The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
I agree that observations make it look like there is more matter than we can account for. But, we don't even know for sure that it is actually matter. Or, if it is, that it is only one form of matter.
Right, but the fact that it behaves as matter means it must be treated integral to GR, which is the basis to BBT. What ever flavor it turns out to be isn't detrimental to the view that it influences spacetime. At least that's how I see it. We both agree that science isn't about proofs, and DM lacks multiple lines of evidence, so maybe something else is at play here. But I would put it above conjecture.

The current S&T edition has a short article on FRB (Fast Radio Bursts). This is a new area of observations that helps determine the amount of matter in space around galaxies because there is a time delay as radio waves of different wavelengths propagate at different speeds based on amount of matter that it passes through. The preliminary results are that galaxy halos are lighter than expected of normal matter. This, IMO, implies more DM. A lot more FRB observations are likely in the near future, no doubt.

But, that doesn't stop people from assuming that it has had effects on the evolution of the universe that make BBT fit the other data we can get from observations. That is where "conjecture" comes in, rather than some actual equation of state for dark matter that can be included directly in physical calculations about how it behaves when compressed, exposed to magnetic fields or electric fields, how it loses and gains energy (dark photons, anyone?), etc.
Agreed, except conjecture is just a step away from subjective-based supposition. I think it merits a normal "hypothesis" level given how well it does fit the model, namely how it produces measurable tests. We seem to agree in kind, but not degree.

As for the CMBR, yes, it has been detected and studied, so it is real. But is it really what is left over from the Big Bang? It took some effort to get the prior theoretical predictions to fit the measurements for temperature.
But those who made those estimates knew they were working with very limited information. Initial conditions for the Bang will likely never be known, so I can't imagine anyone is surprised that the estimates were wrong. This is common. Columbus underestimated the distance to India because he used Ptolemy's model, who got wrong reports of distances in the Mediterranean region.

I'll look at this when time allows. Thanks.
I often wonder is there is something about the physics of the universe that is variable by location and/or time that we think is everywhere like we measure it on Earth, os that we are misperceiving reality in some way. But, that thought scares cosmologists, because it opens up so many possibilities that we are never going to be able to travel far enough from our single location in space/time to determine what it is that varies and how it does so. But, if theorists can accept that space can vary in scale, why can't they consider that time can vary in rate, and why do both have to be the same everywhere at any point we think of in times past and locations "today"? Since we have no idea how or why space "inflated", how can we be so sure it happened everywhere exactly the same way at exactly the same time?
Well, yes, if homogeneity looks axiomatic, then you're right, I think. But observations certainly seem to support this principle. That could change but the tiny anisotropy suggests otherwise. Yet there is the "cold void" region that may introduce something more profound, so time will tell.

We still don't really understand gravity, so thorough understanding isn't required even if sought diligently. Do gravitons exist? We both got engineering degrees based, in part, on Newtons "laws" because we ignored the lack of knowledge of the deeper questions, and applied the well-tested equations.
Dec 27, 2022
Visit site
Good that you covered the theoretical paper on the non-expansion of the universe. But your readers should know there is great observational evidence against expansion and the Big Bang hypothesis. Observations are the key test, after all, of scientific validity. See here: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3185, 2018

Also here: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21108.63366

And here: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26141.79844

As these papers detail expansion-hypothesis predictions are contradicted by 16 sets of observational data and are only confirmed by one, deuterium abundance. I challenge anyone to find more examples of expansion/Big Bang predictions that are quantitatively confirmed by subsequent observations.

JWST has made this a lot worse for expansion. We have not yet published on this, but see the video series starting here:
Are you literally Eric Lerner or did you just name your account in his honor or something?
I see that the post by "EricLerner" has been deleted, except for this quote by "Lara".

While I understand that needs to be sure that somebody has not represented themselves here as somebody whom they really are not, I think it is valuable to our discussions here to make the products of the actual Eric Lerner available for discussion here.

So, I appreciate the quoted material and have watched the first video. I hope that other links to the videos that the real Eric Lerner has produced continue to be available on this forum.
Feb 19, 2023
Visit site
I think for al long while now the universe started with a first impulse. A fair bit of the illusion lies in the fact that for the real universe distance is the same value as constant speed. For reality distance in Space and distance out Space makes no difference. Distance was before space was ever conceived. Space is universe structure. Speed and time are propertie of "in space" distance. It exits but we will make it ourselves if w're at it max distances. So as a formula this applies Maxdistance universe = absolute time and absolute speed of everything. But at those levels time and speed lose all everyday meaning.

Because of this, the universe as a whole can move in one direction and still be in one piece and not ripped apart. So the universe moves as a grain of sand. And the first impulse was the first grain of sand. Afterward came a second one. What happened is that the third one introduced a new law. It became trapped between two grains, force to live in their wake. None of them were actually moving. Its just positioning on their distance property.

The grains that came thereafter also trapped themselves. But they did another thing. They reorganisated themselves to help the other grains. So these were the first grains that actually did move. They did that the same sort of way we propel spacecraft out of orbit. They used some sort of gravity to escape to avoid being trapped. With this the universe can compel itself to get more energy and movement as a whole. We cannot detect it.Because the gain is the same for every particle. But we can see the redshifts we also moving to it. You can say the goal of the universe is going faster and faster. it sounds very dull. But it;s mathematticly very exciting. Because everytime the universe exceeds its bounderies something entirely new emerges. With this the universe can always invent new things.

Also the universe cannot reorganise itself the same way over and over agian to cross bounderies. Because the universe needs more movement speed and that kind of speed is limited. It has to invent structures that can have more dimensions, more types of gravity and many more things that can bring up constant machines or space perpetuum mobiles. I think we can say the speed that has been build up can never dissapear. The structure of space can never be damaged and wil always continue.

It's also not the structure as we see it. The real aligning particles on earth are dettermed by goniometrics. This means every particles has a constant universe speed around a single point of the planet. What dettermends the interactions are the orbits of particles crossing eachtother. The more orbit crossings, more interactions are available. And that makes up our 3dimension spaceplain. Thus its fair to say that everything around you including you is swirling around the planet in a very fast pace and several things you never saw are passing right through you. But no interaction with it is possible and its to fast to see with your eye.
Last edited:
Always interesting to read about the expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang model as this article reported. I place this post here for others to read if interested. The corner stone of the BB model is the CMBR observed and measured today and integrated into the expanding Universe told using GR math, and I think the math is good for redshifts, i.e., the cosmological redshift interpretation, but perhaps can have some issues in it too (comoving radial distances, angular size distance).

The main URL for this BB report is: The Big Bang model of the Universe.,

My note the 4-stage fireball evolution to explain the CMB is found in the URL. "The First Few Minutes: It takes GUTs ... and Quantum Physics" "A Fireball in four parts." "Heavy particle era", "Light particle era", "Radiation era", "Matter era". Seldom do a I read about the BB model with such plain language and clarity explaining the 4 stages of the fireball said to create the Universe and the CMBR seen today, as well as primordial abundances of H, He, and perhaps a bit of Li too.

"The temperature of the fireball drives the resulting mix of particles and radiation, and we can divide the Universe evolution into four stages; heavy particle era; light particle era; a radiation era and the present day era of matter. As the Universe expands its temperature and density decline. A Fireball in four parts. Heavy particle era - temperature > 10^12K, time < 10^-6 s - Massive particles and antiparticles are made from energetic photons and these particles can also be annihilated. Light particle era – 10^12K > temperature > 6 x 10^9K, 10^-6 s < time < 6 s - As the temperature declines not enough energy exists to create many massive particles, so light particles (electrons) are preferentially formed. Protons and electrons interact to form neutrons. As the temperature falls to 6 x 10^9K photons do not have enough energy to form proton-electron pairs, and the radiation era begins. Many neutrons decay into protons and electrons, but a reservoir of neutrons is left to play an important part in the radiation era. Radiation era - temperature approx. 10^9K, 6 s < time < 300 s - Key nuclear reactions occur in this era. The nuclei of simple elements are made from the remaining neutrons and protons. Deuterium (2H) is made by combining a neutron and proton. Further reactions create 4He (normal helium) at about 25% of the total mass (with the remaining ~75% being hydrogen). Nucleosynthesis stops at the production of 4He because at this stage (unstable) nuclei with atomic masses of 5 or 8 can only be bypassed by stellar nucleosynthesis, and stars have not yet formed! Matter era - temperature < 3000 K, time > 1 million years - At about 1 million years the temperature has dropped to about 3000 K, which allows nuclei to capture electrons and form neutral atoms (this process is called recombination). Radiation and matter decouple, such that matter becomes transparent to radiation. The CMB detected by Penzias and Wilson (and COBE) is emitted. Matter can now clump together because previously radiation could exert pressure to combat gravity. Galaxies and stars eventually form. Stellar nucleosynthesis produces heavy (eg. C,N,O,Fe) elements. Gravitational effects determine the large-scale structure of the Universe. The Big Bang theory developed after about 15 billion years!”

My note, using Ned Wright cosmology calculator, z ~ 2.85E+8 when age of universe ~ 299 seconds after BB event, This is mapped to the Radiation era. The recombination z ~ 1100, "Recombination through the visibility function…and is centered around z ~= 1100 largely independent of cosmological parameters." Ref - p. 652, Cosmology, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, 2000.

Is the BB model and expanding Universe model a fact? Time will tell here and future JWST observations and measurements could be very interesting to see. At the present, IMO the cosmology looks good but could have some holes in it too :)
Rod rhetorically (I'm reasonably sure) asks, "Is the BB model and expanding Universe model a fact?" And doing a Billslugg and a Schrodinger I naturally respond with yes! it is and no! it isn't. A cosmologically constant multi-dimensional Multiverse Universe model is well capable of having, well able to have, it both ways all at once and at all times (the constant of eternal moment being in every instant of moment // every instant of moment being in the constant of eternal moment). Yes, the cosmology does have holes in it.
Last edited: