Hubble inconstant and superluminal galaxies

PSI Blog 20191216 Hubble inconstant and superluminal galaxies

Author Joel Achenbach writes:

“The universe doesn’t look right. It suddenly looks . . . out of whack.

That is the strange message coming from astronomers and physicists, who are wondering whether they need to revise cosmic history.

The universe is unimaginably big, and it keeps getting bigger. But astronomers cannot agree on how quickly it is growing — and the more they study the problem, the more they disagree. Some scientists call this a “crisis” in cosmology. A less dramatic term in circulation is “the Hubble Constant tension.””

[GB: This particular crisis has been in the making ever since Hubble discovered the Cosmological Redshift (CRS), which is one of the many types of redshift. He noted that some nearby galaxies had redshifts more or less correlated with their degree of dimness. Now, dimness is a measure of distance—at night, a lit flashlight nearby appears larger than one faraway. Unfortunately, Hubble infamously and prematurely claimed this meant those galaxies were receding.[1] By 1953, he recanted: “When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”[2] (666) He vehemently and frequently denied that he had discovered the universe was expanding.[3] This was ignored—folks much preferred the religious implications of the cosmogonical explosion suggested by the priest.[4]

The article above mentions there currently are four discordant values for the Hubble constant: 67, 70, 73, and 77 km/s. These huge variations are due to the various types of measurement being used. All are based upon the assumption the CRS indicates universal expansion. Of course, none of them are valid, because the universe is not expanding.[5]

Hilton Ratcliffe writes:

“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…”[6]

The assumption that the CRS was a result of galactic recession worked fine for nearby galaxies. The CRS was assumed to be z=v/c. Because Einstein assumed nothing could travel at velocities greater than the speed of light, z should never have been greater than 1. Unfortunately, for cosmogonists, improvements in telescopes enabled more distant galaxies to be seen. Guess what? They had z values greater than 1. It got so bad that the record now is z=11.1[7] This was a whopping crisis! A new Nobel-worthy ad hoc had to be dreamt up.

Alan Guth and friends came to the rescue with the inflationary universe theory:[8]

“History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang (17 March 2014).[11][12][13]”[9] [Note this particular ad hoc shows a fantastic, impossible rate of expansion and, if true, would falsify relativity once again. It includes the bogus “gravitational wave” calculation for good measure.]

This particular magic involved the expansion of nothing at all—the darling of regressive physics: perfectly empty space. The z=v/c equation now could be abandoned. Hilton considered this ad hoc incredulous, but explains it well:

“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.”[10]

How and why perfectly empty space could expand was never explained. Of course, that is no crazier than the whole universe exploding out of nothing.

Of course, all this means is that Hubble was right: CRS is a result of distance, not recessional velocity. As he surmised, light loses energy over distance, just like everything else in the universe. Einstein’s massless light particle with perpetual motion is just as magical as perfectly empty space, time dilation, and universal expansion.


All this means the observed universe is many times older than the Big Bang Theory says it is. Some cosmogonists say z=1 yields an age of 5.87 Ga (billion years).[11] That implies the maximum z=11.1 would yield an age of 65.2 Ga if z was a 1:1 relationship with distance, as we assume in Infinite Universe Theory. To this, we must add the age of the cosmic object that emitted light with that redshift. As I pointed out in Infinite Universe Theory, galaxies at the limit of current observation look just like our Milk Way, which is about 13.5 Ga. That makes the currently measured age of the observed universe to be 78.7 Ga (65.2 + 13.5 Ga). This is almost six times the age currently proclaimed by cosmogonists.]

[1] Hubble, Edwin, 1929, A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 15, no. 3, p. 168-173. [http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15.3.168].

[2] Hubble, Edwin, 1953, The Law of Red-shifts: George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr Edwin Hubble on 1953 May 8: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 113, no. 6, p. 658-666. [http://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/113.6.658].

[3] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe, Number of  [http://doi.org/https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/edwinhubble].

[4] Lemaître, Abbé G., 1931, A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 91, no. 5, p. 483-490. [http://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/91.5.483].

Lemaitre, Georges, 1950, The primeval atom: An essay on cosmogony: New York, D. Van Nostrand, 186 p.

[5] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[6] Ratcliffe, Hilton, 2010, The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion: Montreal, Canada, C. Roy Keys Incorporated, p. 33.
[8] Guth, Alan H., 1998, The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins, Basic Books, 384 p. [https://rebrand.ly/robot9b7e].

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.

[10] Ibid, p. 36.

No comments: