Abstract

The field of cosmology is basically held hostage by those who built their careers on ΛCDM. By blocking any publications against it, they make sure it cannot be replaced. The reason for this cannot be anything other than the preservation of status, publication revenues, egos, and funding.
It is a shameful and unpunished violation of scientific freedom.
The astonishing fact is the silence of an entire field.

The Long Long list

1. ΛCDM says that only the universe exists. Yet it posits a singularity and a Big Bang outside the universe.
2. ΛCDM dates the universe using a time defined by the circadian periodicity of life on Earth. This time is based on the Earth and the Sun, which did not exist at the so-called creation time. So 13.7 billion years is a number that makes absolutely no sense. The universe has no measurable duration — only a succession of events, sometimes young, sometimes old.
3. The Big Bang expresses an act of faith rather than a scientific deduction. It resembles the biblical genesis: How can a man, whose Earth is not even visible in the universe, decide, on a mathematical reasoning, when and how the universe began?
4. The expansion is inferred from the redshift which is converted into distances and ages using a circadian metric (Earth revolution around the Sun). It means that whatever distance you want to express, let us say "1000 light years", it is as if you write only "1000" because the units cosmology uses have no sense at all in the universe. It also means that expansion is not calculable from the redshift and therefore completely hypothetic.
   Moreover, if expansion existed, the disks of spiral galaxies would be distorted — elongated along the direction of expansion. This is not observed.
   A third issue concerns the nature of space itself. If space expands, then it must be a physical entity — something that can stretch. But in general relativity, spacetime is a mathematical structure: a metric, a set of coordinates. An abstraction does not stretch. So either space is a substance, and general relativity is wrong about its nature — or space is not a substance, and the expansion is a mathematical artifact with no physical counterpart.
5. The mass of Newton is defined by a definition of the mass. It means Newton fooled the whole world with an infinite loop. And in the end, mass has never been defined.
6. Even Einstein's definition substitutes for mass a value that defines compressed energy, not mass.
7. Cold dark matter, the term used in the model's name, is a patch that has never been observed, and nobody knows what it is.
8. Dark energy is a patch that has never been observed and nobody knows what it is.
9. Black Holes are a pure mathematical conjecture that has never been observed and nobody knows what they are. What is observed is a compact, luminous source at galactic centres, with young stars orbiting around it. This suggests a process of active formation — not an ogre hungry for matter.
10. The CMB — declared a fossil, declared the first light of the universe — cannot be an event. It has none of the properties of an event: no direction, no propagation, no cooling, and no date. And since 380,000 years after the Big Bang cannot be a date — for the reason given above, that cosmic time does not exist — the CMB has no date and no age. It is merely the primordial quantum matrix of the unfolded, ready-to-use universe instead of this religious singularity and Bang.
11. Confusion between model and reality (the mathematical model is taken as an ontological description).
12. Incoherent notion of particle (particles = field excitations, yet treated as objects).
13. Dogma everything must be quantized (forced quantization of gravity without conceptual justification).
14. Symmetries vs. reality (mathematical symmetries treated as properties of the real world).
15. Hypothetical energies (vacuum energy, dark energy, vacuum fluctuations).
16. Horizon problem (regions too distant to have ever coordinated).
17. Flatness problem (the universe is too flat without fine‑tuning).
18. Origin of homogeneity/isotropy (initial homogeneity unexplained).
19. Origin of geometry itself (the model assumes geometry but does not explain it).
20. Cosmological constant (value inexplicable, off by 120 orders of magnitude).
21. Ad hoc cosmic inflation (introduced to fix the model, not predicted by it).
22. Undetected dark matter (postulated to account for discrepancies).
23. Unexplained dark energy (introduced to account for cosmic acceleration).
24. Initial singularity (the model diverges at t = 0 and thus does not describe the origin).
25. Measurement problem (no internal solution within the paradigm).
26. Insufficient decoherence (does not produce a single outcome).
27. Superposition vs. classicality (no clear transition).
28. Big Bang nucleosynthesis (Describes the formation of light nuclei — but relies on a hot, dense universe, an unverified postulate).
29. Incompatibility between QM and General. Relativity (two conceptually incompatible frameworks).
30. Incompatibility between expansion and the CMB state. (The CMB has none of the properties of an event (no direction, no date, no propagation, no cooling) and all the properties of a fundamental omnipresent state).
31. Curvature of a non‑existent spacetime. (Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct. A physical deformation is therefore attributed to a non‑physical structure).
32. Higgs boson (Becomes a useless patch if gravity is accepted as a pressure on the GRID, and not as a force).

And one can add to this list the new flaws regularly revealed by the JWST.

of the Divorce

Criticizing ΛCDM is not criticizing anyone — it is criticizing a reading of the universe. Despite its venerable name, ΛCDM is nothing more than an interpretation. And since the universe itself remains silent and sparing in its revelations, it is remarkably easy to be right — or wrong. What distinguishes one reading from another is, consequently, its coherence, its agreement with observation, and its capacity to be tested. Coherence alone is not enough — a perfectly coherent system can be false, and history has shown this more than once.

As in a police investigation or a computer program, if coherence is missing, the culprit is never found, the program does not run, and the equations meant to describe the universe fail to match observation. It is not dramatic; it is only theory. The current theory — the BBP as it stands — does not account for the universe in a way that satisfies its own criteria. It accumulates unresolved problems and adds new entities to mask them. This may sound extreme, but once you add: and yet the world still works, the statement becomes far less shocking.

This is made possible by the existence of two distinct physics. This is what I discovered through my research. Yes, it is surprising. No, it is never mentioned. These two physics are:

• A theoretical physics, currently the Big Bang paradigm (BBP), which accumulates conceptual flaws.
• An applied physics, through which we build lasers, MP3s, smartphones, antennas, MRIs, and satellites — and in this case, everything works perfectly.

Without this distinction, it is impossible to understand how the world can function despite a conceptual physics largely disconnected from reality — where many proposed theories have failed to deliver what they promised:

• string theory (no experimental evidence, unverifiable extra dimensions),
• M-theory (no testable predictions),
• supergravity (never observed),
• supersymmetry (no superpartners detected at the LHC),
• GUTs (no proton decay),
• canonical quantum gravity (non-renormalizable),
• loop quantum gravity (no testable predictions).

Some of these are genuinely ruled out by experiment:

• local hidden variables (ruled out by Bell tests),
• steady-state cosmology (contradicted by the CMB),
• naïve dark-matter-free cosmologies (invalidated),
• naïve emergent gravity (incomplete and non-predictive).

Applied physics therefore relies primarily on operational equations of its own making — the ones capable of building machines. But it must be said clearly: applied physics is not a separate physics. It uses quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and relativity — the same theories that foundational research develops. A transistor is quantum mechanics. A GPS is general relativity. The point is not that the theories differ. It is that cosmological constructs such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and the cosmological constant play no role in the design of any instrument. Not one component, not one calculation, not one correction.

Physicists concerned with practical reality rarely interact with conceptual physicists who, judging by the distance separating the two communities, no longer seem to read the universe as it truly is.

Applied physics coexists with these conceptual models without actually relying on them. Those models remain largely confined to academic settings, and their influence seldom extends beyond the walls of universities.

Gradually, this became impossible to ignore. The divergence can be traced back almost to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, when he introduced into his most famous equation — as we shall examine in detail in the chapter on mass — a profoundly ambiguous factor, *m*, thereby freezing into place a fundamental confusion that has led, over the course of a century, to an ongoing conceptual drift. A tiny ambiguity, yet enough to divert an entire branch of physics from its natural course.

Yes, this is precisely the kind of information that is rarely shared with the general public and that, without doubt, many physicists themselves have never even suspected.

When a rocket must be sent to the Moon, engineers use Newtonian mechanics, orbital dynamics, and relativity. They do not consult cosmology. This separation is real, but it is not a separation between two physics. It is a separation between the physics that builds things and the physics that speculates about origins. Two cultures coexist, they speak the same language, but they no longer read the same universe — and no one seems particularly concerned by it. Well, perhaps taxpayers should be, although most of them are unaware of it. I certainly was.

of the Anthropocentrism of Measurements

The universe provides no anchor, no reference. Without GPS, it is impossible to know a position. Thus, we do not know where Earth is located — especially given its minuscule size in the cosmic expanse, comparable to a pinhead on a trillion football fields.

All the measurements we know are therefore anthropocentric or purely terrestrial. Their close connection to humanity and its existence is undeniable. If position does not exist in space, then distance does not exist either, nor acceleration, velocity, weight, mass, or time — which is nothing more than the measurement of duration in units between two references.

When we send a rocket to the Moon, it navigates using GPS stations orbiting Earth, which provide a reference up to a certain distance — the range of communication. Beyond that distance, the rocket is lost. In the case of a space probe like Hubble, which travels millions of kilometers away, it is a radio signal sent back to Earth that informs us of its distance. If communication is lost, the probe is also lost. Nothing can occur in space without a terrestrial reference — or, in the future, a reference from another planet if humanity were to inhabit one.

The universe provides no references, nor does it possess any.

The lack of scientific rigour is nowhere more visible than in quantum mechanics — this mysterious regime present in every atom of matter, which the Big Bang paradigm (BBP) insists on reducing to mere mathematics out of fear of the unknown. It represents the unique, singular, and indelible signature of the universe. The BBP has constructed mathematical spaces, geometries, and states that no observation has ever confirmed. They work — they predict the right numbers. But they do not describe what exists. Elementary particles are invisible to the naked eye and to the scanning tunneling microscope. No one has ever observed a wave function. This means that any representation of this regime is purely conjectural.

These representations are all the more useless because only certain non-geometric parameters allow the use of quantum mechanics in research:

• Energy levels via spectrometry,
• Transition probabilities in lasers,
• Electronic structures via STM,
• Conduction bands in solid-state physics,
• Bound states in quantum chemistry.

In the definitions that follow, the origin of each measurement will be explained separately, allowing us to understand their anthropocentrism.

For now, we can focus on the speed of light (c = 299,792,458 meters per second), which is strangely calculated based on purely terrestrial parameters that are inexpressible in the universe — and is itself a victim of anthropocentric circularity:

• The meter was originally defined (1799) as one ten-millionth of a quarter of the Earth's meridian (a purely terrestrial reference).
• Today, it is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second (since 1983).
• This definition relies on c, but c itself is expressed in m/s. It is a self-referential loop where the meter and the second are linked by human convention.
• The second, a unit tied to the human circadian cycle. Historically, the second was defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day (linked to Earth's rotation, itself influenced by the Moon and the Sun). Today, it is based on the hyperfine transitions of the cesium-133 atom (9,192,631,770 radiation periods = 1 second).
• The second is therefore not a natural unit of the universe but a convention that allows the synchronization of human activities.

The value c = 299,792,458 m/s is thus doubly anthropocentric:

• The meter: a unit of length defined by humans (even if now tied to c).
• The second: a unit of time defined by humans (even if based on atoms).

What we can define in relation to light in the cosmos is, at most, the maximum speed of a body in space. Photons, or more precisely, electromagnetic waves, could be defined as the fastest movements in the cosmos. However, their speed remains a fundamentally human and terrestrial parameter with no value in space, since the universe contains no reference that allows the calculation of time or distance.

Conclusion

The observations presented here are not anomalies. They are not tensions to be resolved by future adjustments. They are structural incongruities — contradictions between what is observed and what the model claims.

The circular definition of mass, the absence of a universal time, the interpretation of the CMB as a fossil, the construction of black holes from luminous sources are not minor details. They are pillars of the model that do not hold under scrutiny.

None of this proves that the model is useless. But usefulness is not truth. And after sixty years of accumulated paradoxes, it is time to ask whether the model we have inherited is a description of the universe — or a construction we have imposed upon it.

It is, therefore, for science to remember that observation comes before interpretation — and that the universe does not owe us coherence. It simply asks to be read as it is.