, which is a gravitational force as per Newton’s law of gravitation. It is entirely different from physical forces like electric or magnetic forces. Gravitation is an apparent force due to energy density variations with its nature only attractive. Apparently may not be exhibited on small scale.
The vortices which are deep but are not too close with each other their behavior may be a bit weird. When they unwind themselves, energy spreading may start faster and faster bringing in an effect of stretching of the entire energy distribution. So the vortices seem to be getting away from each other. Again the distribution remaining continuous and the in-between energy cloud of totally unknown nature of lesser density may be responsible for expansion.
In the region between two vortices, energy density distribution is like tidal waves. Tidal waves are energy distributions, which create circular waves centering on any vortex. To shift from one vortex to the next you need to cross crests and troughs of energy waves, similar to crossing sea waves. In fact, this continuity in energy distribution linked by these tidal effects of waves of varying wavelengths may be called Gravitational waves. These are like ripples spreading around the source of disturbance in fluids. These Gravitational waves do not carry any energy they only describe shapes of energy density distribution as a whole and need not have any fixed frequency, wavelength, or velocity except they get specified by the source i.e., the vortex. So we may think of regions around these vortices where other vortices may feel situation like a force. This region may be termed a Gravitational field.
In the above, we discussed mass formation. That must require a threshold condition of energy concentration. But due to randomness, it may not occur every time. It may be so that the magnitude of energy accumulation is high but not to exist in mass form. They may also behave similarly to mass in creating gravitational fields, but not enough to be visible with light. Do we call them Dark Matter?
This continuous energy distribution of varying density I described is gravitational energy.
In this distribution at the created vortices where energy transforms to masses, some new forms of energy transformation may start only involving those masses. In the process of vortices to exist as mass can be of any random sizes. So there cannot be any minima or maxima of mass.
Whereas the other forms of energy involving masses can be of other forms. They all exist with mass particles and have different charges. But all these charges exist in two different types each. They just need to have a minimum value and cannot exist without mass. They create other field forces apart from that described above and classified as electromagnetic, weak energy force, and strong energy force types.
These forms of energies also create force between charges and can be attractive or repulsive in nature and practically seize to convey effect on one another at large distances. These charges exist only in multiples of some definite amount called their minima for existence, note the difference with mass formation.
Electromagnetic energy produced by electric or magnetic charges as we know can be of various frequencies to spread around. Some of the frequencies give us the feeling of vision called light. Those charges whose behavior can cause electromagnetic forces may spread electromagnetic waves being sources of light. The masses formed as described above if reflect light falling on them become visible too.
The energy density distribution described allows light to propagate through it, but the tides formed around vortices put compulsion on the flow of these lights. They need to curve along with the shape of tides around vortices or masses. The energy distribution density variation compels the shape for all energy propagation. Gravitational lensing.
The most important part is that the energy distribution is too huge in comparison to the effects of other field forces we know about in short distances. All conceived distances in our measurement conception are too tiny in comparison to the size of the energy distribution and its variety in behavior at different parts. This great continuous distribution is gravitational in nature.
In my opinion, we must not keep this gravitational field in the same class with other field forces. It is unique on its own. Except for its existence, other field forces become irrelevant. So Gravitational Field may be termed to be the mother of all other field forces.
Working on building a mathematical model of my description.
Expect expert comments, please.
 
May 1, 2021
67
40
60
Nothing extraordinary or beyond the laws of physics is happening out there. We just haven't been able to properly explain it. Perhaps our measuring instruments are not telling us the truth. Perhaps we're not interpreting the received data properly. For all we know, the expansion of the outer reaches of the universe may be decelerating, not accelerating. The information we're receiving is over 13 billion years old, after all.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Quote
I want to separate explanations for
‘1. What effects we observe or quantities we measure in our immediate surroundings of existence’ and
‘2. How we need to study, observe, explain the happenings in the entire universe from its creation to expansion and gravitational field effects’.
Quote

2. is pretty well covered, except for a very brief interval between t = 0 (for want of a better description) and a good follow up. However, that brief interval is highly critical because mathematics cannot agree with physics when it comes to division by zero. There is open season there between a singularity and a cyclic, not infinitely whatever model.

On the subject of dark matter and dark energy, do you accept that these may be justifiably regarded as ad hoc assumptions to bail out the maths?

Incidentally, it might be a good idea if you include an executive summary. That is one long 'maiden speech'. Incidentally, creation does carry some weight of baggage.
Also, for clarification, do you intend 'universe' or 'Universe'?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prajit
Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
How about the 'space-entropy continuum'.
The principle of maximum entropy is used to obtain energy and enstrophy spectra as well as average relative vorticity fields in the context of geostrophic turbulence on a rotating sphere. In the unforced-undamped (inviscid) case, the maximization of entropy is constrained by the constant energy and enstrophy of the system, leading to the familiar results of absolute statistical equilibrium. In the damped (freely decaying) and forced-damped case, the maximization of entropy is constrained by either the decay rates of energy and enstrophy or by the energy and enstrophy in combination with their decay rates. Integrations with a numerical spectral model are used to check the theoretical results for the different cases. Maximizing the entropy, constrained by the energy and enstrophy, gives a good description of the energy and enstrophy spectra in the inviscid case, in accordance with known results. In the freely decaying case, not too long after the damping has set in, good descriptions of the energy and enstrophy spectra are obtained if the entropy is maximized, constrained by the energy and enstrophy in combination with their decay rates. Maximizing the entropy, constrained by the energy and enstrophy in combination with their (zero) decay rates, gives a reasonable description of the spectra in the forced-damped case, although discrepancies remain here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patrick fenex
Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
Nothing extraordinary or beyond the laws of physics is happening out there. We just haven't been able to properly explain it. Perhaps our measuring instruments are not telling us the truth. Perhaps we're not interpreting the received data properly. For all we know, the expansion of the outer reaches of the universe may be decelerating, not accelerating. The information we're receiving is over 13 billion years old, after all.
Thank you so much for noting the gist of my idea. Great you wrote.

Definitely nothing is beyond laws of physics happening. So if we restrict with space or time intervals we might be neglecting the key issues. I am trying to lead to this only. Our information collection is through EM radiation mainly. Intensity variation in energy or energy density study through gravitational waves may give better idea. Velocity (of light) involves space and time intervals. Moreover from GTR a singularity is projected which suites mathematics but beyond perception. As the velocity of light is maximum and fixed in vacuum our information gathering process gets hindered. Within the Event Horizon (EH) we are clueless, because light speed is maximum, since we defined speed. But between EH and singularity in a BH what is there, is beyond our perception. As soon as one tries to draw a size or shape separated from surrounding with space-time concept for a mass (Energy in Mass form) in large scale out there in the cosmos confusion arise.

You mentioned of Instruments in use. But I think we first must decide what to observe over there.

Because energy exists in various forms we need to know which form to watch for and if that is enough.
 
Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
Quote
I want to separate explanations for
‘1. What effects we observe or quantities we measure in our immediate surroundings of existence’ and
‘2. How we need to study, observe, explain the happenings in the entire universe from its creation to expansion and gravitational field effects’.
Quote

2. is pretty well covered, except for a very brief interval between t = 0 (for want of a better description) and a good follow up. However, that brief interval is highly critical because mathematics cannot agree with physics when it comes to division by zero. There is open season there between a singularity and a cyclic, not infinitely whatever model.

On the subject of dark matter and dark energy, do you accept that these may be justifiably regarded as ad hoc assumptions to bail out the maths?

Incidentally, it might be a good idea if you include an executive summary. That is one long 'maiden speech'. Incidentally, creation does carry some weight of baggage.
Also, for clarification, do you intend 'universe' or 'Universe'?

Cat :)
Thank you so much for your queries and suggestions.
I really thought of including an executive summary in the first place, but then being my first time participating in this forum I became a bit elaborate, maybe a boring one.

Now I try to explain what you asked for:
The first one you asked,
‘1. What effects we observe or quantities we measure in our immediate surroundings of existence’

As I stated in my article, in the turbulent energy ocean( if allowed to say so) formation of vortices may cause energy conversion to mass form. Being a vortex in the immediate vicinity of that mass, waves of energy exist. Earth being a mass, on its surface or close surroundings all the activities we are commonly involved with between different objects are so tiny in comparison to earth and the energy turbulence we think of out there on the cosmological scale can not be brought under the same ambient. So for these to study in detail space-time models is practically perfect, except quantum scale actions, which needs separate explanations and here we may keep them separate.
So the physical quantities like position, momentum, acceleration, mechanical force, the energy possessed by mass particles, and their motions are very useful.

The second one you asked,
‘2. How we need to study, observe, explain the happenings in the entire universe from its creation to expansion and gravitational field effects’.

Why do we need to think of a space size for the Universe? This idea prevails due to our idea of measurement. Whether it is infinite or not how does it matter? We must be interested in studying what is happening there and why? Why think of the start or end of time and space in that scale of events, which hold true in minuscule scale around us.
As I explained in an energy turbulent huge system continuous changes in energy density and form occurring.
We must consider the thorough study of gravitational wave variations due to various energy transformations. To us, space-time limitations may have importance but if we consider variations of energy density in the whole universe we may come to know the actual happenings better. As I said two vortices tend to merge to lower the net energy, so they appear to be attractive, but it is not the force we know here. So we never see repulsion.

Please be kind to comment on my explanation. I need deeper interaction and criticism.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Prajit, Thank you for your reply.

I can see some sense in what you are saying. Our problem is, as always, down to what my mentor said.
"The map IS NOT the territory" (Korzybski "Science and Sanity"). Words are only vibrations in space, moderated by time viz frequency, or marks on a piece of paper or computer screen. They ARE NOT the effects of gravity or the energy of a rocket taking off. They are abstractions which allow us, in a very limited way, to interpret what comes in through our very biased and limited senses. Therefore, we are receiving a 'picture' of our surroundings which is heavily filtered. Of course , we are extending our sources of information to "see" by infrared and X-rays etcetera, and this is un-filtering some of our input.
When you talk of vortices, for example, you are invoking space by describing the rotational movement and invoking time by describing the change in rotational motion. Thus you are conveying your meaning, although heavily filtered (not your fault :) ) So, from the title:
Replacing Space-Time concept for the universe. An idea
. . . . . . . . . you have to invoke space/time in order to replace it.
Like trying to replace the English language speaking only English - only more difficult.

This, of course, is the way of the world as we perceive it. " 'Twas ever thus' ".

I have to think about the proximity of vortices. Do they need to have opposite rotations between them? This will affect their interactions.
There - you have answered the "3-body problem in gravitation".

Cat :)
 
Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
Thank you so much, Cat:).
I'm happy you raised this question by asking by rotation etc I considered space-time inherently. I considered that while developing my idea. Following is what I think.

Rotation, winding, and actual vortex formation typically in our notion needs mass, speed, angular momentum, etc. So in the space-time interval concept, it needs a size shape starting time, time passing, location, way of observation, and all. For location and size, you need an observer. For time intervals you need a clock-like instrument to compare with, but my question is if we do not or cannot observe, will it bring any change in actual happening? We say time passes because after 24 hours date changes. But is there any difference between one rotation of the earth to the next? We decided on the concept of time passage because our biological changes bring a start and end.
My idea of an energy ocean with whirlpool formation and vortex-like happening is a comparison to understand. Vortex formation in fluids has a major cause of energy variation, I used a similar idea to understand entropy change with that of enstrophy in turbulence. With this comparison, I tried to explain gravitation and why repulsion is absent in gravitation.
My idea is to explain the Black Hole, Neutron Star, etc formation, their merger, and predict some happenings occurring using my idea. I shall share those too if you allow, please.
Whenever you try to get numerical estimation you need a start and an end. The recent observation of the NSBH merger happened far away and we are observing now a happening of long past. I want to emphasize that let us first try to explain what might be happening there before imposing our restrictions of start or end or size and shape, and cross-check those from direct or indirect observations. Observation of gravitational wave modulation may give better clarity.
Energy change all over is definitely true.
 
Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
Vortex, curvature, needs no real starting point or ending point, though relativity to the local may give appearance and even apparent physics of beginning and end. Non-locality, infinity, timelessness, forever, may have palpable physics regarding 'local' wherever local is.

This illustrative animation from an article in Quanta Magazine may give you an idea of what I'm talking about, if you can begin to understand it.

Physicists Uncover Geometric ‘Theory Space’ | Quanta Magazine

If nothing else give thought to the curvature of space-time, the vortex, coming on from potentially infinity and going away, potentially, to infinity, illustrated in the animation. Matter and energy in, of, attached to, that distant background non-local line and point and mural of horizon may have, as I said, palpable physics regarding and arriving to this our foreground local.

From here it might look like a closed system, but the more you look at it the more you realize you as a traveler going into it are going into infinity and forever. That illustration in every direction whatsoever whatsoever of space, side and side, left and right, up and down, back and forth, broad and deep, can be relativized to the observer to a void, a vacuum, a Big Hole, of space-time everywhere. An open system. An opening system.

Yet, again from here, an apparent closure to horizon, to a point, to the BB/Planck beginning. The look, even the feel, of a closed system.....

..... But if the traveler moves toward its curvature, into it vortex, space and islands, universes, out of the horizon, no such thing.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2021
175
129
260
Nothing extraordinary or beyond the laws of physics is happening out there. We just haven't been able to properly explain it. Perhaps our measuring instruments are not telling us the truth. Perhaps we're not interpreting the received data properly. For all we know, the expansion of the outer reaches of the universe may be decelerating, not accelerating. The information we're receiving is over 13 billion years old, after all.
I would like to add:
- tools essentially need continuous development and precision improvement;
- even if acceleration assumption is true. It is still unknown, will it start slowing down infinitely, stop at a balanced state or start to collapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jul 1, 2021
9
3
15
Lariliss, it's very true the tools must be improved, but in this vast arena of observables in the cosmos, the more you improve more varieties open up. Moreover when we know by now that about 95% of things around are totally unknown. The only thing in totality we know is that they are all energy in some form.
So along with improvement in observation, can we try to think of energy distribution too.

Cat, I think the concepts of properties of zero tell you at "t=0" physics breaks. Physical happenings over there do not depend on our maths, we may use maths to predict or explain.
So at singularity "t=0", maybe true mathematically, but at the singularity, the energy void that exists may not be acceptable. The physical significance of singularity is questionable so accepting that as a starting point for this enormity is hazy.
Why not try to study what this observed situation indicating, through the distribution of energy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lariliss

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"Cat, I think the concepts of properties of zero tell you at "t=0" physics breaks. Physical happenings over there do not depend on our maths, we may use maths to predict or explain."

I must have said all this about 'close to t = 0 physics breaking down because mathematics, which is not bound to reality is being used where it has no meaning.
We may, and do, use maths to confuse ourselves, probably unintentionally. General Semantics should be taught in schools, maybe then we would not be cursed with daft postings (I mean that generally).

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
If there is anything people here should know about me, it is that I am not here to convert anyone here to or from anything. Yes I have my ideas, but if you don't like them, tough. I don't care. I am happy with the cosmology I have built up, or agreed with, since there is nothing new under the Sun.

It works for me. It does not contravene reason. It does not conflict with scientific principles. There are some regions where we cannot observe or experiment. Too long ago, too far away, too far beyond the comprehension allowed us by our senses.

We resort to philosophy. Some do this conscientiously. Some resort to the most absurd fantasy. You take your pick. Here, I am writing totally generally with no reference to specific individuals.

Cat :)
 
Jul 27, 2021
175
129
260
Lariliss, it's very true the tools must be improved, but in this vast arena of observables in the cosmos, the more you improve more varieties open up. Moreover when we know by now that about 95% of things around are totally unknown. The only thing in totality we know is that they are all energy in some form.
So along with improvement in observation, can we try to think of energy distribution too.

Cat, I think the concepts of properties of zero tell you at "t=0" physics breaks. Physical happenings over there do not depend on our maths, we may use maths to predict or explain.
So at singularity "t=0", maybe true mathematically, but at the singularity, the energy void that exists may not be acceptable. The physical significance of singularity is questionable so accepting that as a starting point for this enormity is hazy.
Why not try to study what this observed situation indicating, through the distribution of energy?
To the point, thank you.

1. GR is a fundamental tool, where the specific metrics, the theories are being tested. Different approach aims to refine a specific metric.

2. Today cosmology goes through new cruces in energy conservation. As the universe is expanding. With the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. So, as space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume.

3. We have gone through thousands of 'in-lab', LHC tests, and so forth. And moreover, what is important, developed observation and measurement systems (including in outer space ones) remarkable given that the family of metrics at the the order of data collected is in the trillions of bytes.

Any specific model is a challenge and a step forward in the same time. Researches go and check it with a suitable part trillion bytes.

And what is done, I like to mention, supernova appeared within a predicted month in 2020 (previously we could predict it with 10 000 years precision:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY