This post is an appeal to astronomers and astrophysicists to consider the conversion of ΛCDM to incorporate galaxy local cosmological processes for the big bang, inflation, and expansion.
On Twitter, I follow astrophysicist @DudeDarkMatter who is Dr. Stacy McGaugh of Case-Western University. I enjoy reading his tweets about many subjects and in particular astrophysics. Stacy also has a blog called Triton Station. https://tritonstation.com/. Stacy has been kind enough to engage with me on several tweets and blog comments. Occasionally I’ll try to get a response from the other readers of his blog by asking a detailed question. Here is a question I asked about galaxy local cosmology.
Has there been any serious research effort to support or falsify the idea that several ΛCDM ‘whole universe’ processes might better be modeled as galaxy local via the SMBH/jets? First you’ll need to suspend disbelief about breaching the SMBH event horizon — even though we see such internally driven jets in other events on Earth as well as in events of increasing energy in the stars. And what do we really know about supermassive black holes anyway? As I understand it they were not researched thoroughly and were force fit into ΛCDM.
If there has been serious research considering and falsifying such a galaxy local process please provide references or pointers if you are so inclined.
If there has not been such research, I think it would be reasonable to conduct. It seems to me that almost all cosmological processes map directly and naive me thinks it might be that a lot of the analysis is largely correct, if worded awkwardly or incorrectly in such a scenario. Even where models and analysis were erroneous, we still have the data, right?
I think many tensions would probably relax. No more Hubble tension since galaxies would expand into another and we would expect variation both from the photon as possibly from the analytical/experimental technique. I mean basically every photon would go through many galaxies, each galaxy doing its own thing on the general process timeline of the galaxy recycling loop.
So that would also mean Hubble would not have anything to do with universe wide expansion, and we could drop the idea of receding galaxies and universe bangs and crunches. It would be more of a dynamic steady state. No known beginning/end/size. I don’t know all the dirty laundry of cosmology but as I understand it there are several processes that typically have a process duration >> 13.8B years. That’s kinda weird isn’t it? So now you wouldn’t have to worry about any of that.
My general impression is that you already have a lot of the grand cycles of various types of celestial objects worked out, and certainly anything you already do that is galaxy local is on solid ground. Given the vast distances and the cosmic soup, I’m not clear how much impact this would have. That is why I am asking here.
J Mark Morris : San Diego: California