I came up with a strange new cosmological model

The universe began when a kind of quantum field of the multiverse suddenly placed the dimension and clusters of dust and gas that by gravity became stars and galaxies, that is, the cosmos began cold and those clusters were the protogalaxies.
Then that thing kept creating matter.
As matter was created, matter accumulated.
When the density of matter reached a certain threshold, that field disappeared in a phase transition and that caused the expansion of the universe, that is, the universe went through a kind of steady state before the expansion of the universe.
This cosmos that started out cold which would give life more time to evolve, that’s an advantage.
What do you think?

The cosmic microwave background indicates that the universe started hot with evenly distributed energy and matter. Also, the ratio of hydrogen, helium, and lithium is is consistent with the BB theory with a hot start.

Your model would have to explain why these observations exist.

1 Like

but we don’t have good images of the first 5% and there won’t be for another year and there is no strong indication to me that the universe has been expanded from the beginning, the cmb could be static or a misinterpretation of the data, the same since we don’t know what dark matter is and how it works, wouldn’t it be better to remain skeptical until the jwst takes its images from the ultra deep field, meanwhile I’m going to keep creating crazy theories to see if I hit the target and then I can brag about my great ability to predict.

1 Like

And as for the models that matter, maybe it’s a coincidence, I’m sure that if string theory were true there would be infinite models that would explain the data, maybe modified gravity theories or something else, or all together, the data is not very important.
Also, in the same way that we believe that lithium was consumed in that first 5%, can we not believe that everything at the beginning was very different and varied in that 5%?

Honestly, I think that no one should pay attention to “what you came up with.” Do you think that is how science is done?

1 Like

Show us the maths. Is it a solution to the Einstein Field Equations?

G_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} =\frac {8 \pi G} {c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

Also, what testable predictions does your model make? Are these what we actually observe?

1 Like

good to start with there is no cosmic expansion in the first 5%, there is no reionization era, the early universe is cold, it will probably change other eras, there is no cosmic neutrino background as assumed in current theory, there is no big bang, it’s just a field that leaves the particles in place and these then settle by gravity, if there is no big bang and if there was no compact universe at the beginning, light and neutrinos were both free from the beginning, you can look up to the minute 0 and there is no such as the quarck age or the planck age, there is no gut era, there is no baryogenersis, we go directly to nuclear synthesis, the first phase of my theory does not include dark ages, nothing is more than nothing nucleosynthesis is needed, the field may have a mechanism to excite the vacuum and remove nucleons, it is very different and it only has two, it is false or true, there is only one variable that can be adjusted when its universe began to grow, its time limit is that first 5% I don’t know if you can, falsify r the jwst but i know that to begin with the jwst could at least say that the dark ages ended early, that the expansion is around zero at a certain point in history, is it falsifiable if it’s not jwst, origins is going to tell us if it’s true or not, and I know that origins will be built if the jwst detects a megaanomaly, maybe with webb all lcdm will fall…

Do you think that Copernicus had proof, that Darwin verified the entire fossil record, that Einstein did not get general relativity out of geometric speculation very Pythagoreanly, that Higgs and the others did not get particles out of nothing, that Planck did not pull the quanta out of the hat to adjust to data, that string theory and all the rest of postmodern physics were not invented, that dirac did not get his equation from a mathematical speculation with quaternions, that penrose did not invent twistors because he did not like the physics of his time , that Euler had evidence that his methods with infinite series were valid, that Fermat was not just guessing, that the Greeks did not invent their philosophies based on divages and later ones as well.
Am I that crazy?
Do you think that science is pure empiricism, as the postmodern pseudo-positivist scientificists say, not the science, I invented it and then it will be verified if it is true or not, like the countless mathematical conjectures that were taken out of the hat because they looked " beautiful" and centuries passed before it was verified, that atoms and elements did not begin as empty speculations, that there is someone in the world who verified if all living beings are made of cells.
and there are even those, like those of string theory, who are not only waiting for the evidence, but even go against it.
You have to read a little history of science I think.

It isn’t about proof but it is about presenting evidence or why should anyone care?

Probably not since we still have not done so and there is no reasonable expectation that we ever will.

‘Post’-modern … physics? Is that a thing with a history or are you just riffing stuff?

You don’t need to be certifiable to expound in fields you’re not qualified to reasonably represent well. (I don’t let that stop me either but I think we should label where we’re coming from honestly and not snow people with our bald opinions and rhetoric.)

Absolutely. Of course scientists are human and have and use capacities which can exceed observation and measurement. The difference is they don’t reach conclusions using their imagination or intuition and if they use those in arriving at a hypothesis they don’t cherry pick or misreport results to make them work. Has it happened? Maybe, but if so that’s science done badly and not a pathway my any honest practitioner would consider. Of course for TEC/AIG that is pretty much standard practice but no real science isn’t done that way.


Is it falsifiable at a one year view, what’s wrong with using my mathematical intuition for what I do, what’s more, I’m about to get my first article in numerical series and it’s just formalizing and demonstrating what I first got by intuition?

Nothing at all. Imagination and intuition plays a much larger role in mathematics but then mathematics is not empirical in nature. Much of science method seems to be there to ensure conclusions are grounded in accurate observation and measurement.

1 Like

I think this. We have standards now. Kicking around thoughts for fun is one thing. Wanting to actually challenge a scientific theory or hypothesis is another. Since I don’t know you there is no way for me to know what even qualifies you known anything about it. I know I don’t know anything about it. I know that at least two others here have routinely provided good reasons to accept their opinions on this stuff.

But from what I gather whatever it is you’re thinking it’s in direct contrast to what’s widely held as true by the current experts and that some dude getting lucky with observations a few hundred years ago and challenging widely held beliefs is very different from challenging them now since we have millions of scientists and hundreds of millions of articles and ect…

Which brings me to the only actual position I can hold on this. Once you start pumping out peer reviewed scientific articles that get published by respected journals and a decade of time goes by with it being hashed out by other experts and your view becomes the most widely accepted scientific consensus on the subject then I can accept that’s it’s probably correct. Until then I can’t really do a thing with it other than place it in the same category as movie logic. So it’s nothing negative against you, it’s just I’m waiting for those steps to happen s experts can lead the way.


Hydrogen and helium? Yes. Lithium no. Measured abundances in old stars are too small by a factor of 3 or 4. They call this the cosmological lithium problem. A number of solutions are proposed but the problem is not yet resolved.

Now that I think about it, if the universe was born cold, there could be black dwarfs, which if true, could not hardly coincide with the current cosmological model, that is, if there are black dwarfs, points for my hypothesis.

It goes with out saying that what the “lithium problem” is a problem for is the completeness of current theory. Not a message I would presume to offer you but sometimes around here someone will show up, point out a problem and on that basis imply scientists are just spit balling ideas or, worse, just making things up - so why not YEC they declare or imply.

The images of the CMB from the COBE and WMAP satellites come from the universe when it was just ~300,000 years old. Any images taken by JWST will be well after the period where the CMB was created.

If the CMB was the product of already formed galaxies then it should be clumpy because there would be more emissions coming from the clumped up matter than from the empty spaces between the galaxies. That isn’t what we see. The CMB is nearly perfectly smooth which means the matter emitting the CMB was nearly evenly distributed, and very hot.

On top of that, the amounts of hydrogen, helium, lithium (@mitchellmckain notes on the lithium problem noted), and heavier elements is consistent with nucleosynthesis from extremely hot matter. This is consistent with a much denser and much hotter universe, and it isn’t consistent with already existing galaxies.

That is a tacit admission that your model is inconsistent with observation.

Scientists are always skeptical. They are professional skeptics, after all. However, being a skeptic does not mean that you reject well supported science like the Big Bang model.


If the weather changes do we think that is strong evidence that the force of gravity can just change willy nilly?

1 Like

Someone who thinks they are going to overturn consensus science by simply sitting around thinking and “coming up with new models” is a little crazy, yes.

Science is fitting empirical data into models that work and then further testing and refining the models. It’s an enterprise that involves hundreds of thousands of experts working for years and years because the sheer amount of data that must be accounted for in the here and now is much different than it was in Copernicus’ time or even Newton’s time. No, no one is going to single-handedly overturn modern cosmology models because they thought hard.


The unobservable nature of something that can affect change without changing?

(yes… it counts)

Good example of the hubris @Christy was talking about.


“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.