PSI Blog 20231106 Science Magazine: “The Universe’s Puzzlingly Fast Expansion May Defy
Explanation, Cosmologists Fret”
“Hubble
Tension” increases cognitive dissonance for the faltering Big Bang Theory.
Bear
with me on this one as it is a bit more complicated than the first 20
falsifications of the Big Bang Theory that I listed here. Recently, what
caught my eye was Science’s belated recognition of what is known as the “Hubble
Tension.” The Hubble Tension is the discrepancy between measurements of the
Hubble coefficient (Ho) performed in two different ways best
illustrated here:
Figure
1. After 2013 it became clear that the Hubble coefficient was 74 instead of the
67 predicted by Big Bang Theory. The “Distance Ladder” from Cepheid Variables supports
Infinite Universe Theory instead of the Big Bang Theory. Image Credit: D’arcy
Kenworthy in Lifson (2023).
The
first (in red) is from the Cosmic Microwave Background, erroneously considered
by cosmogonists to be a remnant from the Big Bang. In Infinite Universe Theory
we consider this background to be the equilibrium temperature (2.7 degrees
Kelvin) for aether and/or baryonic matter. Einstein’s perfectly empty space
would have had no temperature at all. That is because temperature is the
vibration of matter.
The
second (in blue) is a measurement of distance to Cepheid Variables in various
galaxies. These are stars with masses about 100,000 times as great as the sun.
Unlike smaller stars, they can be seen with powerful telescopes and their
redshifts can be measured. As with any illuminated object (e.g., a flashlight),
the amount of light that reaches us is a direct function of distance.
Cosmogonists erroneously attribute the associated
cosmological redshifts to galactic recession, which supposedly is evidence for
universal expansion. It is no such thing, simply being a result of energy loss over
distance.
The
subheading to the Science article is aptly titled as well:
Figure 2. This figure from the article shows the Hubble Tension in a slightly different way (Cho 2023). Previous ad hocs led to the weird asymptotic curve requiring huge variations in expansion rates. Image credit: C. Bickel/Science.
Like
so many of the other falsifications of the Big Bang Theory, this one is especially
embarrassing. So much so that Science seems to have ignored it until 2019 when they
reluctantly presented the first of a half dozen articles on it even though it
was completely clear six years earlier (Figure 1). After July 2022, the James
Webb Space Telescope photos confirmed the discrepancy already noted in Hubble
Space Telescope photos, stimulating most of the unacknowledged mea culpas to be.
The
complications shown in Figure 2 are simply a result of the erroneous assumption
that cosmological redshifts reflect galactic recession. This is why they
include velocity in labeling the Hubble coefficient (Ho/(km/s)/Mpc).
When that is removed, z values become a simple function of distance, as
suggested by Hubble (1953) just before he died:
“When
no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a
linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”
Recent
reformist work is in agreement (Chen 2020). Here is how the simple math works:
Hubble’s Law (without the km/s recession factor)
z =
Hod
Where:
z
= cosmological redshift, dλ/λ
λ
= wavelength, nm
H0 = Hubble coefficient (it is
not a constant because it is multiplied, and not added like a constant would be)
= 74/Mpc
= 74/(3.09
X 1019 km)
d =
distance, km
Rearranging:
d =
z/Ho
That
is why the direct measurements called the “Distance Ladder” in Figure 1 are
relatively identical at all distances. I predict that will hold for the extreme
distances to be measured in the future. It also is support for my claim that
the Infinite Universe does not evolve over time, with only its
individual parts doing so.
To
find out why the “recession factor” is still included by cosmogonists despite
Hubble’s caveat, read "Religious Roots of Relativity" (Borchardt
2020).
PSI Blog 20231106
Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be
part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”
References
Borchardt, Glenn,
2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]
Chen, Peter, 2020,
A mathematical model for redshift: Applied Mathematics, v. 11, p. 146-156. [https://gborc.com/Chen-2020].
Cho, Adrian, 2023,
The universe’s puzzlingly fast expansion may defy explanation, cosmologists
fret: Science, Accessed 20231103 [https://gborc.com/Hubble-Tension].
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. [https://gborc.com/Hubble-1953].
Lifson, Shari,
2023, Our mysterious universe still evades cosmological understanding, Accessed
20231104 [https://gborc.com/Hubble-tension-Lifson].
No comments:
Post a Comment