First version 11-12-2015
Latest revision 02-12-2022

UnifiedAlternative Cosmology

Author: Han de Bruijn

Non-standard Models and the Sociology of CosmologyAn Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Click on Pic

Fred Hoyle once said "anytime you point a new telescope at the sky now you are only going to find what you already know is up there." Has modern physics become complacent? New science is where the real opportunities lie, so we're focusing on the holes in physics theory instead.
In Léon Brillouin's book Relativity Reexamined we read on page 10 about the Theory of General Relativity: a splendid piece of mathematics built on quicksand and leading to more and more mathematics about cosmology (a typical science-fiction process). And on page 31 it reads: Einstein introduced a very heavy mathematical structure that goes much beyond any physical need. A great deal of Big Bang cosmology is formulated in terms of this overly complicated (GR) mathematics. One of our goals is to replace that overkill by mathematical machinery that is more easily understood and maybe better balanced with empirical evidence as well.
However, quite in general it may be said that any theory of cosmology, whether standard or non-standard, is close to fiction. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away (: Philip K. Dick). And the simple fact is that we don't really know where our believing stops. Example given: How to measure a distance of one thousandth of the proton diameter? Really?
General Relativity is rejected; Special Relativity is retained, though. The reason is that the latter, contrary to GR, is consistent with Quantum Mechanics and - even better - contributes to it.
Unified Alternative Cosmology (UAC) starts with the assumption that the universe is infinite in space and time. Because of Russel's Paradox and Infinitum Actu Non Datur this effectively means that "There is no universe" at all; in the sense that there would exist something that contains everything. Our infinite universe, according to Gauss' dictum, is just a way of speaking.
Our theory then proceeds with a hypothesis by Halton Arp : the (rest) mass of atomic particles is increasing with (proper) time. Abbreviation: VPM = Varying elementary Particle rest Mass. Arp's hypothesis is shown to be compatible with a static Euclidean universe, which is eternal in "atomic time" and has moments of creation (i.e. one or more beginnings) in "orbital time". In this model, gravitation is completely separated from all other forces in nature; it is e.g. distinct from quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, meaning that Grand Unified Theories are beyond the scope of UAC. Our steady-state universe is equipped with intrinsic "cosmological" redshift in the first place. Another consequence of Arp's hypothesis is that all devices for measuring length are shrinking, which is the same as saying that empty space is continuously expanding.
It will be proved that UAC and MOND are in some sense equivalent. Therefore it's no such big surprise that we have a decent explanation for the rotation curves of galaxies, without artificial assumptions such as dark matter. And there is also an explanation for the Tully-Fisher relation. Some fresh ideas for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation are presented. Despite of elegant mathematics, no satisfactory results have been obtained for the Flyby anomaly. Surprisingly, the same mathematics allows us to estimate reasonably well the magnitude of the secular retardation of the spin motion of the Earth. The analysis of Seeliger's Paradox produces an extremely simple explanation of the Pioneer anomaly as a side effect.
So far so good about the Alternative. For the Unified: just take a look at the person's names in the table of contents below.

Featuring UACOlbers' ParadoxRelativizing NewtonHypothesis by ArpIntrinsic RedshiftLength ContractionTime DilationNarlikar's LawSize, Mass and AgeMilne's FormulaVan FlandernSimplificationRelativity SpecialSupport by HoyleSeeliger's ParadoxOrigin of InertiaCreation TimeC-decay TheoriesC-decay data fitBarry's pictureHubble tensionVPM debunked? The RefutationMOND = UACEmpty Hole PhotoFlyby anomalyA Cosmology Group ACG mailing listLet there be light

What is the truth value of a theory? That may be fun, depending on your sense of humour.
Time to give a little lesson in what the scientific method is about, especially meant for those who think that what they think must be true, because they wishfully think so.
Let $H =$ Hypotheses, $C =$ Conclusion and let "if $H$ then $C$" be our theory, then we have the following possibilities$^{(*)}$:

 H C if H then C true true true true false false false true true false false true

This means that our theory can only be false if the Hypotheses are true while any of the Conclusions is false. So it is still true if the Hypotheses are false. Which is pretty good :-)

Okay, no joking anymore. Is there any empirical evidence supporting the UAC theory? The answer may be surprising:

1. Masses of certain young stars are observed to be persistently too low
2. The Shrinking Kilogram may be related to the Age of the Earth
3. The Leap Second may be related to the Age of the Earth as well
4. The Moon is spiraling away from the Earth at a certain rate per year
5. The secular retardation of the spin motion of the Earth is calculated
6. A Paradox of Newtonian Gravitation is resolved, with $\,\Gamma = H_i/c_0\,$
7. It's easy to fake supposed evidence for a supermassive black hole
8. Rotation Curves of galaxies can be calculated without dark matter
9. Related. There is an easy explanation for the Tully-Fisher relation
10. It is possible that the Pioneer anomaly has a very easy explanation