Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form

Hypothesis Application Form LCDM

Hypothesis Application Form LCDM

To help clarify what a complete Physical Cosmology Hypothesis looks like I’ve provided an example blank Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form here.

This is because no astronomical institutions (e.g. IAU, or AAS) and few published cosmology papers (I’m still waiting to see the first one) provide a complete or sufficient hypothesis for the Standard Cosmology Model which Big Bang researchers purport to be working from.

Hypothesis Independent from Evidence and Conclusions

We can use evidence from other experiments to form a hypothesis, however providing a complete hypothesis is independent from, and must wholly precede, all evidence and conclusions that the experiment is supposed to generate.

A scientific hypothesis is fully complete before evidence is examined and rejected or conclusions reached. To put it concisely – evidence is irrelevant until one has a complete unambiguous hypothesis.


You will also find a partially filled-in Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form with the answers for one of the several dozen Big Bang models – a Lambda Cold-Dark Matter model, and to provide a baseline, a filled in form for a Static Universe hypothesis.

1. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Blank

This blank form begins with questions to identify which mathematics, geometry and dynamics are employed or required by the claim.

However, questions such as whether the proposed Cosmology conjecture has a beginning or how much space curvature are not fundamental to a cosmological hypothesis, they are derived from interpretations of evidence.

2. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Big Bang / LCDM

Here is a partially filled-in Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form with the answers for the leading Big Bang model – one of many Lambda Cold-Dark Matter models. There are many because there are so many adjustable LCDM parameters; and they all vary depending on the researcher.

As you can see – several key questions are not completed, because as far as my research shows, no one has ever clearly answered them. If you have better information for any question / answer, please point me to the published reference and I’m happy to update this. (However, the LCDM Geometry answer is blank because there are vaguely conflicting claims, not because there are no claims.)

As I would try to gently remind Science Fair students, no one gets the luxury of describing only those parts of the experiment they want to – we must clearly describe all possible variables that could affect our results.

For example: Photon-matter interactions per year (PMIY) turns out to be crucial for evaluating Redshift and Cosmic Microwave radiation. But it is a variable / parameter that LCDM / Big Bang supporters ignore. The best answer I have found is vaguely along the lines of – “there are no interactions other than the photons which are fully absorbed” (meaning lost).

Until we have clear, unambiguous answers for all the form’s questions, it is my opinion the Lambda Cold-Dark Matter model is not yet a complete, or an adequate, scientific hypothesis.

3. Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form – Static Universe

To provide a baseline I have included a form filled in with parameters for Static Universe.

I find it notable how Static Universes do not require any unobserved matter, forces, energy or phenomena, in sharp contrast to Big Bang models. (remember the Static Universe concept is very different from the Steady-State Universe.)

You are cordially invited to suggest improvements or supply citations to missing answers for the forms.

with my best wishes,
-David Dilworth

Note: The forms are currently printable PDFs, but I plan to provide interactive versions soon.

19 Responses to Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form

  1. Peterson says:

    OK. Its hard to believe the state of cosmology is really that poor. But I have to agree that I’ve never heard answers to many of the reasonable questions on the application. I don’t understand the reason for the photon matter parameter. Do you have an example of a research paper lacking a full hypothesis?

    • David says:

      Hello Peterson,

      The number of photon-matter interactions per year (PMIY) is important to both redshift and the CMBR claims.

      An example of a research paper lacking a full hypothesis ? Almost any paper based on Big Bang or an Expanding Universe.

      Here’s one — “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters, Astrophys.J.Suppl.148:175-194,2003”

      While this research paper carefully describes the parameters it wants to, it does not explain whether it requires unobserved matter, forces, energy or phenomena; which definition of “space” it uses, the number of photon-matter interactions per year it is based on, which Inflation model it employs, etc.

      That’s why I prepared the Application Form for physical cosmology hypotheses – so these basic answers are agreed upon at the beginning – and not mysterious.

    • Chad Butler says:

      I have a theory on how water ended up on earth threw the moon. How can I submit this.

  2. Pingback: Ethan Siegel Makes Science Error – Then Evades Making Correction | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011 David Dilworth

  3. George says:

    If I post a theory of Cosmology here, will I get some feedback as to its possible validity? Some credible questions and critical comments? If so I am in.

  4. Pingback: Ethan Siegel Makes Science Errors, Corrects One | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  5. Pingback: Your Cosmology Hypotheses Invited | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  6. Pingback: Article on Big Bang’s Inadequate Definition Disputed – But Article Emerges Unscathed | Cosmology Science Blog © 2011-2012 David Dilworth

  7. shailendra K says:

    I have given a lot of thought to the idea of parallel universes which has been a major hypothesis to prove after the discovery of quantum theory which suggests the possible outcomes of an event also occurs simultaneously and since their occurrence demands different set of physical states and conditions so they do have occur in different universe at the same instant of time.

    For an example: the tossing of a coin; there are two possible outcomes attached to it but the observer in a particular state can observe only one outcome at a time but before the event taking place there is an equal possibility for the occurrence of both the output simultaneously.

    Now if the experiment is being made by fixing all the initial condition and accounting the difference in the state for both the outputs than there must be a change in entropy which i believe proves the existence of other universes.

  8. ming-hui shao says:

    the energy loss of photons and cosmological redshift
    Physicsl Essays 2013

  9. Very easy to understand about the Universe, if you understand below the 4 theories, you can found out 100% way of the Universe.


    1) Modern Big Bang Theory
    2) Modern Evolution Theory
    3) Modern Gravitational Theory
    4) Modern Time Dimension Theory

    1) Modern Big Bang theory: “Beginning of the creation a part of the power of the Allah/God became divisible as a result of the big bang”. At the time of the beginning of the creation or from the absolute zero of time or from the big black hole or from the Nature or From the God, part of the power of the Nature/God/Allah became divisible as a result of the big bang. The part of energy had been divided in the beginning of creation from the large field of energy, which is below 50% of total energy. As I see it- Dark Energy 75% Dark Matter 21% Normal Matter 4 %. In the most of natural power reserved in Allah or Nature or Big Black Hole or the God from which, the world of gravitation become influenced.
    2) Modern Evolution Theory: Everything of the world of matter is the result of evolution from the Allah/God” i.e. everything at all always is changing in the universe. The changing function of the universe is going on always i.e. everything of the real world is always evolving changing and by overcoming the steps of change come various faced physics.
    3) Modern Gravitational Theory: “Gravitational worlds, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear of each other”. In this way- There has been incidence of full view of the universe at the very exact copy/invitation of the visible diagram solar system in the gravitation world.
    4) Modern time dimension theory: “An individual respective very location is the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past” That is to say; Location of oneself is the present and all other remaining places have dived inside the deeper parts of the past of all. That is to say; inside the universe, the environment situation of today’s our home planet is present before us but the same moment outside the home planet is the past of all. That is to say; place of each in the space is the present of oneself and everybody is at the location of the past of all.
    If you understand the above facts, you will get the shape of present picture of the universe. In this circumstance, a question may be arisen that the field of single energy dimension how occurred? What were in the past of Allah/God? In that case there is no answer because it is not possible to take back our imagination power before it. So, it is only one answer of this question that the power himself is standing behind it.
    Model: See my blog “Universe Figure”

    See my DEMO:
    New Discovery of the Universe: can be found at

    Shahidur Rahman Sikder (author)

    Phone: 8801915788163
    Digital Universe, 42/2 Baitul Flah Mosque Road, East Shah Ali Bag, Mirpur-1, Dhaka-1216, Bangladesh
    Home Page:
    Face book:

  10. David Hine says:

    Hi, I’m not attempting to hijack anything here.
    There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble’s Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations, and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology.
    The equation to perform this is :- 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec.
    The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.

  11. David Hine says:

    I was reading the previous very interesting post of Mr. Sikder. Hopefully David Dilworth will moderate my Hubble post ok, and that will allow a discussion of the implications of being able to calculate Hubble’s Constant using ordinary geometry and algebra only.
    You will be very surprised at the universe concepts this simple Hubble equation opens up.
    Very kind regards to you both, David Hine

  12. S.Asada says:

    I propose a completely opposite approach, adhering in the story of the space birth.

  13. Chad Butler says:

    My theory is instead of small astroids leaving spoonfuls of water on our earth until we had oceans full and the fact the moon formed after earth from a collision I think thus information is false. My Theory is the moon structure at one time was filled with water and then it had a glances hit with the earth which fractured it and left earth with all the contents such as all the water. So in turn I believe the moon to be hollow and that hollow space was once filled with our water.

  14. Here’s a new pre-big-bang hypothesis for you and your readers to consider. It’s “Univon particle created our universe and many others” at . A univon is a universe-creating quantum particle produced by a proposed univon quantum field.
    all the best,

  15. Michael W says:

    Hypothesis: The increasing expansion of the universe is powered by stellar engines because stars with momentum exude more radiation pressure in the direction they have come from than they do ahead. This causes the star to accelerate over time and if part of a galaxy cluster the net pressure of all the stars in the cluster accelerates the galaxy itself.

    It is assumed that the initial momentum of the stars is from the big bang and the radiation pressure in any given star with momentum is unevenly released because of uneven escape from the fusion reactor at the core of the star to the surface of the star.

    In fusion the radiation released, including photons, must ping-pong through the mass of the star to reach the surface of the star before exiting. Because the stellar mass is moving, more than half of the radiation, including photons, is directed toward the half of the star “facing” the direction star is coming from which can be conceptually thought of as the “rear” hemisphere of the star. This results in a net radiation pressure toward the “rear” of the star that accelerates the star “forward”.

    Alternatively or additionally it is possible that due to movement stars are not perfect spheres and that the imperfect spherical shape results in net radiation pressure toward the “rear” of the star.

    This could be measured/tested against our star (the sun) to verify.

Leave a Reply