Add a Comment
Save my information
My dear, three times in six years after forty years that inflation has been non-succesfully around? ***Criticizing inflation three times***?! Off with their heads, I say. Thank God Almighty that they came to their senses and felt to their knees and host a deafeningly dumb reply as their feature article one month after the Incident.
Because that’s precisely what science needs today: Authority. Since mere theoretical work hasn’t worked out.
I’m afraid to say inflation is wrong. Big bang cosmology isn’t, just inflation. It’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. But you have to understand how gravity works and what a black holes is to appreciate this. That’s because as Hawking said (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4249192.stm), the universe is like a black hole in reverse. Unfortunately the idea of a bouncing universe is wrong too. I’ll make details public at a later date.
Both Inflation and Dark Energy are enormous patches to solve problems with Big Bang Theory. There was another, much earlier patch that doesn’t get much attention, but should.
When it was first apparent that redshift is directly proportional to distance in all directions, this suggested that we are at the exact center of the universe. Then the argument became that space itself is expanding, based on the premise of spacetime. The problem with this is that the central premise of Relativity is the speed of light remains Constant to the distance. Yet if the light from those distant galaxies is being redshifted, it cannot be Constant to this intergalactic distance, but is taking longer to cross, as the universe expands. This means there is one metric of space, based on the redshift of this intergalactic light, that is increasing and it is being compared to a stable metric, based on the speed of the same light. More lightyears, not expanding lightyears.
We are though, at the center of our point of view of the universe, so there might eventually be some consideration for an optical explanation of redshift.
According to Woit (“A Cosmic Controversy”, 10 May 2017, “Not Even Wrong” blog), ‘The simplest inflationary models whose “predictions” for Planck data are being discussed involve a single inflaton field, with no understanding of how this is supposed to couple to the rest of physics.’ Is understanding of the inflaton field related to the problem of understanding Milgrom’s MOND? Google “kroupa milgrom”.
I am disappointed that none of these articles give credit/(mention the name of) to Demos Kazanas show showed a year before Alan Guth that exponental expansion can solve the horizon problem.
While this bickering is going on, we have evidence that a varying speed of light is still changing right now, a testable prediction that can be verified with atomic clocks in space.