We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine further this combination of hypotheses.
Based on these observations, it is therefore not true that a static Euclidean Universe can be ruled out by the Tolman test
“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.
Dr Riccardo Scarpa from the Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain, who is a co-author of the study, added: “again you could take this to be merely coincidental, but it would be a second big coincidence.”
Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.
“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.
”However, such a redshift, which is not associated with expansion, could be observed with suitable spacecraft within our own Solar System in the future.
superdave said:In interviews, they make a strong implication that the universe is not expanding.
Drakkith said:it requires that some unknown, unobserved phenomena conveniently causes a redshift of light in exactly the same manner as recession velocity.
my2cts said:That is quite possible.
Any mechanism producing a constant loss of energy per distance/time unit of the observed magnitude will do. The recession hypothesis is only an interpretation of the red shift It does not explain the value of the Hubble constant, it is a free parameter fixed only by observation.
Since the energy loss is extremely small it will be very hard to rule out the possibility that cosmologists are overlooking something.
elerner said:hmm. But the papers I write on cosmology and fusion are published in peer-reviewed journals, while Dr. Wright long ago self-published his remarks on his own blog--no peer review was attempted.
I and my co-authors are scarcely the only ones pointing to the many weaknesses of the concordance model. You can find a summary of the contradictions between observation and just about every prediction of the concordance model here: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ The work of about two dozen researchers is cited and it is by no means comprehensive.
Yes, the paper presents a new theory that challenges the widely accepted idea that the universe is expanding.
The current understanding is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to the force of dark energy. This new theory suggests that the expansion is not happening and that the universe is actually static.
The paper presents a mathematical model that takes into account the effects of inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter in the universe. This model predicts a static universe without the need for dark energy.
Like with any new scientific discovery, there is a healthy skepticism and debate among the scientific community. Some are intrigued by the new theory and are conducting further research to test its validity, while others are critical and point out potential flaws in the model.
It is too early to tell. The scientific community will need to thoroughly review and test this new theory before any conclusions can be made. It is possible that it could lead to a new understanding of the universe, but more research is needed.