I've been reading the pdf you recommended. Mostly skimming the material at the moment but there's some interesting concepts. If you memory serves me correctly, there was a statement about the flatness accretion disks having no satisfactory explanation, though it only took a bit of googling to get one. Lots of material to process.

ha or lack of it anyway eh

The Resonance Science article’s penultimate paragraph asks “Do we need to revisit our understanding on the expansion of the universe?”

Edwin Hubble, who in 1936 said “the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations”, would say they need to change their understanding.

Please explain if you would be so kind.

@WilliamCharles well, "Asked whether the black holes from our universe might someday leave traces in the universe of the next eon, Penrose responded, "Yes, indeed!" is qualified by a "might," but "indeed" would tend to indicate that the guy is convinced it will happen

And I plan to live forever to see how it all plays out.

So far, so good.

@WilliamCharles Good plan

Of course. I always wondered about the "one and out" model of the cosmos. The idea that the heat death of the universe will be the end of everything seems to me to ignore the properties of the singularity where everything just popped into existence from nothing. To me at least, this recurring universe seems to make more sense, as much as the whole scenario can be seen as "making sense" in the first place.

@WilliamCharles

The astronomer Edwin Hubble and physicists prefer the “One always and forever” metaphor.

Mathematicians prefer the “one and out” metaphor and various other metaphors.

@yvilletom - please elaborate if you will. Am familiar with Hoyle's "steady state" notion, but not so much with what is involved with "one always and forever."

@WilliamCharles

Edwin Hubble’s first hypothesis was for an expanding universe, which he rejected but LeMaitre wrote equations that supported the Catholiic Genesis story. It became known as the Big Bang.

The “one always and forever” is for Edwin Hubble’s second hypothesis — a universe unbounded in space and time in which there was no big bang. “Always and everywhere” may say it better.

@yvilletom - thx. You threw me when you said "physicists prefer" as the Big Bang and an expanding universe is the currently accepted model.

@WilliamCharles

I studied physics and mathematics in graduate school and since retiring have studied cosmology.

I wrote physicists prefer the “One always and forever” metaphor and Mathematicians prefer the “one and out” metaphor.

If you have studied physics, some mathematics, and cosmology you will understand Edwin Hubble’s words:

Edwin Hubble on expansion:
. . . if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made . . . expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results. — E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936

Edwin Hubble on red shift:
“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.
“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“
— E. Hubble, 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices.

If your busy schedule leaves you the time and you want to increase your understanding:
Go to www.newtoeu.com and look around. Then download and read the free PDF document.

@yvilletom - it is my understanding that the CMB essentially confirmed it.

[space.com]

@yvilletom - the latest cosmology lectures I've viewed deal with the theory of dark energy and the acceleration of the expansion. Will look at your links.

@WilliamCharles

Big Bangers have been saying that almost sixty years. Do you understand the arguments for and against confirmation by the CMB? See the above-mentioned free PDF document for info.

@WilliamCharles

Triphid above commented “ Though I most definitely am an rank Amateur at Cosmology, etc ....”

If you have accepted the truth of what you have read, heard or viewed, and are repeating it here, you are doing what religious people do.

Go to www.thunderbolts.info and for several months read, listen and view.

Learn well how the scientific method differs from the religious method.

@yvilletom - I have to trust them on the math due to my own shortcomings. Is there some reason there's a consensus that doesn't mesh with your take on the nature of the universe? I'd love to see you put forth your take on Sean Carroll's podcast for his monthly Ask Me Anything.

@WilliamCharles You’re asking the wrong questions. You know where to do some homework. Do it.

@yvilletom - so you're reluctant to present your views to a theoretical physicist but you'll insist that a rank amateur assess the veracity of your assertions?

I'm guessing if I wind up agreeing with you, I'll be validated, and if not, it'll be because I'm too dense or stubborn or whatever to see the truth, right?

@WilliamCharles Period.

@yvilletom - like I said, I'll check out the material you recommended, but there's a good deal of science that's based on probability, particularly cosmology.

As in, "We think we've got this figured out, and here's the probability of our assessments." It's usually based on its ability to make further predictions.

I remember the explanations of Hubble's data not lining up on the graph to actually indicate what he was hypothesizing, but that later measurements did support his theory.

I find it fascinating that cosmological still haven't determined if we exist in an open or closed universe yet, or the curvature of space.

I'm not sure I understand the supposed forces keeping your take from being accepted, or the motivations for preventing that. I don't think of them as being on par with flat earth or faked moon landings, but would think credible controversy would be better known.

It'll take me awhile to process your information. Until then... I'm essentially in the dark (as are the rest of the cosmologists apparently).

To infinity and beyond!