These 7 topics include the main problems in modern cosmology.
I am working on formalizing others.
The first topic or item is the most important for cosmology in general.
There are actually 2 competing cosmologies:
1) the popular cosmology, or
2) the Electric Universe cosmology.
(1) is the popular cosmology used by the media which assumes it is the only cosmology, so everyone is at least somewhat aware of portions of it. Big Bang Theory even had a television comedy series.
PC assumes Einstein's theory of relativity is the correct basis for cosmology beyond our Earth, or to the solar system, our Milky Way galaxy, and to the entire universe.
(2) is rarely if ever mentioned in the media.
Its basis is quite different.
Immanuel Velikovsky published the book Worlds in Collision in 1950.
Many scientists tried to suppress its publication just because it proposed a different recent history of our solar system than being taught.
The Thunderbolts Project (TBP) is the collection of scientists working on extending the concepts in cosmology which are better explained when gravity is not the dominant force. Electromagnetic forces are important in the universe (as Velikovsky had noted). This cosmology is called the Electric Universe.
The dogma of 1950 persists trying to keep an alternative cosmology unknown to most.
On this page, I will call the two cosmologies PC and EU (though EU has other acronyms).
There are several posts around the end of 2019 comparing the 2 cosmologies as well as introductory material for the electric universe cosmology. Several posts having ‘cosmology in the title compare the 2 cosmologies
6 of these documents are written in the format (LAtex) of an academic paper for a pdf.
Each link is a pdf file, except item 7). Each Internet browser handles a pdf file but differently by the user's platform (including smart phones).
1) link Clarifying Redshifts
(01/04/2020 - updated 04/01/2020)
2) link Verification of Dark Matter Finding
(01/02/2020 - updated 03/26/2020)
3) link Detecting a Gravitational Wave
(01/04/2020 - updated 04/03/2020)
4) link Space-time in Cosmology
5) link Quasar Hypothesis
6) link Amending Kepler’s 3rd Law
(03/13/2020 - updated 03/23/2020)
7) link Bold, Baseless, Big Bang
(04/06/2019) -updated 03/31/2020)
Item (1) explains redshifts, when and why they are used wrong, and the correct rules for their use.
Item (1) is the most important suggestion here.
Many mistakes are based on this crucial mistake with redshifts.
All those galaxies and quasars which seem to be zooming away, some with redshifts indicating faster than light, are not really moving at the claimed velocities by this mistake.
Item (1) thoroughly explains the problem and its history, but it can be stated simply:
Stars exhibit the Doppler effect because they have a spherical surface. Galaxies (with millions of stars) and quasars (an AGN surrounded by dust) are assumed to be like stars but they are not because neither has a spherical surface for its radiation of light.
The spectrum of a galaxy or quasar must be treated differently than a star.
That simple mistake put cosmology on the wrong track because it was never questioned even after dark energy arose as the excuse for unexplainable redshifts.
The big bang concept had some proponents in the 1920’s and this mistake with its distribution of redshift data enabled its acceptance..
There is no big bang with no universe expansion and so no dark energy to push it.
Item (1) applies to both cosmologies PC and EU because spectrum analysis is a fundamental part of any cosmology.
I am working on convincing more people using EU to accept my item (1).
Item (2) explains why the current search for undefined dark matter could result in a finding (given dark matter remains undefined) but any finding is impossible to verify.
There is no dark matter. Several studies (linked in the paper) have found dark matter is proposed wherever a magnetic field is ignored.
Dark matter arose from negligence and does not exist.
There is no dark matter but many are looking for it. Any finding cannot be verified, so its search should stop.
Item (2) applies to cosmology PC, but not EU which knows there is no dark matter.
Item (3) explains exactly what LIGO detects and it is not a gravitational wave.
The conclusion of item (3) nullifies the claimed mergers of black holes and neutron stars, because there are no gravitational waves being detected.
Neither black holes nor neutron stars exist; both violate principles of physics.
LIGO did not confirm Einstein's prediction; Einstein was wrong about gravity having a velocity limit at c. Newton was right that gravity is immediate.
Item (3) applies to cosmology PC, but not EU which knows the PC claims are wrong.
Item (4) explains space-time (a 4-dimension coordinate system) and why it should not be used in cosmology. An observer's reference frame affected by gravity cannot be extended to the cosmological scale. There is no black hole, as others have noted for other reasons.
Space-time does not tell matter or light how to move.
Nonexistent Black holes have persisted due to negligence.
Others have also described problems with relativity but I have my own list based on my personal experience with coordinate systems during my career.
(4) applies to cosmology PC, but not EU which knows relativity is wrong
Item (5) explains a quasar and its anomalous redshift.
EU has a theory but mine is consistent with item (1) while EU’s quasar is not; there is a post about this quandary.
Item (5) applies to cosmology PC; also to EU because I believe my theory is better than EU’s (a quasar is not a critical topic to debate because both disagree with the PC quasar)
A theory on such distant objects is difficult to test.
Item (6) changes the description of Kepler's 3rd Law of Planetary Motion to include moons and exoplanets.
Perhaps a better explanation is trivial but it should be correct.
Item (6) applies to both cosmologies PC and EU until the accepted description is changed by someone (?) coordinating consistent descriptions in physics.
Item (7) explains why the theory of a big bang is untestable and is not even valid having so many baseless assumptions. This “creation theory” should be dropped, as a failed attempt at science fiction.
Item (7) applies to only cosmology PC, not EU which knows there is no big bang.
Item (1) is supplemented by 2 research topics about the IGM; they are not critical to item (1) but provide extra details; to go to them from this page, click here
Items (1) to (5) suggest corrections to critical assumptions in modern cosmology. They result in the conclusion for PC: there is no big bang, no dark matter, no dark energy, as others have also concluded in EU for their own reasons.
If a paper is updated, the current date of revision is on the cover page.