New Evidence Against the Standard Model of Cosmology

And he made mistakes based on his bias on what "should" be like all of us. Not everyone can do maths like Einstein, but on this particular point everyone can say "God doesn't do X" and be wrong.

There is also Jean-Pierre Petit, who presents his Janus Cosmological Model with multiple publications in peer-review journals. It has 19 observational confirmations and various predictions.

The Janus bimetric model, for example, describes two parallel universes instead of one, with an opposite time arrow, linked together since the Big Bang and interacting only by gravitation. According to this model, the Universe would be associated with two Riemannian metrics, one with a matter of positive mass and the other with a matter of negative mass, resulting from the CPT symmetry. The two metrics have their own geodesic and are the solution of two coupled field equations.

The dark matter would be, in fact, a conglomerates of negative matter.

It's interesting, Here is a preprint resuming multiples aspects of it: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03285671/document

Einstein is a great mind. His importance is greatly overblown by pop culture and politics. Outstanding mind, but not unique. He built small bricks on shoulders of titans and with lots of help from his co authors. Would he be born 50 years earlier, none of his discoveries were made.

Anyway. This is outside the topic. Every person who does physics cares about "fundamental truths" But even such great minds as Einstein build their models understanding limits of the model, in best case scenario.

Since you seem to have a lot of energy to invest in this theory space, why not try your hand at explaining the SDSS-III BOSS results? If you make any progress on that, try SPIDERS and TDSS and explain at least some of the apparent BAOs and high-z = low Tolman surface brightness.

If you're really intrepid, you could try explaining the narrow lines of the Lyman-\alpha forest, and try your hand at predicting it for the background object (or, if you really dig down into your theory, whatever your explanation for the quartet of images at the edge of this structure) in https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-17...

Additionally, why is the CMB an almost perfect blackbody spectrum and why is it extremely isotropic? This is a key problem if you plan to retain photon number while depressing photon energy.

While you're there, what is the value of the constant k in your magic equation, and how is it determined? How do you relate this to cosmological neutrino mass constraints in the Mega-Z LRG dataset found by several groups including (slides) http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8... What is your idea make the hot dark matter vanish and/or fail to couple with your proton mass term?

I don't think that this is a priori unachievable, but it is very much in the land of "show a realistic plan for your work that demonstrates engagement with several public datasets", and is a lot of work for a single author. I would suggest an initial thesis, roughly masters level, with a plan for follow-on work evolving from that initial target. Several widely-cited cosmologists having already had their doctoral dissertations accepted tried their hands at series of individual papers on the back of smaller datasets in the mid 20th century and largely retreated from technical problems in the coupling of emitted photons to specific intervening radiation fields. I don't think their approaches will necessarily help yours, since your equation (your thesis should cite its origin, even if it is a self-cite) does not have an explicit coupling term.

Whether or not you complete this type of project or even have it looked at by anyone else, it is certain that the process of writing it more formally than short Hacker News comments will clarify your thinking. You'll also probably run into some interesting and still technically open problems, and it would be a win for everyone if you helped further resolve some of those.

Cut the sarcasm because it's going to backfire.

That there are galaxies that appear more frequently at 500 million light-years from each other, is the raw fact. I've read the papers that say that raw fact is proof of big bang LCDM, but that's not actually true. It's not "if and only if" proof, because those papers presuppose the big bang is true and squish the "500 million light-years" observation into their model. They don't consider the possibility of an eternal, eternally evolving universe where 500 million light-years might be an interesting peak of a distribution coming from some interaction of charge and gravity at large scales. Something like chemistry, but at galactic scales.

The cosmic background radiation is likewise not "if and only if" proof of the big bang model. In fact, non-expansionary, non-big-bang models predicted a cosmic temperature around 3K 50 years before Penzias and Wilson. For some reason, this history gets little coverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti.... There's also a curious coincidence that 2.7K is related to 1/3 electron energy density when in equilibrium with its surroundings. https://twitter.com/sahil5d/status/1413375131078914055 ^ not a fact, just speculation.

k is Coulomb's constant. F=kqq/r^2.

The plot of all known redshift data fits photon hubbling (continuous photon decay) (tired light) more accurately than galactic recession. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga...

I could spend lots of time whacking moles, but instead I'm fixing the problem at the root, and that problem is interpreting the cosmological redshift as galactic recession. The reason the academic establishment 100 years ago claimed the redshift was the Doppler effect of galaxies receding, was that it was the only "generally accepted mechanism" at the time. That bug in the code has been covered up with patches and patches of convoluted logic for 100 years. Like "space expanded faster than the speed of light". How people swallowed that one, I'll never know.

Gotta fix the bug at the root. Then talk about the rest like dark matter, dark energy, baryon acoustic oscillations.