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.
Conclusion:
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment