TFNR - The Evolutionary Cosmological Model - Revision history

Paolo at 16:10, 1 August 2025

2025-08-01T16:10:10Z

Paolo at 13:03, 15 July 2025

2025-07-15T13:03:22Z

Paolo at 13:02, 15 July 2025

2025-07-15T13:02:58Z

Paolo at 18:39, 4 July 2025

2025-07-04T18:39:33Z

Paolo at 18:37, 4 July 2025

2025-07-04T18:37:21Z

Paolo at 16:10, 30 April 2025

2025-04-30T16:10:18Z

Paolo at 15:54, 30 April 2025

2025-04-30T15:54:03Z

Paolo at 15:49, 30 April 2025

2025-04-30T15:49:27Z

Paolo at 15:47, 30 April 2025

2025-04-30T15:47:19Z

Paolo at 15:45, 30 April 2025

2025-04-30T15:45:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 1 August 2025
Line 55:		Line 55:


−	[[File:~~The _Evolutionary_Cosmological_Model~~.png\|600px\|thumb\|center\|The Evolutionary Cosmological Model]]	+	[[File:The_Evolutionary_Cosmological_Model.png\|600px\|thumb\|center\|The Evolutionary Cosmological Model]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 15 July 2025
Line 58:		Line 58:


−	In the next sections, I will strive to '''develop these fundamental aspects in greater detail'''. I aim to formulate more articulate hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the Universe, its structure and dynamics, the primary types of structures that populate ~~it - both~~ in the dark and visible realms.	+	In the next sections, I will strive to '''develop these fundamental aspects in greater detail'''. I aim to formulate more articulate hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the Universe, its structure and dynamics, the primary types of structures that populate it—both in the dark and visible realms.


	{{Template:PaperPages1}}		{{Template:PaperPages1}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I return to what has often been discussed regarding the current crisis in cosmology. To summarize, as time passes - and especially in recent years - new, increasingly detailed and profound observations have brought to light '''a series of tensions and ever more evident discrepancies'''. These developments are gradually making the Standard Model of Cosmology, upon which our current understanding of the Universe's origin and evolution is based and through which we interpret our observations of the cosmos, progressively less "plausible."
+I return to what has often been discussed regarding the current crisis in cosmology. To summarize, as time passes—and especially in recent years—new, increasingly detailed and profound observations have brought to light '''a series of tensions and ever more evident discrepancies'''. These developments are gradually making the Standard Model of Cosmology, upon which our current understanding of the Universe's origin and evolution is based and through which we interpret our observations of the cosmos, progressively less "plausible."
 Despite relentless efforts by cosmologists to defend this model, and the derivatives or connected theories, by patching it with increasingly imaginative fixes, '''these tensions and discrepancies seem to suggest something far more fundamental'''. This is not a series of minor issues to be addressed with small adjustments but a structural problem shaking the very foundations of the Standard Model.
-The narrative is one of '''a Universe with a definite beginning in Time, an age, composed of "things," of "substances" that we largely do not understand or see'''. And it is not true that we do not understand them because we do not see them. I think that we do not see them because we do not understand them - or perhaps, in some strange way, we do see them but fail to recognize them because we do not comprehend their nature.
+The narrative is one of '''a Universe with a definite beginning in Time, an age, composed of "things," of "substances" that we largely do not understand or see'''. And it is not true that we do not understand them because we do not see them. I think that we do not see them because we do not understand them—or perhaps, in some strange way, we do see them but fail to recognize them because we do not comprehend their nature.
-A Universe with a defined beginning in Time, with an age, as I mentioned. '''A flawed idea - always anthropocentric, always oriented toward beginnings and endings, birth and death'''. It is a contingent idea trying to explain that which, by definition, cannot be contingent. It is, in some way, a religious idea, tied to a religious view of Reality, '''to a deeply Western religious way of conceiving the inconceivable'''.
+A Universe with a defined beginning in Time, with an age, as I mentioned. '''A flawed idea—always anthropocentric, always oriented toward beginnings and endings, birth and death'''. It is a contingent idea trying to explain that which, by definition, cannot be contingent. It is, in some way, a religious idea, tied to a religious view of Reality, '''to a deeply Western religious way of conceiving the inconceivable'''.
-It is surprising how, even in the scientific and academic spheres - where there is a strong aversion to anything that smells of the supernatural, superstition, mysticism, or religion - one finds a worldview so deeply rooted in Western religious tradition. Alternative philosophical and religious traditions might have steered the development of a "standard" cosmological model in different directions. Not that there's anything wrong with religious perspectives - everyone is free to believe what they wish.
+It is surprising how, even in the scientific and academic spheres—where there is a strong aversion to anything that smells of the supernatural, superstition, mysticism, or religion—one finds a worldview so deeply rooted in Western religious tradition. Alternative philosophical and religious traditions might have steered the development of a "standard" cosmological model in different directions. Not that there's anything wrong with religious perspectives—everyone is free to believe what they wish.
-'''But here, we are supposed to be talking about science, aren't we?''' About the scientific method, about evidence, experiments, and falsifiability. Yet, there is too much faith in elegance, beauty, and "naturalness." Too much math. Too much certainty. Hypotheses become dogmas to be defended at all costs - professionally and academically, of course.
+'''But here, we are supposed to be talking about science, aren't we?''' About the scientific method, about evidence, experiments, and falsifiability. Yet, there is too much faith in elegance, beauty, and "naturalness." Too much math. Too much certainty. Hypotheses become dogmas to be defended at all costs—professionally and academically, of course.
-And so, it's known - when an idea gets lodged in one's mind, every fact tends to be interpreted in a way that validates that idea. I am not insinuating that this stems from deliberate, intentional, conscious will. Often, these biases operate unconsciously.
+And so, it's known—when an idea gets lodged in one's mind, every fact tends to be interpreted in a way that validates that idea. I am not insinuating that this stems from deliberate, intentional, conscious will. Often, these biases operate unconsciously.
-'''The Big Bang, refined by Inflation, remains a paradigm hard to die!''' Most cosmologists are at its bedside, trying to revive it by all means to salvage whatever is left. Denying a crisis that becomes increasingly evident and embarrassing. Deny, deny, deny - the best defense.
+'''The Big Bang, refined by Inflation, remains a paradigm hard to die!''' Most cosmologists are at its bedside, trying to revive it by all means to salvage whatever is left. Denying a crisis that becomes increasingly evident and embarrassing. Deny, deny, deny—the best defense.
