Latest revision 26-03-2020

# Unified Alternative Cosmology

## Author: Han de Bruijn

### Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology

Quite in general it may be said that any theory of cosmology, whether standard or non-standard, is close to fiction. That may be fun, but it is no joke. What makes things even more suspect is that a great deal of Big Bang cosmology is formulated in terms of overly complicated mathematics. Overkill, at least when compared with the empirical evidence at hand, which is often meager and inaccurate. 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. One of our goals is to replace that mathematical overkill by mathematics that is more easily understood and better balanced with empirical evidence. 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.

Our Unified Alternative Cosmology (UAC) starts with a wild hypothesis by Halton Arp : the (rest) mass of atomic particles is increasing with (proper) time. 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) redshift, thus effectively avoiding Olbers' paradox 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. Moreover, there is a possible explanation for the rotation curves of galaxies, without any artificial assumptions such as dark matter. Last but not least, there is an alternative theory for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, based upon overlapping galaxies in the past - an idea by F. Hoyle.

### Arp's HypothesisIntrinsic RedshiftLength ContractionGiant CreaturesTime DilationNarlikar's LawMilne's FormulaVan FlandernSimplificationCreation TimePendulum testC-decay TheoriesC-decay data fitBarry's pictureHubble TroubleGalaxy projectHoyle's 1975 paper

What is the truth value of such a speculative theory? That may be fun too, 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 all of the Hypotheses are false. Which is pretty good :-)

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

1. Intrinsic Redshift may well be replacing Cosmological Redshift
2. Masses of certain young stars are observed to be persistently too low
3. The Shrinking Kilogram may be related to the Age of the Earth
4. The Leap Second may be related to the Age of the Earth as well
5. The Moon is spiraling away from the Earth at a certain rate per year
6. A possible explanation for the Rotation Curve of galaxies presented
7. Alternative theory for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation