16
4.5.1 The problem of the horizon
By lack of better alternatives, most scientists, until today, still accept the explanation for the horizon problem offered by the inflation model.
When compared to this, the CTH solves the horizon problem in a surprisingly simple way, as Fig. 6 [25] shows, similar, by the way, to the explanations presented by  J. Magueijo in his script: "An alternative to the inflation model” [15], p. 42 ff.

4.5.2 The problem of galaxy formation
According to the CTH ( G ~ t - 2/3), the effective matter- densifying gravitation force was, in the 300000 years old universe, when the matter decoupled from the radiation – which today we still observe as cosmic background radiation- about 1000 times stronger than today!
Besides, the universe had, in its early state, much more “individual time” at its disposition to develop local densifications from smallest inhomogeneities than in the classical big bang theory. The “event density” in the early universe was by a multiple higher than today ( at the time matter and radiation decoupled by the factor 40!).
Mainly the “dramatic growth and then again cessation of quasar populations“ [26], p. 100 thereby could find a simple explanation, since the time dilatation  was specifically high at that time.
As we can see, the CTH can explain the  lumpy matter distribution we observe today in the cosmos much more plausibly than any other theoretical model which had formerly been used to try this.

4.5.3 The problem of planarity
Theoretically, the universe we observe should not exist at all!
At least, its existence would be extremely improbable if it rested upon those theories in physics accepted today. According to these, any smallest deviation from exact planarity would increase in linear proportion with time. If, e. g.,  1 second after big bang, the deviation had only amounted to wee 10 -17   , then the universe should have collapsed again long ago, or it should have got lost in the expanse of the cosmos as a homogenous continuum, in which neither stars nor galaxies nor beings to observe it could exist.
According to the physics valid today, the expanding universe would, by the way, be as instable as the static Einstein universe with a cosmological constant. The latter is excluded as a real possibility today
 [23], p. 462:
„As Arthur Eddington had shown in 1930 already, the Einstein universe is instable, and its inhabitants must walk on tiptoes and talk in a whisper. It rests on the edge of a razor knife. If it is knocked from one side, gravity starts to dominate and it collapses in a big bang in a time of approximately a light revolution period. If it is lightly knocked from the other side, the repel force L  starts to dominate and it blows up and develops into a Wimmer universe. If anyone lights a match, it will start to collapse, and if some radiation is absorbed, it will start to expand.”
In spite of this knowledge, many cosmologists today still accept an instable, expanding universe as a  matter of course, and barely anybody questions the physical basics, upon which  this high grade instability is founded.
This is not only  annoying, but also unscientifical.
 
16