Eminent scientists have published papers on the state of LCDM cosmology in 2022 just as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) era begins. These papers include the successes as well as the anomalous tensions of LCDM. Authors include Peebles (2022), Abdalla, Abellán, Aboubrahim, et al. (2022) and Perivolaropoulos and Skara (2022). These papers provide a good opportunity for a differential comparison of the foundation principles and narratives of LCDM vs. NPQG.

Let’s discuss important points in Peebles’ paper and consider them from the NPQG point charge universe perspective.

Peebles QuoteNPQG Point Charge Universe Perspective
The goal of an improved cosmology, and the far greater great goal of a full reconciliation of the quantum and relativity principles, might be approached by strokes of insight, following Einstein’s example, or by incremental advances, following Maxwell: searches for improvements inspired by anomalies.The NPQG point charge universe model belongs to the category “strokes of insight” and is inspired not by anomalies between observations and the effective theories of GR/QM/LCDM, but by the woo-ish and fantastically nonsensical narratives they promulgate.
We must consider first the reliability of the basis by which phe- nomena are judged to be anomalous within accepted thinking. The empirical case that the relativistic hot big bang ΛCDM cosmology is a useful approximation to reality is outlined. This theory is not exact, but it does not seem likely to be far off. Thus my assessments of issues and anomalies in cosmology take it that the tests have persuasively established that the ΛCDM theory is a good approximation to reality that likely requires refinement.Au contraire! Particle physicists lack of progress on nature has resulted in a faulty understanding of inflation and expansion as if spacetime is physically an abstract geometry that can inflate and expand everywhere at the same rate. This is simply not how nature works. Instead all assemblies of interest are Noether core based, and it is the Noether core that is the shape shifter with energy. Thus Noether cores inflate and expand as they drop from the highest energy. Eventually they will shrink again as their energy decreases past the symmetry breaking point of point charge velocity v = @. Meanwhile other processes are presumably depleting spacetime aether via pair production. Overall these processes operate local to galaxies (even when photons and neutrinos redshift out of top speed and settle into a galaxy’s local aether). Meanwhile, the underlying Euclidean time and space is absolute and unchanging.

Bottom line is that LCDM is woefully wrong. The universe is quasi steady-state with no known beginning nor end in time nor space. The process which we call a singular inflationary big bang is actually a process distributed in time and space and local to galaxies. Presumably a large factor here is that unit potential point charges are immutable with a closest approach, and therefore they build up in super massive black holes and in certain conditions escape as Planck plasms via the jets.
Thinking about the future of the universe, maybe a big crunch or big rip, offers great adventures of the mind, but it is only empirically interesting if there is something to observe, maybe remnants of the last phase of a cyclic universe.In point charge theory, many of the woo-ish fantastical ideas about the universe promulgated by modern science fall by the wayside. Besides the one time inflationary big bang which transforms into a parallel distributed process, ideas like multi-verse, many worlds, wormholes, and singularities are all shown to be poppycock nonsense.

Einstein’s cosmological principle, or assumption, is that the universe is close homogeneous and isotropic in the large-scale average.

Wikipedia says : “In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.”
Unfortunately the cosmological principle is ill-specified with respect to time. Apparently scientists know to interpret this principle as pertaining to a particular absolute time, even though there is no way to observe the universe at vast distances at the same absolute time. Furthermore scientists understand the principle to be compatible with time evolution of the universe since a singular inflationary big bang event.

In NPQG the cosmological principle is considered true over time and space, meaning homogeity and isotropy are identical at large scales no matter where we look in the absolute history of time and space. That said, this appears to be in conflict with observed evolution. However, we have a lot of things to straighten out, including the misunderstanding of inflation, expansion, the big bang, redshift, and the variable speed of light. Hopefully when those are all straightened out and with accumulating JWST evidence the evidence will support a quasi steady state universe.
We have immense room between the extremes of the unapproachably large and unapproachably small scales for continued empirical exploration.This is a very important statement by Peebles. It turns out that our expermental observations all fall in the range from near zero Kelvin to the energies of the CERN large hadron collider — and these are extremely low energy experiments in the grand scheme of energy. Science does not yet understand the point charge universe including the Noether core and how particle “fields” are generated. Science does not understand the behaviour of point charges under extreme energy situations in a supermassive black hole. It is critically important to arrive at a model of nature that can be used over the complete range of energies and reactions possible.
The measured statistical patterns in the space distribution of the galaxies and in the angular distribution of the thermal cosmic mi- crowave background radiation, the CMB, agree with what is expected from the remnants of acoustic oscillations of the plasma and radiation that acted as a fluid up to recombination at redshift 𝑧 ∼ 1000. (Section 1.1.2)NPQG suggests that we are in a quasi-steady state universe where galaxy local processes drive the recycling of standard matter-energy into Planck plasma which is then released at enormous energy to start the cycle over again whereby new standard matter is minted and from whence new spacetime aether is generated.

That said, cosmologists believe they have signs of universe evolution as a function of redshift which is a proxy for look back age. First, as I mentioned, inflation, expansion, and redshift are all misunderstood and that may help map the observations to a quasi steady-state. Second, our observations at large redshifts have always been very limited. We are seeing in 2022 that the JWST is going to provide more details of this regime that are already going to be in high tension with LCDM. So, although I think this may be a long term course correction for the field, I believe eventually the tide will turn.
The values of Hubble’s constant, 𝐻o, that are needed to fit the CMB anisotropy measurements differ from the relation between distances and recession speeds of relatively nearby galaxies by about 10%. This well-discussed Hubble tension, if real, is a 10% error arising from tracing the expansion of the universe to the present by a factor of a thousand from the epoch of formation of the patterns in the distributions of the baryons and CMB. I count this as an impressive success to be added to the rest of the evidence that the ΛCDM theory is a useful approximation to reality, though of course not exact. If the anomaly in the two measures of 𝐻o is real then surely other anomalies are to be found.The Hubble tension is a significant clue that something is wrong. As mentioned above the assumptions of LCDM are considered wrong in NPQG. Large scale cosmology must be refactored to account for the improved understanding of nature in NPQG. I believe this will lead to a quasi-steady state cosmological model.
“…the anthropic principle is not an appropriate guide to considerations of anomalies in physical cosmology”Agreed, but for different reasons. See The Anthropic Principle.
Steven Weinberg (1989) pointed out that [the anthropic principle] is one way to account for the quantum vacuum energy density, which looks likely to be quite unacceptable large.I suspect that the “vacuum catastrophe” is explained in part or in whole by the shielded energy in the internal dipoles of each Noether core, considering all aether based Noether cores and standard matter Noether cores.
An argument based on a more adventurous form of the anthropic principle starts from the evidence that there are enormous numbers of planets around stars in our galaxy. This allows room for many planets capable of hosting beings similar to us. The frequency distribution in cosmic times when these beings flourish on different planets might be expected to peak at about 1010 yr, because this allows time for natural evolution while avoiding the serious slowing of star formation at much greater cosmic times. This time is about what is observed on our planet; we flourish about when might be expected.However, if we are in a quasi steady state universe then our galaxy is fortunately in a part of it’s life cycle where intelligent life can flourish. However, were our Sagittarius A* supermassive black hole to be going through a jetting event that could make large swaths of the galaxy inhospitable to intelligent life. Likewise galaxy mergers might likewise have a disruptive effect on some portion of life bearing planets.

I suppose one might consider the anthropic principle reframed to be galaxy local. Intelligent life on Earth has been fortunate to form during a hospitable period of galaxy evolution and solar system evolution (not universe evolution). Still, once we rebase onto a quasi-steady state universe the anthropic principle becomes mostly moot because NPQG has so few parameters and they may all be calculated from observables.
Weinberg (1989) discussed a stronger form that postulates a statis- tical ensemble of universes, a multiverse. If, for example, universes in the ensemble that have shorter expansion times are more numerous, then the odds are that we live in one of the universes with the min- imum expansion time consistent with what is required to allow our existence, which seems about right. Weinberg applied this thinking to the curiously small value of the cosmological constant compared to what is expected from quantum physics. Weinberg postulated that the laws of physics in each universe in the ensemble would be different. We could only flourish in a universe with physics similar to ours on the level we require, but that degree of similarity could allow a broad spread of values of the quantum vacuum energy density, Λ, provided that that depends on deeper physics that does not affect our well-being. There would be universes in the multiverse that satisfy this condition and the value of Λ is not so negative that the universe stops expanding and collapses too soon for the span of time we required, and not so positive and large that the rapid expansion driven by Λ would have prevented the gravitational assembly of galaxies. If galaxies in the ensemble that have larger absolute values of Λ are more common, as might be expected from the large value expected of the quantum vacuum, then we would expect to find ourselves in a universe with a value of Λ that is about as large as is consistent with our existence. This is about what is observed.

(Section 1.2, which continues with more nonsense)
With no disrespect intended to Peebles or any other scientists, the quoted paragraph is entirely woo-ish nonsense from the NPQG point charge universe perspective.

1) There is only one Euclidean void, and therefore only one universe, with no known beginning nor end in time or space. There are no unexplained mysteries that would lead any scientist to contemplate more than a single universe in NPQG.

2) The universe doesn’t expand as a whole! The concept of expansion was misunderstood. Point charges like to form orbiting dipoles and orbiting dipoles change their parameters with energy including frequency, radius, and point charge velocity. Shapeshifting dipole based assemblies are par for the course in standard matter and in spacetime aether which is a sea of low apparent energy dipole based structures. There is one field and it is the potential field which is the sum of all Dirac sphere potential streams emitted by all point charges in the universe. Action occurs when a Dirac sphere stream intersects a point charge. The Dirac sphere potential follows a 1/r curve given by r=@t emitted at (t0,x0,y0,z0) at each moment along the path of a point charge. Therefore we have a situation where net action on a point charge is the sum of each individual action which occurs on a 1/r curve. Essentially all point charges are riding along an infinite sum of 1/r curves, many of which superimpose to cancel out due to positive and negative potential curves. This dynamical geometry suggests to me that at large scales we have a quasi steady state and nothing is really occurring at the scale of universe as a whole. That said, we can have very large scale flows of spacetime aether and standard matter, but this is simply a result of normal fluctuations due to the dynamical geometry. I would have no expectation at all that the quasi-steady state would change over time. There would be no end state of dispersed giant black holes or a dispersed fog of point charges. Those would be so statistically unlikely given the unbounded scale of the universe. Furthermore, given that we can see very large scale patterns beyond clusters and superclusters, it is unlikely that there is such devolved states of even large sections of the universe.

p.s. action also depends on the emission velocity of the Dirac sphere stream and the velocity of the point charge being acted upon.
Eugene Paul Wigner (1960) wrote about the “two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.” Natural scientists are conditioned to accept these two miracles, or phenomena, as self-evident; they are essential for the discoveries of well-tested science that makes possible the vast range of technology we all experience.The supreme irony is that GR/QM/LCDM era scientists do not understand the laws of nature properly. While these scientists have highly effective theories, they do not understand the fundamentals of nature and how emergence leads to the implementation of the universe. Physicists have been blinded by the light, photons, in many respects.
The Symmetry of Matter and Antimatter is Broken
A familiar anomaly that is essential to our existence is the pronounced local excess of matter over antimatter.
Particle physicists do not understand the implementation of pro and anti matter. For example, a photon is a pro Noether core coupled to an anti-Noether core and these counter-rotate in the photon assembly. The photon sails on its own field through the spacetime aether. Likewise, neutrinos appear to be a less stable assembly made from a pro and anti-Noether cores. Lastly the spacetime aether is made from equal parts pro and anti-Noether cores. All of these perfectly matches sets outnumber the number of pro Noether cores in baryons. Furthermore, there is some speculation that the electron is based upon an anti-Noether core.
The strength of the gravitational interaction, 𝐺 is remarkably small, one might say anomalously so. The challenge posed by Dirac (1937) and Dicke (1964) remains: discover what accounts for the measure of the strength G of the gravitational interaction that is so far from what might be expected to be predicted by a theory of everything.It’s quite understandable if you know the architecture of Noether cores and standard matter particles. The energies of the dipoles in the Noether core correspond to the strong force. The lower energies of the personality charges, one per each of the six polar regions of the Noether core correspond to the weak force. The gravitational force is the coupling of standard matter particles of this architecture to the very low apparent energy of the Noether cores in the spacetime aether. Low apparent energy is accomplished via shielding of energy from the interior dipoles. So gravitation is a local interaction between distinct assemblies and takes place at larger, but still tiny in scale, distances than the strong and weak force. Then this mass interaction causes the energy gradient in the spacetime aether which then in turn interacts with the standard matter to cause the force of gravity. That gravity is at very small force scales is no surprise.
Distant galaxies observed in well-separated parts of the sky have not been in causal contact no matter how far back in time the expansion is traced, to the singularity. So how did the galaxies “know” how to resemble each other? The resolution offered by the cosmological inflation picture is that there was a time in the early universe when a near exponential rate of expansion produced a far larger horizon, resulting in causal connection across all we can see.In NPQG this is much simpler. We get a quasi steady state universe because it is the same physics everywhere. Point charges are point charges, and given that they are immutable we expect large scale homegeneity and isotropy.
Lengthy discussion of dark matter and dark energy. In NPQG these concepts are solved largely with the spacetime aether and its shielded energy. There is also an issue of mass shielding in black holes, but it is not clear the extent to which this affects galaxy dynamics.
Discussions on very technical detailed concerns largely about galaxy and cluster dynamics.

To prevent misunderstandings I repeat that the empirical tests give excellent reason to expect that a more advanced physical cosmology will look much like the theoretical ΛCDM universe, because many well-checked tests show that the ΛCDM universe looks much our universe. But the great progress in cosmology and the other physical sciences has left anomalies, some of which have been troubling for a long time.
The simple geometry of NPQG lends itself to mundane solutions for a cosmology that consists of a density of energetic point charges emitting potential and being acted upon by potential all in an absolute frame of Euclidean time and space. NPQG predicts a quasi steady state universe with no known beginning or end in time and space. Emergence leads to the variety of structure and life in our universe. All point charges are immutable so their world paths may cycle in and out of black holes, stars, planets, or lifeforms over the eons. Or they may spend eons in a spacetime aether particle. In any case there is nothing fantastical about unit potential point charges following paths in Euclidean time and space based upon action from impinging Dirac sphere streams of potential.

The NPQG model invalidates many foundational narrative assumptions in LCDM that have undoubtedly led to confused, missing, or incorrect technical interpretations of observations. As a result, it is very challenging to understand the existing cosmology science well enough to unentangle it, straighten it out, and map it to the point charge universe and then be able to make sensible statements.

Writing this post reminds me how NPQG simply pulls the rug out from under the many faulty narratives of GR, QM, and LCDM. Those faulty narratives have led to a crisis in these fields, yet it is very difficult and tedious to engage with the current science top down because so much of it is based on faulty understanding of nature at its foundations. Examining all three papers referenced in the intro, it is clear that none of them contemplates discarding LCDM, nor even a major change to LCDM. The narratively incorrect foundational assumptions are buried so deep that it is also an impediment to mapping NPQG point charge universe to existing theory. However, progess continues, and nature will prevail.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate: