Some issues I have with the expanding universe;

“A galaxy twice as far from us would expand away from us at twice that speed.”

When this effect was first understand, the realization was that it made us appear to be at the center of the universe, so the theory was changed from an expansion in space, to an expansion of space, based on the premise of “spacetime.” Which seems to totally ignore the central point of General Relativity, that the speed of light is always measured as a Constant. Necessarily, if the light is being redshifted, as the universe expands, then the speed of intergalactic light can’t be Constant to intergalactic space. Two metrics are being derived from the same light. One based on its spectrum and the other based on its speed. Given the logic and history of this theory, the speed is still implicitly treated as the denominator. As this “expansion” is relative to the speed, in order to be redshifted. If the redshifted spectrum were the metric being assumed to be the denominator, then the speed would be the numerator and thus the variable, so it would be a “tired light” theory.

To use the inchworm on an expanding balloon analogy, both these actions are defining distinct metrics of space; The rate the inchworm crawls, versus the rate the balloon expands. If the basis of the speed of light is not space, what is it?

We do happen to be at the center of our point of view, so possibly an optical effect for redshift might be worth considering. It has been observed that while single spectrum light only redshifts due to recession, multi-spectrum light “packets” redshift over distance, as the higher spectrums dissipate faster. So the question is whether we are observing individual photons traveling billions of lightyears, or sampling a wave front and that goes to the irreducibility of the photon. Sacred territory indeed.

“A sudden expansion of the early Universe, fueled by early dark energy, could account for the discrepancies seen in the data.”

While this seems to fit the current description of “dark energy,” it should be noted that is not how it was explained, when the effect was first discovered.

Given the initial ‘bang’ had the universe expanding out at close to, if not at the speed of light, it would be difficult for it to speed up, but what had been predicted was that as the universe aged, this rate gradually and uniformly decreased to the more moderate rate of the present, but what was observed was that this rate dropped off rapidly and then flattened out. To use a ballistics analogy, it was as if the universe had been shot out of a cannon, then after slowing down, a rocket motor kicked in. The problem was that as the initial bang was assumed to be the only source of expansion, if it dropped off, then it should have kept dropping off, so there had to be a reason why it flattened out, but still expanded. Thus “dark energy.”

Though if we were to consider an optical effect, than what we see, from our point of view outwards, is this rate starts off slowly, then goes parabolic, until it reaches the apparent speed of light, creating what amounts to a horizon line. So it would be the optical effect compounding on itself.

Now what we do see radiating in from the visible edges of the universe, is this cosmic background radiation, assumed to be the glow of that initial event. Yet from the optical model, that would be the light of ever more distant sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. Basically over the horizon line. The solution to Olber’s paradox; The light of infinite sources.

It should also be noted that Big Bang Theory is not open to falsification, as anytime there is a gap between prediction and observation, some enormous new force of nature is proposed and everyone goes happily along. What if accountants could just write in a figure and call it dark money, anytime they found a gap in the books?

The James Webb Space Telescope is designed to examine this background radiation, so it will be interesting to see if it emanates as if from a singular, initial state, or whether there appear to be ever further, distributed sources to be distinguished.

Epicycles were brilliant math, for their day, even more accurate than early heliocentric models. The reason they were lousy physics wasn’t because all the details hadn’t been worked out, but because the underlaying assumptions were biased.

As this article points out, there are unresolved issues with adding all the pieces together. Don’t put all your money on the multiverse just yet.