Expanding versus non expanding universe

TL;DR

This paper explores the debate between expanding and non-expanding universe models, proposing a universe model that does not require a big bang and discussing philosophical and scientific implications.

Contribution

It introduces a universe model that eliminates the need for a big bang, suggesting alternative cosmic evolution scenarios.

Findings

Proposes a universe ending in a finite time with a second inflation or disaggregation

Highlights the scientific method's role in model validation and falsification

Discusses philosophical implications of universe models

Abstract

In cosmology the number of scientists using the framework of an expanding universe is very high. This model, the big-bang, is now overwhelmingly present in almost all aspects of society. It is the main stream cosmology of today. A small number of scientists are researching on the possibility of a non-expanding universe. The existence of these two groups, one very large and the other very small, is a good proof of the use of the scientific method: it does not drive to an absolute certainty. All models have to be permanently validated, falsified. Ockham's razor, a powerful philosophical tool, will probably change the amount of scientists working in each of these groups. We present here a model where a big-bang is unnecessary. It ends, in a finite time, in a second INFLATION, or a disaggregation to infinity. We also discuss the possibilities of a non-expanding universe model. Only a few references will be cited, mainly concerned with our own work in the past, thus purposely avoiding citing the many thousands of professionals working in this field.