You lose ;-p
If misconceptions are to be clarified in a scientific forum like this, and
pseudo-scientific literature such as this to be debunked, those who know
better (or think they know better) should either comment convincingly on
the misconception and the work, or be silent so as to let the misconception
drift into obscurity along with their author and their work.
Let me try to comment on the quoted section briefly.
> > The Horizon Problem
> > -------------------
> > One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang
> > Model is the observed horizon problem.
There is no such problem except in the mind of the author of this book.
See also the bottom of this rebuttal.
> > The age of our universe is determined to be 14 billion years old in
> > all directions
Not even wrong. Age does not have a direction.
The age of our universe (the *time* since its beginning) has been calculated
to be *about* 14 billion years. The last estimate (Planck Collaboration
2015) was *about* 13.8 billion years (short scale, respectively).
> > […] we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe
> > to be 28 billion years apart.
We do not. Years is not a unit of distance, but of time. And a horizon
cannot be “apart”; that is gibberish.
The sentence would have made sense if it had been “We observe the opposite
regions of our universe to be (about) 28 billion *light*-years apart”.
1 light-year is the distance that light travels in vacuum in 1 standard
year.
The farthest objects that we can observe *have been* about 13.8 billion
years away from us when they emitted the light that we receive from them
(because nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum, so this is the
maximum *comoving* distance for observation). This means that they *had
been* *apart* about 27.8 billion light-years or about 28 billion
light-years *at maximum* at the time of first emission.
We *calculate* the farthest observable regions to be about 46 billion
*light*-years, *proper distance*, away from us in all directions. This is
the radius of the “observable universe”.
If we assume that our universe has not a geometry that is “overlapping” in
some way (for lack of a better word), this would make the farthest regions
in opposite directions to be about 92 billion light-years, proper distance,
apart. This is the diameter of the “observable universe”. (The entire
universe is provably larger, and could be much larger.)
> > In fact if all the regions are included the observed horizon of the
> > universe is estimated to be 46 billion years.
Not even wrong.
> > This means that these opposite regions of our universe
> > cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang
According to calculations, the Big Bang happened at the beginning of our
universe, so about 13.8 billion years ago. Several observations that our
universe is expanding now, and calculations how it would have evolved if it
had been expanding ever since, whose results are supported by other
observations, leads us to assume that our universe has been expanding since
the Big Bang.
So certainly the regions of our universe that are now about 28 billion
light-years comoving distance, or 96 billion light-years proper distance,
apart, could have and would have been in contact with each other at the time
of the Big Bang. (Whether they had the same structure then as they have now
is another issue.)
> > and this is known as the horizon problem.
Only to crackpots, who have not shadow of a trace of a clue what they are
talking about, but want to *sound* scientific.
See also: <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe> pp.