With new data, it is becoming clearer that the assumption of an expanding universe is likely an error.
My own Cloud Cosmology does posit a beginning event and an expanding sphere of photonic energy that all started a long time ago.
This also imposed TIME. Everything else is produced by consiousness reaching back almost to the beginning, opening a void and initiating a new act of creation. This naturally produces a galaxy of matter formed from sublight particles coalessing to form what we know and understand. This is why galaxies are roughly the same size.
After all if you can imagine one act of creation, why stop there and why wait when you can do it all at the beginning?
Now imagine consiously going back to point zero and imagining the binary pendulum and inposing it as the start point. That may be someone's task someday. gives us a profound meaning to I am the beginning and the end. I wonder what it will take to go all the way back?
Independent Team Confirms Cosmic Non-Expansion, Debate Grows
In a big step forward in the developing revolution in cosmology, a group of researchers based in Russia and the UK have independently confirmed that, as they write, “the first JWST observations of high-redshift objects cannot be explained by the expanding-Universe model”. In a paper published December 1st in the peer-reviewed journal Galaxies, Nikita Lovyagin of St. Petersburg State University and his colleagues came to the same conclusion as did LPPFusion’s Eric Lerner and colleague Riccardo Scarpa that the size of the galaxy images obtained with JWST contradicted the prediction of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis that objects should look larger at greater redshifts. Instead, the paper showed that the image sizes were just what would be expected for a non-expanding universe, as Lerner and Scarpa had predicted prior to the JWST image releases.
This is an extremely important development in the debate over the validity of the Big Bang that was set off by Lerner and Scarpa’s analysis and the initial widespread publicizing of this analysis in Lerner’s popularized article ”The Big Bang Didn’t Happen” in IAI News. An essential step in validating any scientific discovery is replication by independent groups of researches and the Galaxies paper is the first published replication of Lerner and Scarpa’s work on the JWST data. As such it adds a great deal of credibility to the evidence against the dominant Big Bang model and undermines efforts by Big Bang supporters to dismiss the evidence as the work of a single heretical group or individual.
Like Lerner and Scarpa, Lovyagin and colleagues compared the angular size of galaxy images (their apparent size on the sky), using multiple data bases to plot how angular size change with redshift, and thus with increasing distance (see Fig.2). While Lerner and Scarpa had compared only the brightest and therefore largest galaxies, Lovyagin and team compared all galaxies, so got a larger scatter in size. But they reached the same conclusion: the JWST images at the highest redshift continued the downward trend in angular size with distance expected in a non-expanding universe and showed no sign of the sharp upward trend towards larger apparent sizes predicted by the expanding-universe theory.
Figure 2. Two ways of viewing the same conclusions: The graph on the left, from the new Lovyagin paper plots the angular diameter of ALL galaxies observed against redshift, showing the decline predicted by the non-expanding universe hypothesis. On the right, Lerner’s own latest unpublished plot, based on JWST data show that the linear size of the brightest galaxies remains the same with redshift, as predicted with the same non-expanding hypothesis.
The Lovyagin paper does not directly reference Lerner and Scarpas’ recent work on the JWST data, but does cite Lerner’s 2018 paper on the same subject based on Hubble Space Telescope data. Lerner has contacted the authors to explore possible collaborations.
This independent confirmation will no doubt feed the growing public debate over the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis. Already, the debate, bubbling on the web since August, is spilling into prominent general-circulation publications for the first time. In the December 17 issue of Spectator magazine, University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank has replied to Lerner. Spectator is the oldest continuously-published weekly, starting in 1828. Although it is not massively circulated, it is prominent in the UK, especially in Conservative Party circles, with Boris Johnson serving as editor on his way to becoming Prime Minister.
Dr. Frank ignored Lerner’s key point about image size, but did acknowledge another big problem for the Big Bang in JWST data: the galaxies observed seem to be too old for the Big Bang. Their spectra indicate they have a lot of older stars, which tend to be redder, far too many for their hypothesized age as just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Frank writes that this is “like going to a nursery to visit your newborn and finding a room full of teenagers.”
However, Frank concludes that the Big Bang is still in great shape and that the correct conclusion is that, to paraphrase him: ” Gee, those babies grew up awfully fast!” Spectator prevented Lerner from posting a comment on Frank’s article, but the debate is continuing.
The in-person debate of Lerner with astrophysicist Claudia Maraston and Julian Barbour is now available online, although at the moment only to IAI subscribers. We’ll share it when we get a free link.