So, what are some of the issues with contemporary gravitational cosmology? Well, I wrote an entire dissertation on the subject, which went on to become a bookⁱ, that some still consider to be pretty good. But rather than merely pat myself on the back (though, obviously, I’m doing that, too) I thought I’d return to one of the scientific resources I discovered after I’d published the book, but while still doing the research on those general themes. At the time, this group called themselves the “Alternative Cosmology Group.” They’ve since changed their name to A Cosmology Group (ACG). Part of the reason for the change is right up front in the group’s mission statement: “ACG does not endorse any cosmological model or statement from its members.” Thus, when they called themselves “alternative,” it seemed as though they were offering a counter theory to the dominant paradigm, which they never were and never intended. So by dropping the first word in their name back to a simple indefinite article, they more accurately portrayed themselves while not having to change their acronym.

One of the main things that the group does is provide a curated newsletter of links to scientific articles, often enough at the physics preprint service arXiv.org, which can be viewed and downloaded for free. These are full-blown, roll your sleeves up scientific research papers, and not popular glosses. As such, they are speaking to experts in the field, the primary audience for the ACG. I am myself unable to track the technical details very far in these presentations. However, the abstracts are generally readable by anyone with a minimal facility with the baseline ideas of ΛCDM.

Oh! What, you ask, is “ΛCDM”? Well, I’m glad you asked, because I was just getting to that. The “lambda” (the upside down “V” at the front) is for the cosmological constant, while “CDM” stands for “Cold Dark Matter.” Not much clearer than before? Well, the “cosmological constant,” the “Λ,” is a numerical factor that was fabricated out of whole cloth so as to prevent the theory from being catastrophically falsified by observational evidence. “Cold Dark Matter” refers to another parameter that was contrived in the complete absence of any real empirical evidence so as to preserve theory in the face of falsifying direct observations. Supposedly, most of the universe is comprised of this magical stuff which, while magically undetectable, also magically disposes of those inconvenient, catastrophic falsifications.ⁱⁱ I prefer a different acronym from ΛCDM; rather I use SMGC, which stands for Standard Model of Gravitational Cosmology, a name which requires a lot less explanation. Regardless, SMGC has many more problems than just and only Λ and CDM. I’ll only mention a few here, one’s that I believe are easier to describe, but which are sufficiently diverse to give some notion of just how sweeping the problems with SMGC really are. A more comprehensive list may be found HERE.

Bulk Flows:

A “bulk flow” is a super-massive collection of galaxies that is zigging when it should be zagging, off dancing to a different drummer, and otherwise moving at high velocity in a direction it should not be moving at all. SMGC can give no account of this phenomenon. These include the Abell bulk flow, which I briefly discussed in my dissertation/book, long before it became popular. That loud thumping sound you hear in the distance is me patting myself on my back.

Red Shift:

The red shift (also called the “doppler” effect) is how distances and speeds of far (I mean, REALLY far) away objects are determined. There are anomalies here which SMGC cannot account for. Among these, galaxies and quasars (QSO’s) in observed physical contact, but with wildly different red shifts. This is another one I mentioned in my dissertation/book. (Thumping gets louder.)

CMBR:

This stands for Cosmological Microwave Background Radiation. While I knew about it, I did not know about the problems with it, so it did not get a mention in my book. (Thumping is still pretty loud.) As many people know, the microwave background is supposed to be a lingering “echo” of the “Big Bang.” Originally only detectable with radio telescopes, we have since lofted satellites – first the Wilkinson, and now the Planck – into orbit to study the CMBR in detail. Theory says this signal should be “evenly” (which is to say, randomly) distributed across the sky. It most certainly is not. Again, SMGC is incapable of accounting for this.

ACG’s list is longer, and goes into much greater detail (including links.)

Resistance within the gravitational cosmology community to dealing seriously with these issues is enforced by the people whom I often describe as “the gatekeepers.” These people include Stephen Hawking (now passed), Brian Greene, Laurence Krauss, and Sean Carroll (the astrophysicist, not the evolutionary biologist.) There is (“was” in the case of Hawking) a stout refusal to acknowledge – never mind address – these damning issues in their popular writings, at the very least. In addition, while Greene appears to remain cheerfully sanguine about his dogmatism, Hawking became aggressively petulant toward anyone who challenged him. While Hawking was the most blatant, they all variously denounce philosophy for not rolling over and urinating on itself in their presence.

But here’s the thing: philosophy is not about dutifully swallowing your pre-digested pablum. And the fundamental questions that continue to dog the SMGC – questions raised by other scientists – demonstrate that the existing theory is indefensible, both philosophically and scientifically.

________

i Whitehead and The Measurement Problem of Cosmology, 2006

ii It bears mentioning that there are people still trying to manufacture a test that will detect this magical stuff. Twenty plus years of trying has yet to pay off. Past experience suggests they will keep changing the rules until the find something that gives them the answer they want.