Why the Universe is not Expanding

 PSI Blog 20231023 Why the Universe is not Expanding

 

Einstein’s Untired Light Theory is at the root of cosmology’s most myopic embarrassment.

 

Modification of the “Artist concept of Gravity Probe B orbiting the Earth to measure space-time, a four-dimensional description of the universe including height, width, length, and time.” Photo credit: NASA.

 

The Infinite Universe cannot expand because it is already full—it exists everywhere and for all time. There is no real evidence for universal expansion—the average distance between galaxies has not changed over time. Nonetheless, that realization escapes today’s cosmogonists who still surreptitiously assume the universe had a beginning. As I have pointed out many times, the Infinite Universe forces us to make fundamental assumptions about it.[1] The universe is either finite or infinite, although there never will be a complete proof for either assumption. In tune with their subconscious assumption of finity, cosmogonists mistakenly interpret the cosmological redshift as solid evidence for universal expansion. It is no such thing.

 

There are two possible interpretations of the cosmological redshift:

 

1.   Hubble’s “Tired Light Theory.”

2.   Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory.”

 

The first is correct and the second is not. The claim constantly repeated by cosmogonists that “Edwin Hubble discovered the universe was expanding” is false. He denied that until his dying day.[2]

 

What I call Untired Light Theory is the main stay of regressive physics and cosmogony to this day. It essentially assumes light is a special, unprecedented, massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no such thing as perfectly empty space, which is simply an idealization in the same way perfectly solid matter is an idealization. All real things appear to have properties of both space and matter. All microcosms (XYZ portions of the universe) contain submicrocosms, which are responsible for mass. Perpetual travel is impossible. No particle or wave could go from point A to point B without losing energy. That would be like having an auto that never required fuel or recharging.

 

Perfectly empty space has been found nowhere, with even the intergalactic regions long known to be filled with a veritable particle zoo.[3] But perfectly empty space would be necessary for perpetual travel, which could not abide any loss of velocity or energy whatsoever.

 

So how and why did Einstein come up with his imaginary massless particle that nonetheless traveled at c without losing velocity?

 

First, he worked out the math behind the photoelectric effect, which required particle collisions involving light. Second, his math had no use for ether, which was considered the medium for light transmission until the failed Michelson-Morley Experiment.[4] As I pointed out in Table 6 of “Infinite Universe Theory,” his concoction required eight ad hocs:

 

1	Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.
2	Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.
3	Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.
4	Unlike other particles, it was massless.
5	Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.
6	Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.
7	Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.
8	The velocity for wave motion in any medium is dependent on the properties of that medium. The velocity of sound waves in the atmosphere is constant, but we don’t claim “time dilation” when the velocity decreases as temperature decreases.

 

None of these ad hocs is necessary if one considers light to be a wave in a medium consisting of aether particles. The particulate nature needed for the photoelectric effect and the quantization necessary for quantum mechanics is thereby assured. The relative constancy of light velocity and its independence of source velocity is to be expected for wave transmission in a medium.

 

Now, how does all this affect the interpretation of cosmological redshift used as evidence for universal expansion?

 

Remember there are three major types of redshifts: 1) the Doppler effect, 2) gravitational redshift, 3) cosmological redshift.

 

The Doppler effect is obvious for nearby galaxies, with some of the really close ones such as M31 in Andromeda actually having a blueshift. This is contrary to any sort of universal explosion or true universal expansion. The Doppler effect is similar to the waves produced by a boat moving relative to the shore. Going toward shore each subsequent wave is a little closer than the waves produced when the boat is going away from the shore.

 

The gravitational redshift occurs when light travels away from a massive body (like the earth) and a blueshift occurs when light travels toward the massive body. We interpret this as a result of slight changes in the activity (i.e., pressure) that occurs when aether particles collide with baryonic (ordinary) matter, becoming decelerated in the process.

 

The cosmological redshift is what is left over after subtracting or adding the redshifts and blueshifts due to the first two effects. That part of the redshift simply is a function of distance, with the largest redshift observed being z=13.2 at a distance of 13.5 billion light years. Cosmogonists, of course, use z values to calculate what they mistakenly assume to be the velocities of galaxies receding from us. Unfortunately, a mega problem occurred when instruments first became good enough to observe galaxies with z values greater than 1.5. These indicated recession values greater than c, presenting a challenge to Einstein’s assumption c was the universal speed limit. Guth then produced the inflationary universe as an ad hoc to save what was left of the Big Bang Theory. The Doppler effect had to be dropped as the reason for the cosmological redshift, being replaced by still another ad hoc, the miraculous expansion of perfectly empty space, which was assumed to carry galaxies away at superluminal velocities.

 

The 13.2 z value leaves only 300 million years for the formation of galaxies now seen at the great distance involved. Some are spirals like our own Milky Way, which is 13.6 billion years old. Obviously, now is the time for yet another cosmogonical ad hoc. Even Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Good luck with that!

 

Why is the cosmological redshift a function of distance?

 

Not being the idealist Einstein was, the elder Hubble thought the cosmological redshift was due to “tired light” rather than universal expansion. He didn’t know why that occurred, suggesting only that it was because of some unknown mechanism. Others have proposed some, but none have been accepted.

 

In tune with the general tenor of what I have written above, I follow along with Hubble in rejecting the idealization that imagines light could travel great distances without undergoing losses. As mentioned, wave velocity in a medium is controlled by that medium. The velocity of real particles decreases with distance, so light cannot be a particle. The only other way for light to lose energy is through an increase in wavelength, which is what the cosmological redshift is telling us. One would have to be a rank idealist to assume each subsequent wave to be a perfect replica of the previous one. That would be a violation of the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). Waves are made up of trillions of particles. We do not expect the collisions of the particles within a wave to occur in exactly the same way twice. The upshot: like snowflakes, no two waves can be identical.

 

In addition, no matter how fast a wave travels, it still takes time. And, as we learned in neomechanics, each collision of the particles within a medium results in an acceleration of the collidee and a deceleration of the collider, along with some slight internal absorption of the attendant motion. Along with the absorption, the production of subsequent waves will be delayed, resulting in an increase in wavelength. Granted, the elasticity of aether particles is so great that the internal absorption of wave motion generally is minuscule, usually unnoticed —except for cosmological distances. The upshot of such speculation is that, no matter how motion is transferred within a medium, it is naïve to assume it could occur without energy losses.

 

General Relativity Theory critical for the universal expansion trope

 

The above shows how Special Relativity Theory is critical for the promoters of expansion. General Relativity Theory is required as well. Cosmogonists have found no central point from which their imaginary universal expansion is occurring. That is why a nonsensical, non-Euclidean fourth dimension was necessary for the misinterpretation. It is why we have been afflicted with those silly rubber-sheet demonstrations and why some really smart mathematicians actually are getting paid to publish junk on string theory, which assumes at least ten dimensions.

 

Why Einstein is still considered the world’s foremost genius

 

I find the sociology and politics of all this universal expansion stuff to be utterly fascinating. Once that misinterpretation disappears, the Big Bang Theory will crumble. In the meantime, promoters still find it necessary to exalt Einstein as a genius instead of the physics heretic that he was. I have delved into this quite a bit, finding the regression in physics was a necessary part of the war between science and religion.[5] Folks gullible enough to actually believe the proclamations of one of the 4,000+ religions, also are likely to enjoy science fiction and the fantasies stemming from relativity and what amounts to being the “Last Creation Theory.” With 84% of the world’s population still believing those Dreams and Imaginings™ expect the universal expansion misinterpretation to be with us for at least a few decades more.

 

PSI Blog 20231023

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://gborc.com/TTAOS; https://gborc.com/TTAOSpdf].

 

[2] Sauvé, Vincent, 2016, Edwin Hubble... and the myth that he discovered an expanding universe [https://gborc.com/Sauve16].

 

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_dust; https://pweb.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/intergalactic-medium

 

[4] Expected results were nearly null because aether was entrained (Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Ch. 16.2. [https://gborc.com/IUT17].)

 

[5] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]