Crisis in Cosmology is over?

[logihouse]

I hope this post is OK, and if not, let me know, and I will erase it immediately.
I got help to make a blogpost, that lists and discusses previous cosmological models and current official model.
They are all compared to my CCD model. I know, it sounds much too good to be true, but take a look!

https://ccd-cosmology.blogspot.com/2025/12/beyond-cdm-critical-tour-of.html

I am hereby reaching out to a more established cosmologist or astrophysicist that might could help making a new article together with me, with full impact into the established cosmology?
Thomas Riedel
Send a direct mail to
Thomas.Riedel@gmail.com

[ExpEarth]

Your basic idea is not too bad, but you have some confusion right from the start. Let's look at your core statement:

The CCD Core Idea

At the heart of CCD lies a simple claim:

When the total gravitational potential deepens, spacetime extracts energy from the vacuum and redistributes it.

In other words: dark energy and ordinary matter are not independent components. They are two channels of the same underlying process: spacetime converting changes in its own gravitational potential into expansion and particles.

You have spacetime and the vacuum as two different things, neither of which we can say too much about with certainty. Since they can't seem to locate the huge vacuum energy predicted by quantum physics, I think we can say it's not there. There is something small, closer to the cosmological constant. I think this is where your bookkeeping goes off the track, right at the start.

I have a theory which is similar to yours in some ways. I link it to gravity and cosmology. What I propose is that spacetime (or vacuum) is a photonic structure composed of photon filaments linking all masses. There is a general tendency for gravitational systems to expand over time and this is balanced by formation of new systems elsewhere. I don't call for baryons to be formed or destroyed. You could check out the discussion of my model of the 'shell universe' #256 .

It seems you are working with an AI to develop your model, and that's fine, but it's important to keep up with what the AIs are telling you. They can go wildly wrong. Best thing is to study the history of the subjects and work from there. Writing a paper is not the quick process you might think, unless you want to pay a low-impact journal with weak peer review. Just some suggestions, hope this helps.

[logihouse]

Thank you for your response, I will definitely take a look at your work, it seems, that we are having similar ideas!
I will mean, that the energy book keeping in my CCD is just right: There is a cosmic ledger, the gravitational potential, from which matter + energy is extracted. This process is very rare and it is driven by enthropy. If we allow continuous extraction of matter from this ledger, we get a complete match on all observations. Even if the physics explanation might be wrong, the CCD still offers a mathematical formulation that matches the observations far better than the standard model.

[HanDeBruijn]

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not understand where the equation (12) in your technical paper comes from.

$$ \large \dot{\rho}_{tot} \sim 3H_0\rho_{crit,0}. \qquad (12) \qquad \mbox{??} $$

And searching for "CMB" in your technical paper, can you show us how to calculate the observed 2.725 Kelvin (K) with CCD ??

[logihouse]

Thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely right , the detailed derivation leading to equation (12) was inadvertently omitted from the manuscript, and so was the explicit calculation showing how the CMB temperature follows from the CCD/MED framework. Both derivations will be added, together with some other clarifications and corrections.
Thank you for taking the time to dig so carefully into the details. I will provide an updated version of the manuscript tomorrow