Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics

[heyuhua]

Chinese Scholar Yang Jianliang has reconstructed the foundation of modern cosmology at a higher level through rationally modifying Einstein's gravitational field equations, drawing rational components of the Big Bang cosmology, steady state cosmology and parallel universe theory. He has his new theoretical system logically more rigorous, structurally more rational, and more profound in universe understanding,playing an irreplaceable guiding role in the future research and observation of astrophysics and geophysics.

The current Big Bang cosmology fails to rationally interpret the formation of galaxies and celestial body, logically scarred and battered, increasingly witnessing its pseudoscience nature. Yang Jianliang has fundamentally reformed Big Bang cosmology by modifying Einstein's gravitational field equation, improving the theoretical framework of general relativity, and greatly broadening its practical application. He has the modified field equations preserve conciseness and elegance of the original equation, automatically containing dark matter and dark energy effect, free from any additional assumptions. Previousrevisions centered on the needs of cosmological observations, optionallyadding or removing items, making reasoning lose scientific meaning and undermines covariance. What's more,it became impossible to return to Newton's law of gravitationin a ball symmetricalfeeble field, losing the premise as the gravitational field equation. The reformed cosmology theory has abandoned the concept of instantaneous creation of matter in Big Bang cosmology, accepting the continuous creation idea of the steady state cosmology theory, properly interpreting and connecting observations. According to the new theory, the space between galaxies is expanding, the galaxy itself is also similarly expanding, and the density of the universe remains unchanged, new substances are continuously generated in the sky, and the distance between the sun and the earth is increasing, so is the impact. The sun is getting brighter, and the earth is getting warmer. The increasing brightness of the sun is indeed a fact, but it is not interpretedby the current Big Bang Theory. According to the current Big Bang theory, the temperature of the universe and the sun is getting increasingly low. If it is the gravitational contraction that makes the sun brighter, then other celestial bodies should also be so, and it will inevitably lead to the entire universe. The temperature is getting higher and higher, contradicting the basic assumptions of Big Bang. The new theory properly interprets the recently observed gravitational anomalies within the solar system, such as the retreat movement of the moon after tidal considerations, the inconsistency between the changes in the length of day and tidal theory, and the expansion of the earth. The new theory further reveals that space-time and matter are inseparable. The continuous expansion of space-time is the continuous creation of space-time. It recognizes the continuous expansion of space-time must inevitably require the recognition of the continuous creation of materials otherwise it is to treat time and space and material independence. It belongs to absolute space-time perspective. The current Big Bang theory only recognizes that the continuous expansion of space and time does not recognize the continuous creation of materials, that is, the separation of space-time and material, and accepts the indefinite temperature of Big Bang. The singularity of infinite temperature is that materials can be independent without space. The necessity of existence is another case in which the separation of matter from space and time is a metaphysical absolute space-time view, which of course is wrong. In fact, if space can exist without material, then there will be no space for material existence. There will be no singularity in the universe where the infinite temperature is infinitely high, which is obviously not practical. The new theory also reveals the physical laws of straight time and space, that is, the various conservation laws that we usually use. These are all people's understandings in a short time and in a small range, and they must be revised accordingly when extended to large areas. Because the real space-time of the universe is curved and flat is only a partial approximation, the local understanding of the objective world must be approximate. To sum up, the cosmological theory after Yang Jianliang's transformation has roughly the following characteristics:


1) The cosmological scale factor becomes R(t) = Csinkt, the sine function of time, showing expansion and contraction of the universe cycle back and forth. The end of the previous round of contraction is the beginning of the next round of expansion. Although at this moment the cosmological scale factor is zero, that is, the volume of the universe is zero, the horizon after this is infinite. Since any measurement is done within a period of time, the universe looks infinite at all times. Since space can be changed from zero to infinity, the beginning of each round of expansion is veritable Big Bang. It can eliminate the difficulties of sight automatically without additional surges. Therefore, the transformed cosmology may still be called the Big Bang universe. But the mass and temperature of heavenly bodies and galaxies at the time of this Big Bang are zero, and the temperature of the entire universe is of course zero, and there is no singularity where the so-called infinite density of infinite temperature is infinite. Then, as the universe continues to expand, the celestial bodies and galaxies gradually increase and the temperature gradually rises. The universe we see today is gradually getting brighter from the darkness. The mass of the celestial body or galaxy changes with time to satisfy dm=3Hmdt, the radius change satisfies dr=Hrdt, the temperature change satisfies dT=1.2HTdt, H=dR/Rdt is a Hubble parameter that changes with time, according to its mass and radius today. Determining changes in quality and radius in the past and in the future can also determine changes in temperature and brightness. For example, the Earth’s temperature was minus 40℃ 2.7 billion years ago, the pressure was halved, and the brightness of the sun was 10% today. Today, it is the key to understanding the past and knowing the future. The current universe is in the expansion phase of the most recent cycle. The galaxy or celestial body is increasing, the temperature is getting increasingly high, and the sky is getting increasinglybright.


2) The modified field equation has a negative solution to the pressure P in the celestial body, similar to the negative value of density, automatically providing the thermodynamic mechanism for the continuous generation of matter in the celestial body, ie dm+Pdv=0, indicating that the celestial body expands with the universe. The quality of expansion is also increasing, and the increase in the mass of celestial body can be seen as the results of space-time expansion, consistent with the law of energy saving. For the current earth, the quality increases by 1.2 billion tons a year and the radius expands by 0.5 millimeter. Coal and oil are generated on an equal footing with earth and stone, and they are constantly generated and increasing energy can be used in the center of the earth. Due to space-time expansion, the current distance between sun and the earth is increased by about 10 meters a year, and the distance between the moon and the earth is increased by 2.7 centimeters in a year. It is just to consider the extra retreat distance of the moon after the tide. The observation distance of the moon's retreat is 4 centimeters. Because this negative pressure has the combined effect of stress and dark matter and dark energy, field equations are used to reduce 2 cosmological parameters in the universe, making the reasoning results more definite and reliable.
Interested readers who fully understand the details can refer to Yang Jianliang’s papers“Modification of gravitational field equation and rational solution to cosmological puzzle”,“Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation - Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter”, Correction of standard model in view of improved gravity equation”, Chinese "Based on field equation modification the new stable cosmology - and approved the Big Bang cosmology, Consider the space-time expansion of the heart movement, The galaxy is gradually growing rather than the material accumulation after the Big Bang.

 

[exchemist]

Another notorious crank and/or fruitcake, a.k.a. xps13579, tries his luck at Sciforums.....

A particularly amusing statement is " Coal and oil are generated on an equal footing with earth and stone, and they are constantly generated and increasing energy can be used in the center of the earth."

Earth and stone, eh? Constantly generated. Yup.

 

[heyuhua]

Continuous

3) Although space-time expansion causes galaxies or celestial body to grow, but does not change their rotation or revolution period, the evolution of planetary orbits around the stars or around the center of the planet is like that seen with a magnifying glass. Not only are the orbits magnified, but the velocity is also magnified, but the cycle is the same, the results of space expansion. The actual measured changes in the rotation or revolution of celestial body have nothing to do with space-time expansion, caused by tidal and other perturbation effects, which can be ignored in most cases. Space-time expansion is the basic driving force for the formation and evolution of galaxies. The appearance of galaxies several years later is what they see today with a magnifying glass, and everything is in sync with enlargement. This is the basic process of galaxy formation and evolution. This process is always in progress. The current mainstream research on galaxy formation focuses on trying to explain how the universe evolved from a chaotic, disorderly heat movement into a clear and orderly state of mechanical movement. It is doomed to fail because, in principle, this effort is contrary to thermodynamics,the second law. The Hubble parameter is a measure of spacetime bending of the universe. Spacetime expansion and spacetime bending are mutually preconditions. Spacetime expansion includes the simultaneous creation of space and time. Space-time is continuous, and the view that only admitting that the space between galaxies is expanding without recognizing the space within the galaxy is ridiculous and logically untenable. Earlier astronomers were clearly unfamiliar with the changes that were taking place today, and they did not understand that the expansion of the universe was the same as the formation of galaxies. However, they did not really understand the extent to which their own knowledge was shallow, and they used incomplete knowledge to infer possible causes for galaxy formation without considering the true cause for galaxy formation.


4) Similar to the current Big Bang theory, the new theory interprets microwave background radiation as a comprehensive reaction on the instrument after red-shifting photons emitted from an indistinguishable star far away, but does not believe that it comes from the same sphere, ie there is a so-called final scattering surface. Like the canopy that with the naked eyes eventually seen in the distance, the background radiation is the distant canopy seen by the instrument. Its uniformity does not mean that the luminescent material is in the same sphere. The lower the frequency is, the lower the background photon anisotropy will be, because the light source is farther away, reflecting the fact that the closer the substance in the universe is to the point where the expansion starts, that is, the more evenly distributed the Big Bang. The cosmic matter constitutes a very thin, infinitely deep gas, equivalent to a cavity, and the light from it naturally has a black body spectrum. Although the new theory still believes that the cosmic matter is in a nebula after the Big Bang, its particles do not gradually gather to form today's galaxy but gradually spread to form today's galaxy. This is totally different from the original view. According to the new theory, the homogeneity exhibited by the universe in a large area today is the enlargement of the homogeneity in the previous small area. The closer the galaxy is to the point of expansion, the closer the galaxy will be to a distance of zero, and the cosmic microwave background radiation interprets this kind of picture.

 

[heyuhua]

Continuous
5) The expansion of the universe is slowing down. This is almost direct results of the circular universe, because in the cyclic universe, the expansion process can only be decelerated, and the contraction process is accelerated, otherwise the expansion process can not be continuously over-contracted, and vice versa. The newly derived distance red-shift relationship is completely consistent with the measured distance and red-shift data of the distant star, and the fitted deceleration parameter is still positive, indicating that the universe is decelerating and expanding. The high degree of self-consistency of the new theory gives us reason to believe that its conclusions are correct, and that the error of accelerating inflation theory lies in the mistakes of its theoretical basis or inference process. The observed data are the measured distances and red-shifts of the distant stars trusted. For a galaxy or celestial body, the contraction process in the universe is reduced synchronously. Since dS=dQ/T=dm+PdV=0, it indicates that the galaxy or celestial body is isentropic in the evolution process, so the reduction process is the reverse process of the growth process, exactly the inevitable requirement of the infinite cycle of the universe. In addition, the cyclic universe is also an inevitability of space-time infinity, and the only expanding or contracting universe cannot exist in infinite space and time. Since infinite space-time has experienced infinite time, only the expanded or contracted universe has expanded or shrunk to the extreme. The universe is not what it is today cannot actually exist. Therefore, the circular universe naturally eliminates the contradiction between the lack of time and the upper limit of the galaxy's lifetime on observation, the progress of materialistic philosophy.


6) Continuous production of substances is not out of nothing. The material creation mentioned here is closely linked with the expansion of space and time, and is the simultaneous generation of matter and space. It is not the material behind the former space, or the space behind the previous material. Therefore, it is not what is commonly referred to as non-existence, and what is commonly referred to as out of shape is the gradual generation of material in the existing space. If the material creation described here is understood as the so-called out of nothing, then it will be the greatest misunderstanding. What is often referred to as something out of nothing,or metaphysics. In essence, it still holds that time and space and matter can exist independently of each other. Although the general theory of relativity reveals that time and space and matter are inseparable, they can be deeply understood and consistent implementation is not an easy task. We must thoroughly review the world outlook.


7) Continuous generation of matter leads to quantum mechanisms. The quantum mechanism of continuous generation of matter has gone beyond the scope of general relativity, and it belongs to another topic. However, inspired by the old and new material dependency dm=3Hmdt, the new theory still gives the particle splitting mechanism produced by matter, and the instantaneous air expansion force overcomes the internal force of particles. Doing work breaks a particle into two identical particles. At the same time, the vacuum loses the same amount of energy. The vacuum energy at that point changes from zero to a negative value. This is reflected in the fact that the sum of the pressure and density in the body is zero. If there is a neutron in the neutron splitting nucleus in the nucleus, the neutron then decays into protons and forms a new element, releasing energy. As the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus increases, the nucleus becomes unstable. Heavy elements decay or split into light elements, releasing energy. Eventually, light elements and heavy elements are in a dynamic equilibrium state. The proportion of each element is determined by the combination of environmental temperature and the stability of the nuclear structure. This mechanism can well demonstrate the continuous and stable energy supply in the body, and it can also indicate that radioactive elements are long-term stable, and can also indicate that the light elements that do not sink into the ground and underground are heavy metals,floating to the surface. According to the current Big Bang theory, various elements were formed shortly after Big Bang. Radioactive elements have long since been radiated. The heavy elements of the Earth's surface have already sunk into the ground and the light elements in the ground have already floated to the surface. Obviously, these have violated fact. Despite this, the Quantum Mechanism of Material Production given by the new theory is still rough and needs improvement. It can be said that it is still an open issue.

