Below is a belated review of:
Ratcliffe, Hilton, 2010, The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of
Cosmic Expansion: Montreal, Canada, C. Roy Keys Incorporated, 239 p.
As perceptive readers know, we believe the idea the universe is
expanding is ridiculous. Hilton Ratcliffe, a South
African astrophysicist, seems to agree. The blurb for his book states:
“"The Static Universe" is an
anthem for the growing number of skywatchers who are heartily sick and tired of
being led up the garden path. Is the Universe expanding? Maverick
astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, author of the highly controversial book
"The Virtue of Heresy", argues that it is not, and if he's
right, an entire body of science is brought to its knees. The impact of the
ensuing catastrophe will be devastating, and the cost to those who doggedly
defend the prevailing paradigm is inestimable. It certainly runs to billions of
dollars. In a world where self-interest rules, the author of this shocking
expos is literally putting himself on the line. Big Brother does not want you
to read this!”
First off, I do not like the title.
Strictly speaking, the universe is not static. Absolutely everything in the
universe is always in motion with respect to everything else. I would never use
terms such as “static” or “steady state” to describe the Infinite Universe, though
as shown below Radcliffe says cosmologists commonly do that.
Now let’s see what Hilton thinks.[1]
I will use plenty of quotes so you can get a feel for the book:
The “expanding universe picture currently
known as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Model (abbreviated…LCDMM). …Lambda…refers
to a repulsive gravitational effect, a negative force counteracting the
collapse of the Universe so vigorously that it is said to be blowing everything
apart. It’s commonly called Dark (3)[2]
Energy. Opposing this Dark Energy is an attractive impetus emanating from Dark
Matter, described as “cold” in the model because it does not radiate. Like Dark
Energy, Dark Matter is completely invisible. Because it manifests as halos
around large, visible objects, Dark Matter must also be absolutely
transparent.” (4)
A bit of clarification: “we propose that the Universe is static. In the terminology
of cosmology, that does not imply that it is standing still. The term “static”
refers to an absence of a global, all-encompassing motion, and is usually taken
to mean nonexpansion. Basically, this means that the Universe is not
evolving…it is not as an entire organism advancing from a primitive state. …The
Standard Model attempts to prove expansion by assuming expansion. …extremely
poor science.” (9)
“The Universe as we perceive it is a hierarchy of systems, percolating
up from beneath micro-atoms to way beyond macro-galaxies…” (10)
“Lemaitre told us in 1924 that fiery creation issued forth from what he
euphemistically described as a ‘primordial atom', which somehow exploded and
drove the galaxies apart.” (14)
He lists 11 requirements for expansion:
1.
Homogeneous and isotropic (Cosmological Principle [CP])
2.
Large objects moving away, but no large objects (CP)
3.
Mechanism to drive expansion (space-time)
4.
Finite limits to space and time
5.
[All] redshifts increasing uniformly over distance
6.
Evolution of structure correlated with redshift
7.
Evolution of all chemicals and forces from particles
8.
Bottom up large-scale formation
9.
Solution to the horizon problem via Inflation Theory
10. Uniform radio wave picture of the early universe
11. Complete consistency with SRT and GRT
And writes “Not a single one of these requirements is met.” (16)
1.
“Expansion…suggest[s] creation of space itself
(essentially, the creation of energy).”
2.
“The Universe appears to be infinite. There is nothing
indicating it is finite. Olbers’ Paradox carries no weight…”
3.
“The ad hoc imposition of inflation defies established
physics”
4.
“The Hubble Law is a fallacy…a static Universe can
present the redshift in a variety of ways.”
5.
The CMB is simply a diffuse image of local
astrophysical structure at the equilibrium temperature of starlight”
6.
“A nonexpanding Universe does not contradict the
observed abundances of elements…”
7.
“Higher redshift objects are not necessarily less
mature, less bright, and closer together, or crucially, further away, than
those with lower redshift values.” (18)
“Creation, whether of the entire Universe or just part of it, cannot
proceed from nothing at all. Every created effect must necessarily…be given by
creating cause. Since this is logically true for all cases, the infinite
Universe is proven.” “The rock star status of Albert Einstein in the 1920s and
(19) Stephen Hawking today was driven by fans that, with respect, hadn’t a clue
what those gentlemen were actually on about.” (20)
“Observational astronomers and astrophysicists using empiricism to
derive their explanations of the cosmos would tend to concentrate on the first
two tenets of cosmology, and…would lean towards redshift because the microwave
background requires horrendous mathematical manipulation before it makes sense
in the BBT context.” (26)
“As a physicist used to dealing with real things, I know that the
expansion paradigm is more than extraordinary, far beyond unlikely, just
hopeless wishful thinking. I should be very surprised if an observation or
experiment can be contrived to unambiguously support it.” “fluctuations in the
energy levels of light will be an effect resulting from a cocktail of causes
because space is not empty. We can consequently state with certainty that some
weariness will result as light fights its way across the Universe…” (33)
Z=v/c, so any z>1 involves >c recession, a problem solved by this
regressive ad hoc Hilton considers incredulous:
“Although the galaxies weren’t actually moving apart,
the space between them was expanding. That stretched the light waves, and dilated
time itself, without causing the measurable distance between galaxies to
increase.” (36)
This explains a lot about why perfectly empty space, Dark Energy, time
dilation, and Universal Inflation are the Four Horsemen, so to speak, of
cosmogony and regressive physics. All four are critical ad hocs for saving the
Big Bang Theory in the current age of observed redshifts greater than 1.
Perspicacious readers know that perfectly empty space cannot exist because it
is an idealization; Dark Energy does not exist because it is a calculation;
Time cannot dilate because it is motion; and the whole Universal Inflation idea
is a failure to interpret Cosmological redshifts as a simple function of
distance, not recession. In other words, if we could see light from an infinite
distance, redshift z values and the calculated recessional velocities would be
infinite. That could never happen of course, but the very thought of it
illustrates the absurdity of Einstein’s theory of light with its gross
violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Like everything else in the
universe, light simply cannot travel perpetually without losing energy as
foretold by the lengthening of its waves through the aether.
One of Ratcliffe’s mistakes is this:
“light from the middle of the Sun covers a smaller distance getting to
us than light from the extremities…gravitational redshift is independent of
centre of limb, so the only conclusion solar physicists could reach is that
light travelling the greater distance passes through more space, and thus
interacts with more (67) particles. It is a clear observational demonstration
that light loses energy as a function of travel time through a particulate
medium. Therefore…all cosmological redshift is tired light.” (68)
Those who have read the sections on “Gravitational Redshift” in “Universal
Cycle Theory”[3] and “Infinite
Universe Theory”[4] know
that the redshift from a light source is due to increases in distal aether
pressure and consequent increase in the velocity of light. The slightly higher
velocity causes an increase in wavelength. It is not an indicator of energy
loss and “tired light.” In fact, the Cosmological redshift is not detected at
distances even as close as the Local Group (which Hilton acknowledges elsewhere).
Although his concluding sentence is partly true, it does not follow from the
evidence presented. The opposite occurs for travel through particulate matter
(e.g., wavelengths shorten as they travel slower through water).
He should have known better because he has a whole chapter on quasars,
which are extremely massive, bright objects with high redshifts. I believe
those are actually gravitational redshifts that have nothing to do with
cosmological distance or recessional velocity. That is why Arp had so many
observations showing them in close juxtaposition with low-redshift
galaxies.[5]
As I did in the early chapters of "Infinite Universe Theory,"
Hilton displays a photo of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field showing the “elderly
galaxy” falsification of the Big Bang Theory. (153) He wraps up with these
words: “Is the Universe expanding? It would appear not. What do we see? We do not see, let alone measure,
large objects systematically moving away from all other large objects. On the
contrary, it would seem to be quite the opposite, a least in the case of
colliding spiral galaxies.” (209)
Assessment
Upon reading the title, I thought I may have missed something majorly
important in the dissident literature before writing "Infinite Universe
Theory." That was not to be. Like numerous reformists, Radcliffe presents
many convincing arguments against the Big Bang Theory. This is particularly
impressive in that he is a bonifide physicist, mathematician, and astronomer. However,
like many similar books, this one only amounts to being a long grumble session without
presenting a clear alternative. Nonetheless, Hilton has an interesting
perspective for a skeptical empiricist. I was particularly struck by his
mentioning how desperate cosmogonists reconciled the supposed recessional velocities
greater than the velocity of light. For decades, I guess I have been tuned out to
the more ridiculous ad hocs such as the hypothesized expanding space,
stretching light wave/particles, and dilating time.
As mentioned, by “Static Universe” Radcliffe really means “Infinite
Universe.” The book is one small step toward the only possible alternative to
the Big Bang Theory. Many reformists are unaware of that likely fact.
Nevertheless, the book is missing key ingredients that would make it a viable
theory. It needs a list of fundamental assumptions, a section on the neomechanical
approach, a section on the analytical methodology, sections providing resolutions
to problems, contradictions, and paradoxes presented by Big Bang Theory, and a
set of predictions that can be tested by observation or experiment.
[1] Ratcliffe, Hilton,
2010, The static universe: Exploding the myth of cosmic expansion [abs.], in
Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 17th Conference of
the NPA, 23-26 June: Long Beach, California, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt.
Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 1-2.
[3] Puetz, Stephen J., and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the
hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.
[http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
[4] Borchardt, Glenn,
2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[5] Arp, Halton, 1998,
Seeing red: Redshifts, cosmology and academic science: Montreal, Apeiron, 306
p.
