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.”
[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].)
