Hard Evidence for the Hot Big Bang

The existence of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is solid evidence for the HBB and for the concept that the universe is expanding and has been expanding for 13.7 gigayears. This background radiation has exactly the right distribution of high and low intensities, its power spectrum, and this distribution matches that predicted for not only for the HBB and what is expected from the inflationary version of the HBB.

This is proven evidence. If you don't agree that this is evidence for the HBB, what is it evidence for? Sophistry and hand waving are not allowed.

Hubble expansion is measurable from relatively nearby galaxies as well as from very distant ones. If one takes the midpoints of the ranges of distances to galaxies that were used in these studies and uses this data to compute H naught as a function of these distances, one finds that the Hubble "constant" is not really constant.

These values for H naught follow a straight line relation reaching from about 370,000 years after time = 0 to near the present. The Hubble constant is decreasing with time in a linear regression. The universe's expansion is slowing down, not accelerating. H naught values determined from nearby galaxy recession are very unlikely to be affected by interferences like intergalactic plasma. But, they lend credence to the values that have been determined from very distant galaxies, supernovae and the CMB.

The power spectrum of the CMB will also be affected by the overall geometry of the universe. The spectrum matches what is predicted by a "flat" universe, that is, one which is neither spherical in polydimensional space nor hyperbolic. This means that there is no strange geometric distortions of our measurements because the geometry of the universe is Euclidean.

The upshot is that the measurements are accurate and they are not being misinterpreted. Except that the data regarding acceleration in the present era are being misinterpreted, I think, because astrophysicists got it exactly "backward". Being exactly backward, it works, sort of. But, then it runs into reality. So, I dispute the existence of dark energy.

Not only are there billions of rogue planets in our galaxy, billions of brown dwarfs and billions of rogue stars - they are like roaches - if you find a few, there must be a huge population of them somewhere. There are also "dark galaxies" consisting of uncondensed or unconsolidated clouds of hydrogen/helium, enough to make very large galaxies if only they had had more time to contract enough to form stars. These are another class of cosmic roaches.

The population of brown dwarfs has yet to be determined so they cannot be part of the inventory of matter and energy in the universe. Likewise rogue planets, rogue stars or dark galaxies.When these adjustments are made, the amount of dark matter that may still exist outside of these estimates will be amenable to a quantum treatment of the universe.

The amount of matter and energy that is sufficient to account for the "missing mass" in the universe in order to "flatten" it will derive from the universe's nature as a quantum particle, just as was suggested by Allan Guth when he postulated the "inflaton". If the universe began as a quantum particle or wave then it is still exists as such.

Quantum physics is statistical in nature and it is incorrect to apply statistical probabilities to individual cases like our poor universe. But, we can suppose that there are uncountable numbers of universes more or less like ours. So then, statistical probabilities may apply.

As a group, these universes may exist as quantum particles or wave forms. Quantum waves commonly interefere with themselves so that an interference wave exists for each of these universes. See Wheeler's work.

Call the initial waveform A. Its interference wave form is B. In order to completely describe this system one may suppose that the hybrid sums of these waveforms also exist: A + B and A - B. The hybrid A - B may be just the null state, but it is still a real state. Thus, A and B are antistates. One is matter, the other is antimatter.

This may be where all the antimatter in this statistical ensemble of universes has gone. It exists in separate parallel universes. All these states may be superposed, a common condition among quantum states. This way, gravity, being the only force that might "leak" out of our universe, can be shared between them all.

Here is the missing mass. All the universes in the ensemble will appear to have missing mass until all the states are considered. Since there is a statistical distribution of universes similar to our own, each doing about the same thing, there may be parallel versions of each galaxy superposed upon one another and seperated by some polydimensinal "distance" yet still superposed in 3-D space.

Each would be oriented somewhat differently however, so that the superposition displays gravitational properties consistent with Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).This is the theoretical tweak of MOND that makes it consistent with relativity, or at least, not contrary to it.

Just who and what qualifies some people to substitute their own wisdom for the judgement of most other scientists? I suppose I could look up each of their profiles somewhere, but that would not really give me the information that I need. What, specifically, annoints them as putative popes of cosmology? Why do they think that they can condemn the work of others, directly or indirectly, while mouthing platitudes like "It's just my opinion."? They do not have open minds, this is clear.

They are evangelists for a particular point of view, not scientists. One can visit their prosylitizing websites.

This is not the place for personal attacks. But, they are attacking the good will and good faith of almost all other scientists who acknowledge the HBB as being the current "standard model" of cosmogony. In effect, they are accusing them of being stupid, incompetent or worse. So, I feel that it is good, right and just for me to stand up in defense of my colleagues right now.

By the way, I made a mistake earlier when I stated that galactic cluster evolution has been observed to be speeding up with time, implying that the universe's expansion rate is accelerating. The development rate of galactic clusters is actually decreasing with time, meaning that, if anything, the expansion rate is decelerating, just as was deduced years ago when the Hubble constant was first elaborated.

That the rate of evolution of galactic clusters may be slowing down is intuitively understandable if the universe as a whole is expanding at a slower and slower rate. It is hard to imagine a force that would speed up the overall evolution of the whole universe while retarding the development of clusters. In fact, it is contradictory. So, the fact of a slowdown in galactic evolution is evidence for a decelerating universe.

This is a new result and it has not yet had a chance to be digested by advocates of acceleration and Dark Energy. No doubt they will invent another ad hoc excuse.

There is no Dark Energy and none is needed. See above.