I'm new in cosmology. I do not like the current standard model of cosmology, in particular the metric expansion of space, I'd like to create an alternative theory based on the quantization of space. Please, can sameone tell me a web-site where can see the redshift of galaxies, I would try to see by myself if I can fit the data with my vision.

Thanks

I'm new in cosmology. I do not like the current standard model of cosmology,

I don't like it either, but unfortunately for you and I it provides by far the best explanation of a very wide array of observations. No other hypothesis comes close to success on this front.

 

I'd like to create an alternative theory based on the quantization of space. Please, can sameone tell me a web-site where can see the redshift of galaxies, I would try to see by myself if I can fit the data with my vision.

Given that you are new to cosmology it might make sense to spend some time (say ten years) learning some of the fundamentals before you attempt to overturn more than half a century of research.

I'm new in cosmology. I do not like the current standard model of cosmology, in particular the metric expansion of space, I'd like to create an alternative theory based on the quantization of space. Please, can sameone tell me a web-site where can see the redshift of galaxies, I would try to see by myself if I can fit the data with my vision.

Thanks

Take it from one who understands LCDM in all its dynamics. I spent over 20 years using the FLRW metric. Even after all this time its flexibility still amazes me.

I am also a long time poster on numerous forums including many that no longer exist. So I have seen far too many people go down the path your planning on taking.

 

Here is the problem, redshift alone won't help develop a new model. Many think that will be enough. We currently have two still active threads in Speculations trying to do this very thing.

 

However it is merely a minor stepping stone. As Ophiolite mentioned your far better off studying how the FLRW metric works and why it works so well first before trying to reinvent it.

 

However if you do plan to ignore this, then you should be aware the cosmological redshift formula you see often posted on websites is only valid in "standard form" for near distances. Once you get past Hubble horizon that formula requires corrections that are not easily derived. I have posted the corrections before on this forum (on one of those active threads I mentioned). The corrections require an extensive knowledge of GR and the Einstein field equations.

Very few people realize that thermodynamic equations of state affect cosmological redshift. This is a subject of advanced level of study so not often mentioned in textbooks.

Edited October 18, 20169 yr by Mordred

I'm new in cosmology. I do not like the current standard model of cosmology, in particular the metric expansion of space, I'd like to create an alternative theory based on the quantization of space. Please, can sameone tell me a web-site where can see the redshift of galaxies, I would try to see by myself if I can fit the data with my vision.

 

I think you should be more worried about the CMB, than red shifts. People came up with all sorts of alternative theories when Hubble's law was the main evidence for expansion. All those ideas died when the CMB was confirmed to exist.

This is one of the models that Hoyle tried when he was trying create a (quasi-) steady state theory.

 

 

The thing that killed of this and hsi other attempts was the CMB. There is no other model that predicts exactly what we observe.

We observe the CMB in such a short period of time and it matches calculations which are somewhat tailored to fit it, it is the most reliable evidence we have... But the degree of certainty leaves something to be desired and isn't Hubble debatable in accuracy?

Perhaps more closely matches what we observe rather than exactly.

We predicted the CMB via thermodynamics and particle physics via the BB nucleosynthesis. Not only that we predicted the correct metalicity of elements long before we located and identified the CMB.

 

The calculations were not tailored to fit.

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by Mordred

We observe the CMB in such a short period of time and it matches calculations which are somewhat tailored to fit it, it is the most reliable evidence we have...

 

 

In what way are the calculations tailored to fit. The model predicted a microwave background with a black-body spectrum of about 3K (about 20 years before it was detected, if I remember correctly). As other data has got more accurate and measurements of CMB have got more accurate, they have remained consistent.