Crisis in cosmology? Or wrong solutions to governing equations?

For years there has been a debate over what is the value of the Hubble constant. Two numbers have emerged, approximately 67 from observations of the cosmic background radiation, and 72 using frequency shift and distance ladders. This difference has persisted even as the quality of the measurements has improved. In spite of the attention, what seems to have been overlooked is that both numbers depend crucially on using the same standard Λ-cdm model to interpret them. When the same model gives different answers to the same problem posed differently, it is usually the model that is questioned. But apparently not here. Also overlooked is whether the so-called Hubble constant should be constant at all. Data since Hubble’s original paper show unequivocally that H varies as 1+z, and must be corrected to even be approximately constant. This 1 + z correction has been interpreted using various arguments (including ‘tired light’) as being due to the fact that distances are warped. We argue using an alternative theory [1] that Hubble’s parameter is not really constant at all, but in fact varies as H/H_o =1+z. This theory provides the same answer for both the CMB and direct measurement, H_o = 63.6, corresponding to a universe that is 15.4 billion years old. It also shows that interpreting the 1+z as a distance correction is wrong and corrupts interpreting the data.

[1] George, W.K. and T.G. Johansson (2025) “An alternative cosmological model for an expanding universe”, Physics of Fluids 37, 037137 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0254954