 

[heyuhua]

Continuous


8) The matter disappeared.The expansion of the universe is the inverse process of its contraction, and the creation of matter is the inverse process of its disappearance.In principle, matter can be eliminated by compression, but the usual compression does not really reduce the space occupied by matter, except that the neutrons and protons are closer, not touching the changes in the neutrons and protons themselves. As a result, no material disappearance was found in normal experiments. But when the pressure reaches the size that proton and neutron will be contracted, the matter begin to disappear.


9) It is the perfect combination of realism and dialectical materialism. Astronomical observing objects are generally far away. There are outstanding problems such as the uncertainty of observations and the multiplicity or objection of the interpretation. It is always possible to find the justification for cosmological theory that it is consistent with certain observation or observations. Therefore, the right and wrong of cosmological theory does not lie in that it can explain an observation or several observations, but can in principle explain all observed natural cases in the field, both distant and near, and more importantly, theories. It is self-consistent, that is to say, it can explain all the observations in a consistent manner. It is not allowed to add new assumptions or to add half-way assumptions. Only the theory that truly reflects the internal relations can be self-consistent, so that all the observed results can form the evidence chain that supports the theory itself. Individual observations that are inconsistent with the theory, especially distant observations, should be considered as errors. Or the need for further observations, so as to achieve the theory of the role of guidance and correction of practice, those who do not follow the principles of observing repeatedly modified the theory is worthless. The close observations are crucial to the misalignment of test theory, because the closer one is to the reliable, and the more unique is the interpretation. Whether the cosmological theory is solid or not depends on how it is validated in the solar system and even on the earth. The interpretation of distance can be trusted only if they are unified with the explanation of the near cases, ie, the same physics is used. There are no other criteria for discrimination. Only those theories or hypotheses that only explain distant phenomena without explanation of nearby are explained,almost pseudoscience. This is also true of the interpretation of the past. It is only meaningful to explain the past by adopting consistent views from ancient to modern times. The solitary invention theory uses today's ineffective physics to explain that in the past there were no reliable foundations, and those invention theories (such as all quantum gravity), theory and various theories). Trying to depict a virtual or unwarranted event such as the Big Bang singularity is not only meaningless or absurd, equivalent to using 2 unwarranted mutual testimonies. In fact, it is the objective requirement that the universe has no central time, and it is not man-made harshness. It is a criterion that must be adhered to that the cosmological study does not deviate excessively from the path of materialism. These are the basic concepts that Yang Jianliang upheld in reconstructing the old theory, and they were completely similar to what the geologist Ryle upheld when he reconstructed geology. Ryle once criticized the various popular epistemic geology theories at the time: “There is no hypothesis that doctrines are inconsistent with the changes between ancient and modern times are more suitable for fostering human inertia and suppressing human curiosity.” “They only concentrate on trying to understand the ancient natural cases possible. This is the case, instead of examining the natural laws of their own time." Today's cosmological situation is strikingly similar to the geological situation of the past. Various idealist cosmological doctrines are spreading. Theoretical research is seriously divorced from reality. If this situation cannot be changed, science cannot really progress, let alone benefit mankind. Yang Jianliang has his theory after transformation based on the present speculation of the past and the future. It can be described as a real cosmology and can actually guide practice. It will certainly have a major impact on other branches of physics. Interested readers who fully understand the details can refer to Yang Jianliang’s papers“Modification of gravitational field equation and rational solution to cosmological puzzle”,“Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation - Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter”, Correction of standard model in view of improved gravity equation”, Chinese "Based on field equation modification the new stable cosmology - and approved the Big Bang cosmology, Consider the space-time expansion of the heart movement, The galaxy is gradually growing rather than the material accumulation after the Big Bang.

 

[NotEinstein]

1) The cosmological scale factor becomes R(t) = Csinkt, the sine function of time, showing expansion and contraction of the universe cycle back and forth.

(Let's ignore that the scale factor can be negative in this equation for now.)
From measurements we know the universal expansion is currently increasing. The given scale factor, when larger than zero, always has a negative second derivative. In other words, the universal expansion is always slowing. This is in conflict with reality, and thus the model is falsified.

 

[heyuhua]

“the universal expansion is always slowing. This is in conflict with reality, and thus the model is falsified.”

the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerated is wrong and new observations prove universal expansion is still decelerated

 

[exchemist]

(Let's ignore that the scale factor can be negative in this equation for now.)
From measurements we know the universal expansion is currently increasing. The given scale factor, when larger than zero, always has a negative second derivative. In other words, the universal expansion is always slowing. This is in conflict with reality, and thus the model is falsified.

HuHee will claim that the Big Bang theory is in crisis and is falling out of favour with increasing numbers of astrophysicists. When pushed to mention the names of some, he will present a long list of people such as Fred Hoyle, who have been dead for the best part of half a century.

Loony tunes, man.

 

[origin]

“the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerated is wrong and new observations prove universal expansion is still decelerated

Observations prove expansion is slowing? Wow, not just some evidence but solid proof! I cannot believe i didn't hear about that. Please supply this proof, so that we can all be up to date on the newest information.

 

[heyuhua]

Observations prove expansion is slowing? Wow, not just some evidence but solid proof! I cannot believe i didn't hear about that. Please supply this proof, so that we can all be up to date on the newest information.[/QUOTE
the acceleration of universal expansion cann't be measured directly, and only reshifts and distances can directly be measured, the derivation of acceleration of universal expansion depends on the theory of cosmology as well as the measured reshift and distance, if the theory of cosmology is wrong the conclusion (accelerated or decelerated) is certainly wrong . The following is a new study that means the conclusion of accelerated expansion isn't reliable

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – or is it?

Stuart Gillespie
21 Oct 2016
Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.

Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae – the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars – picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named 'dark energy' that drives this accelerating expansion.

Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: 'The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the "standard model" of cosmology.

'However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.

'An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance – 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year – and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data shows that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.'

There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background – the faint afterglow of the Big Bang – from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: 'All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.

'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model – one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas – two key assumptions of standard cosmology – may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'

Professor Sarkar added: 'Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive "laser comb" to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.'

 

[origin]

Thanks for the reply heyuhua.
You realize the study you referenced does not prove that expansion is slowing. The study in fact refutes your claim that the universe expansion is slowing! Seems strange to me that you would use this article as proof of your conjecture! The article concludes that the expansion is relatively constant.
This is one study and it seems in the 2 yeas since it was published there have not been many supporting studies. I will see if the idea has any more evidence to support it in the coming years.

 

[NotEinstein]

the acceleration of universal expansion cann't be measured directly, and only reshifts and distances can directly be measured, the derivation of acceleration of universal expansion depends on the theory of cosmology as well as the measured reshift and distance, if the theory of cosmology is wrong the conclusion (accelerated or decelerated) is certainly wrong . The following is a new study that means the conclusion of accelerated expansion isn't reliable
The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – or is it?
Stuart Gillespie
21 Oct 2016
Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.
Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae – the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars – picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named 'dark energy' that drives this accelerating expansion.
Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: 'The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the "standard model" of cosmology.
'However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
'An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance – 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year – and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data shows that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.'
There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background – the faint afterglow of the Big Bang – from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: 'All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.
'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model – one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas – two key assumptions of standard cosmology – may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'
Professor Sarkar added: 'Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive "laser comb" to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.'

As origin also pointed out, that paper doesn't refute the acceleration of the universe; it merely claims a reduction of the sigma to 1. But more importantly, here's a direct refutation of your paper: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rse_Model_Insensitivity_of_the_Hubble_Diagram

Do you have any more evidence?

Edit: Completely forgot this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#Evidence_for_acceleration
There's more evidence in favor of an accelerated expansion than what your paper is talking about.

 

[NotEinstein]

HuHee will claim that the Big Bang theory is in crisis and is falling out of favour with increasing numbers of astrophysicists. When pushed to mention the names of some, he will present a long list of people such as Fred Hoyle, who have been dead for the best part of half a century.

Loony tunes, man.

Well, I guess (s)he's technically right, then. Dead people don't change their minds, and the number of dissidents in such a state can only increase. I wonder if HuHee would dare to express it as a percentage instead?

