I am sure it is just using conformal time and so not really anything different form the standard model.

 

The trouble with general relativity is often not so much a computational one but one of interpretation. We are quite rooted in our 3-d or maybe 4-d flat world. Finding physical interpretations of coordinates and other objects can be very difficult.

Ajb,

 

Whether it's a new model or a new interpretation of the usual model, the good thing about it is that it predicts an apparent omega(matter) of 0.25 and gives a good match to the supernovae data without dark energy...(as in original post).

 

So it'll be submitted to a scientific journal. Fingers crossed!

 

John H.

I suggest you ask an expert in cosmology first for their opinion. It could be very useful to you to discuss things.

 

(I like to talk with (other?) experts about my own work before posting on the arXiv or submitting to a journal.)

An article on this has now been published in the peer reviewed 'Journal of Cosmology'

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/HunterCosmology.pdf

 

John H.

An article on this has now been published in the peer reviewed 'Journal of Cosmology'

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/HunterCosmology.pdf

 

John H.

 

Excellent.

 

------------------------

 

I have to read it several times more, but I think your model don't need the Big Bang anymore. The scaling factor is a totally different concept.

Edited April 10, 201015 yr by michel123456

Thanks Michel,

 

In the same journal, this also appears, which has some good arguments against the Big Bang model. http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html

 

John H.

How reliable is that Journalofcosmology ?