-But '''the crisis is not just about the so-called "Hubble tension'''" - the discrepancy between two methods of measuring the Universe's expansion rate. The crisis extends far beyond the Hubble constant to areas like '''Dark Matter and Dark Energy''' (these unseen "stuffs" are foundational to the standard cosmological model, yet their true nature remains an enigma - we observe their effects, but their identities are still a mystery). And more: '''Inflation Theory''', the idea that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light in its earliest moments, is elegant but lacks direct observational proof. Alternative explanations have been proposed, but consensus remains elusive.
+But '''the crisis is not just about the so-called "Hubble tension'''"—the discrepancy between two methods of measuring the Universe's expansion rate. The crisis extends far beyond the Hubble constant to areas like '''Dark Matter and Dark Energy''' (these unseen "stuffs" are foundational to the standard cosmological model, yet their true nature remains an enigma—we observe their effects, but their identities are still a mystery). And more: '''Inflation Theory''', the idea that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light in its earliest moments, is elegant but lacks direct observational proof. Alternative explanations have been proposed, but consensus remains elusive.
 Then there's '''cosmic acceleration''': why is the Universe's expansion speeding up? Is it real? We attribute this to Dark Energy, yet its origin and behavior remain obscure. And finally, the pièce de résistance: '''too many mature structures (galaxies) in the early universe, too clustered, too organized''' into vast and complex structures. The way galaxies are clustered challenges some theoretical predictions / observations often hint at deviations from expected distributions.
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 To illustrate how this crisis is being managed, '''let's consider this last topic''': recent astronomical observations revealing galaxies that are surprisingly mature, with complex chemical compositions and bright appearances that defy conventional models of galaxy formation. '''Scientists expected galaxies from this era to be small and primitive''', with low metallicity indices.
-'''The initial reaction? Deny the reliability of these observations''' and try to prove that these objects are not as primordial as they seem. This is fair - verification is necessary. But soon after, the reaction shifted to '''suggesting that these galaxies formed and evolved much faster than previously thought'''.
+'''The initial reaction? Deny the reliability of these observations''' and try to prove that these objects are not as primordial as they seem. This is fair—verification is necessary. But soon after, the reaction shifted to '''suggesting that these galaxies formed and evolved much faster than previously thought'''.
-Why? Why not consider - after necessary spectroscopic verifications - that '''the Universe might be older than we currently believe?''' Doesn't this seem the more plausible solution? It does to me! But I do not have to defend any academic position, personal reputation, research funding, or institution. I fully understand. I would defend my work, too.
+Why? Why not consider—after necessary spectroscopic verifications—that '''the Universe might be older than we currently believe?''' Doesn't this seem the more plausible solution? It does to me! But I do not have to defend any academic position, personal reputation, research funding, or institution. I fully understand. I would defend my work, too.
-Yet, science should fundamentally aim to uncover the nature of things - Reality, and everything that comprises it. Idealism? Utopian? Perhaps. But I repeat, I understand how human nature drives scientists toward, conscious or unconscious, behaviors and attitudes not conducive to the progress of knowledge.
+Yet, science should fundamentally aim to uncover the nature of things—Reality, and everything that comprises it. Idealism? Utopian? Perhaps. But I repeat, I understand how human nature drives scientists toward, conscious or unconscious, behaviors and attitudes not conducive to the progress of knowledge.
 But these are just opinions. From someone like me, not involved, not a professional in the field, an amateur who perhaps does not truly know what he is talking about.
-So, let's move from "talk" to something more concrete. '''Let us hypothesize a cosmological model based on everything presented here'''. On the Process of Reality Formation, its multilayered structure, and the framework of Entities, Events, Relations, and Processes - which finds its physical parallel in the corresponding framework of Source (Force and Field), Action, Information/Energy, and Form(s).
+So, let's move from "talk" to something more concrete. '''Let us hypothesize a cosmological model based on everything presented here'''. On the Process of Reality Formation, its multilayered structure, and the framework of Entities, Events, Relations, and Processes—which finds its physical parallel in the corresponding framework of Source (Force and Field), Action, Information/Energy, and Form(s).
 A model that '''can "easily" accommodate aspects such as''' the expansion of the cosmos and its acceleration over time (whatever they represent), the inconsistency of the Hubble constant in Space as well as Time, the strange super-homogeneity of the CMB, the existence of well-formed cosmic structures in the early Universe, mere hundreds of millions of years from its supposed birth date.
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *The Universe is '''older, larger and more complex''' than we think.
 *The Universe is '''unlimited''': no limits in Cause, Space and Time. No limits at all.
-*Only one Universe is needed - not many or an infinite number.
+*Only one Universe is needed—not many or an infinite number.
 *The Universe, as a whole, is '''inherently flat in spatial dimensions'''.
 *'''No singularities''': neither in the case of the Big Bang nor in Black Holes.
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 *The Cosmic Web is the three-dimensional structure of the Universe.
 *Cosmic expansion is an effect of the rising complexity of Reality.
-*The Hubble constant is not constant - neither in Space nor in Time.
+*The Hubble constant is not constant—neither in Space nor in Time.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 4 July 2025
Line 55:		Line 55:


−	[[File:~~EvoCosmoModel~~.png\|600px\|thumb\|center\|The Evolutionary Cosmological Model]]	+	[[File:The _Evolutionary_Cosmological_Model.png\|600px\|thumb\|center\|The Evolutionary Cosmological Model]]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 '''But here, we are supposed to be talking about science, aren't we?''' About the scientific method, about evidence, experiments, and falsifiability. Yet, there is too much faith in elegance, beauty, and "naturalness." Too much math. Too much certainty. Hypotheses become dogmas to be defended at all costs - professionally and academically, of course.
-And so, it’s known - when an idea gets lodged in one’s mind, every fact tends to be interpreted in a way that validates that idea. I am not insinuating that this stems from deliberate, intentional, conscious will. Often, these biases operate unconsciously.
+And so, it's known - when an idea gets lodged in one's mind, every fact tends to be interpreted in a way that validates that idea. I am not insinuating that this stems from deliberate, intentional, conscious will. Often, these biases operate unconsciously.
 '''The Big Bang, refined by Inflation, remains a paradigm hard to die!''' Most cosmologists are at its bedside, trying to revive it by all means to salvage whatever is left. Denying a crisis that becomes increasingly evident and embarrassing. Deny, deny, deny - the best defense.
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 But '''the crisis is not just about the so-called "Hubble tension'''" - the discrepancy between two methods of measuring the Universe's expansion rate. The crisis extends far beyond the Hubble constant to areas like '''Dark Matter and Dark Energy''' (these unseen "stuffs" are foundational to the standard cosmological model, yet their true nature remains an enigma - we observe their effects, but their identities are still a mystery). And more: '''Inflation Theory''', the idea that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light in its earliest moments, is elegant but lacks direct observational proof. Alternative explanations have been proposed, but consensus remains elusive.
-Then there’s '''cosmic acceleration''': why is the Universe's expansion speeding up? Is it real? We attribute this to Dark Energy, yet its origin and behavior remain obscure. And finally, the pièce de résistance: '''too many mature structures (galaxies) in the early universe, too clustered, too organized''' into vast and complex structures. The way galaxies are clustered challenges some theoretical predictions / observations often hint at deviations from expected distributions.
+Then there's '''cosmic acceleration''': why is the Universe's expansion speeding up? Is it real? We attribute this to Dark Energy, yet its origin and behavior remain obscure. And finally, the pièce de résistance: '''too many mature structures (galaxies) in the early universe, too clustered, too organized''' into vast and complex structures. The way galaxies are clustered challenges some theoretical predictions / observations often hint at deviations from expected distributions.
 To illustrate how this crisis is being managed, '''let's consider this last topic''': recent astronomical observations revealing galaxies that are surprisingly mature, with complex chemical compositions and bright appearances that defy conventional models of galaxy formation. '''Scientists expected galaxies from this era to be small and primitive''', with low metallicity indices.
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 '''The initial reaction? Deny the reliability of these observations''' and try to prove that these objects are not as primordial as they seem. This is fair - verification is necessary. But soon after, the reaction shifted to '''suggesting that these galaxies formed and evolved much faster than previously thought'''.
-Why? Why not consider - after necessary spectroscopic verifications - that '''the Universe might be older than we currently believe?''' Doesn’t this seem the more plausible solution? It does to me! But I do not have to defend any academic position, personal reputation, research funding, or institution. I fully understand. I would defend my work, too.
+Why? Why not consider - after necessary spectroscopic verifications - that '''the Universe might be older than we currently believe?''' Doesn't this seem the more plausible solution? It does to me! But I do not have to defend any academic position, personal reputation, research funding, or institution. I fully understand. I would defend my work, too.
 Yet, science should fundamentally aim to uncover the nature of things - Reality, and everything that comprises it. Idealism? Utopian? Perhaps. But I repeat, I understand how human nature drives scientists toward, conscious or unconscious, behaviors and attitudes not conducive to the progress of knowledge.
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 But these are just opinions. From someone like me, not involved, not a professional in the field, an amateur who perhaps does not truly know what he is talking about.
-So, let’s move from "talk" to something more concrete. '''Let us hypothesize a cosmological model based on everything presented here'''. On the Process of Reality Formation, its multilayered structure, and the framework of Entities, Events, Relations, and Processes - which finds its physical parallel in the corresponding framework of Source (Force and Field), Action, Information/Energy, and Form(s).
+So, let's move from "talk" to something more concrete. '''Let us hypothesize a cosmological model based on everything presented here'''. On the Process of Reality Formation, its multilayered structure, and the framework of Entities, Events, Relations, and Processes - which finds its physical parallel in the corresponding framework of Source (Force and Field), Action, Information/Energy, and Form(s).
 A model that '''can "easily" accommodate aspects such as''' the expansion of the cosmos and its acceleration over time (whatever they represent), the inconsistency of the Hubble constant in Space as well as Time, the strange super-homogeneity of the CMB, the existence of well-formed cosmic structures in the early Universe, mere hundreds of millions of years from its supposed birth date.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 The '''fundamental milestones of the Evolutionary Cosmological Model''' are the following:
-*The Universe is the section of Reality we call the present.
+*The Universe is the section of Reality we call '''the "present"'''.
-*The Universe is older, larger and more complex than we think.
+*The Universe is '''older, larger and more complex''' than we think.
-*The Universe is unlimited: no limits in Cause, Space and Time. No limits at all.
+*The Universe is '''unlimited''': no limits in Cause, Space and Time. No limits at all.
 *Only one Universe is needed - not many or an infinite number.
-*The Universe, as a whole, is inherently flat.
+*The Universe, as a whole, is '''inherently flat in spatial dimensions'''.
-*No singularities: neither in the case of the Big Bang nor in Black Holes.
+*'''No singularities''': neither in the case of the Big Bang nor in Black Holes.
-*At the largest scales, the cosmos is substantially homogeneous.
+*Even at the largest scales, the cosmos is not completely homogeneous and isotropic (the Cosmological Principle is not valid).
-*Inhomogeneity and anisotropies "are" the cosmic structures (especially Dark Structures) that shape to the Universe and determine its evolution.
+*Inhomogeneities and anisotropies "are" the cosmic structures (especially Dark Structures) that shape to the Universe and determine its evolution.
 *The dark side of the Universe is a causal and variational (spatial and temporal) precursor of the visible side.
 *Dark Matter is not made of Particles.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 30 April 2025
Line 58:		Line 58:


−	In the next sections, I will strive to develop these fundamental aspects in greater detail. I aim to formulate more articulate hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the Universe, its structure and dynamics, the primary types of structures that populate it - both in the dark and visible realms.	+	In the next sections, I will strive to '''develop these fundamental aspects in greater detail'''. I aim to formulate more articulate hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the Universe, its structure and dynamics, the primary types of structures that populate it - both in the dark and visible realms.


	{{Template:PaperPages1}}		{{Template:PaperPages1}}

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 *The Hubble constant is not constant - neither in Space nor in Time.
 [[File:EvoCosmoModel.png]]
 In the next sections, I will strive to develop these fundamental aspects in greater detail. I aim to formulate more articulate hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the Universe, its structure and dynamics, the primary types of structures that populate it - both in the dark and visible realms.