 

[heyuhua]

Thanks for the reply heyuhua.
You realize the study you referenced does not prove that expansion is slowing. The study in fact refutes your claim that the universe expansion is slowing! Seems strange to me that you would use this article as proof of your conjecture! The article concludes that the expansion is relatively constant.
This is one study and it seems in the 2 yeas since it was published there have not been many supporting studies. I will see if the idea has any more evidence to support it in the coming years.

the referred study indicates that the conslusion of accelerated expansion isn't reliable, this is sufficient for pulling dnow the belief that universal expansion is sure to acclerate. In fact, the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating not only depends on the measured reshifts and distances but also the theory of cosmology, of course, wrong theory draws out wrong conclusion

 

[origin]

the referred study indicates that the conslusion of accelerated expansion isn't reliable, this is sufficient for pulling dnow the belief that universal expansion is sure to acclerate. In fact, the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating not only depends on the measured reshifts and distances but also the theory of cosmology, of course, wrong theory draws out wrong conclusion

You are disregarding hundreds of studies in favor of one study. That doesn't make much sense. At best you could say that this needs to be looked into further. Your statement that this proves that expansion is slowing is very seriously flawed, to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[heyuhua]

As origin also pointed out, that paper doesn't refute the acceleration of the universe; it merely claims a reduction of the sigma to 1. But more importantly, here's a direct refutation of your paper: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rse_Model_Insensitivity_of_the_Hubble_Diagram

Do you have any more evidence?

the study tries to set up a model of accelerated expansion, not try to prove universal expansion is accerlating. From the modified field equation we concluded that universal expansion is slowing in use of the same data (measurd reshifts and distance), you must know that the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating isn't come from direct observations and it is to come from the fitting of existent theory and measured data

 

[heyuhua]

You are disregarding hundreds of studies in favor of one study. That doesn't make much sense. At best you could say that this needs to be looked into further. Your statement that this proves that expansion is slowing is very seriously flawed, to the point of ridiculousness.

the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating is sure to be wrong, it is seriously flawed to think accelerated expansion and isn't admitted by philosophy and logic, and cyclic universe (namely infinite universe or no singularity )must require that universal expansion is decelerating and universal contraction is accelerating

 

[NotEinstein]

the study tries to set up a model of accelerated expansion, not try to prove universal expansion is accerlating.

I suggest you re-read its abstract: you've missed the point of the paper.

From the modified field equation we

Who is this "we"?

concluded that universal expansion is slowing in use of the same data (measurd reshifts and distance),

False; that statement is in direct contradiction with your own supplied paper.

you must know that the conclusion that universal expansion is accelerating isn't come from direct observations

Irrelevant; indirect observation is still observation.

and it is to come from the fitting of existent theory and measured data

But let's say I grant you this point. Then what? Your supplied paper is then just as wrong as any other. You've just argued we (currently) cannot know whether the expansion is accelerating, in direct contradiction to what you've stated in this thread. You've just sunk your own argument!

 

[exchemist]

Here we have it. HuHee's A mystical conviction in a cyclic universe trumps observation evidence. It MUST be contracting because the cyclic universe idea is true, you see.

 

[Yazata]

Chinese Scholar Yang Jianliang has reconstructed the foundation of modern cosmology at a higher level through rationally modifying Einstein's gravitational field equations, drawing rational components of the Big Bang cosmology, steady state cosmology and parallel universe theory. He has his new theoretical system logically more rigorous, structurally more rational, and more profound in universe understanding,playing an irreplaceable guiding role in the future research and observation of astrophysics and geophysics.

Here's a paper of Yang's:

http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/3/1/2/index.html

Here's the first part of the conclusion which seems to summarize his ideas:

"While space enlarges celestial bodies and galaxies theirselves also enlarge at the same proportion, new matter continuously generates inside celestial bodies or galaxies. Some conserved laws, such as energy conserved law, angular momentum conserved law and moment conserved law, are the approximation of small time and small scope, and in big time and big scope they are no longer strictly valid. The earthquakes and the drift phenomenon of continents are exactly the performance of the earth is growing up, and new matter namely energy constantly generates and accumulates within celestial bodies including the earth all the time..."

I'm not a physicist so it isn't my job to cast judgments on stuff like this. But I do get to decide what I personally find plausible. And this just sounds crankish to me. I'd assign it a low credibility weight for purposes of my own thinking.