Contrary to popular belief there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny to support the rate of expansion of the universe, or that it is even expanding at all. Space cannot be acted on, it cannot expand, it is a concept in three dimensions. Secondly the age of the universe is not currently knowable. All of the current astronomical standards and definitions are artifacts of base assumptions (leading inextricably to inflation, dark energy, the big bang and the 13.8 billion year old assigned age of the universe).
In this post I will give a very simple set of reasons why along with forgotten, hushed up or controversial evidence that serves to counter big bang cosmology. Evidence that conforms to Occam's Razor and adheres more strictly to the scientific method instead of just relying risky theoretical physics.
The entire premise of the big bang is centred around two (main) extremely shaky foundations. There are many smaller issues which I will touch on and link to, but on grounds of those principles being extraordinarily weak as evidence the main two will get the focus.
The first is analysis of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which is perhaps one of the most flawed and baseless conclusions ever reached from any data processing endeavor in science history, rivaling LiGO in its mischief but predating it by some time and managing to go unchallenged for its chicanery for much longer.
FOR That reason it gets its own post as part B of this "Big Bang" and expanding universe focussed segment in my "Assumptions in science" series, find it HERE.
The second and perhaps the main principle in obtaining comparable velocity in the universe and apparent magnitude is the idea of COSMOLOGICAL redshift. More specifically that red shift establishes that the universe is expanding at a 1:1 ratio where how redshifted the spectrum is directly proportional and commensurate with recessional velocity.
Public Resource worth noting for amateur research:
The redshift database used by NASA is on record at Caltech here:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/z.html
To understand how widespread these myths are you only need to open YouTube and search for any space themed programs. There are literally tens of thousands of them, all spewing up the same bile. For a synopsis of the crap being funneled out to mainstraim science programming you only need watch the below video clip to see how completely and utterly confused they are.
Although it's heartening to see this in various forms all over the internet when you Google "Cosmology Statement".
Connection to parent galaxy: Objects of different redshift being attached to each other are a more devastating blow to the redshift being a 1-1 indicator of recessional velocity than finding them in front of low redshift objects. NGC4319 and Markarian 205 are a good example of this. Some cases have huge differences in redshift so any attempts to explain in terms of galaxies rotating around quasars at the end of the universe is self defeating for the theory. Attempts to explain in terms of galaxies close to each other rotating around each other (one heading towards us and one away) would need to be rotating faster than light in one direction relative to the Milky Way or their dance partner (the "dark energy" of ^CDM does not afford enough "expanding space" to get around this scenario)
Here below i have attempted to fit the most critical aspects of Arp's case onto a meme:
Redshift shows objects moving faster than light: Not just faster, up to SEVEN TIMES faster. This cannot be explained in any conceivable way, even using "Dark Energy" since the given age of the universe simply does not allow for this even using the sorcery of the most mischievous mathemagicians. Its easy to explain if the galactic jets are not at the other side of the the universe, then the speed would not be superluminal, case closed. The simple alternative is that our understanding of redshift, as a 1:1 indicator of recessional velocity, is flawed.
Part "B" of this "Big Bang" and expanding universe focussed segment in my "Assumptions in science" series, deals with the CMB, find it HERE.
Its that 1:1 ratio and its consistency that I'm questioning because everything falls apart once that falls apart. I am not contesting that a form of almost "Doppler like" shifting of light exists, but whether its the only factor affecting electromagnetic wavelength, or whether it can be applied indiscriminately. The implications are very serious if this is not the case.
There is a third reason which is very weak, the luminosity of supernovae, is dealt with HERE, along with some minor methods that won't be the focus of this post. Mainstream science has been forced to rely heavily on this method but mainstream itself is actively challenging its own conclusions, such as in this battle between Nobel Prizewinners and Oxford professors.
There is a third reason which is very weak, the luminosity of supernovae, is dealt with HERE, along with some minor methods that won't be the focus of this post. Mainstream science has been forced to rely heavily on this method but mainstream itself is actively challenging its own conclusions, such as in this battle between Nobel Prizewinners and Oxford professors.
Refer:
&
Public Resource worth noting for amateur research:
The redshift database used by NASA is on record at Caltech here:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/z.html
The mainstream view
Above: Dating of stars or the universe with spectral analysis presuposes the standard solar model. Moreover, redshift and the CMB (or even principles stemming from the thermonuclear fusion model of stars) is riddled with intractable logical conflicts and self contradiction.
Although it's heartening to see this in various forms all over the internet when you Google "Cosmology Statement".
According to data the greater the redshift the faster galaxies and quasars moving away from us. Basically the recessional velocity is said to be comensurate with how redshifted they are.
Because of this we hear the impact on the public understanding in science by hearing it in almost all science documentaries. I refer to how they speak about the big bang as if it were fact and our educational establishment even parrots this narrative.
Because of this we hear the impact on the public understanding in science by hearing it in almost all science documentaries. I refer to how they speak about the big bang as if it were fact and our educational establishment even parrots this narrative.
How did it start?
Redshift was discovered by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's as outlined in "Hubbles Law" but what is less well known is that later in life Hubble began expressing doubts about the certainty of the findings.
Redshift was discovered by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's as outlined in "Hubbles Law" but what is less well known is that later in life Hubble began expressing doubts about the certainty of the findings.
Hubble's Law does not explain why perceived distant objects are travelling faster than perceived nearer object, that requires yet another layer of assumption of accelerating expansion, another artifact of assumption in conclusions deriving from our incomplete understanding of redshift.
Hubbles story is best told by Hubble himself since his disciples went on to ignore his reservations and that is what got us into this mess.
Free Book 1:) Here is a free download site for his book:
https://archive.org/details/TheRealmOfTheNebulae/mode/2up
One of Hubble's proteges was Halton Arp . His bachelor's degree was awarded by Harvard (1949), and his PhD by Caltech (1953). Afterwards he became a Fellow of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1953, performing research at the Mount Wilson Observatory and Palomar Observatory. Arp became a Research Assistant at Indiana University in 1955, and then in 1957 became a staff member at Palomar Observatory, where he worked for 29 years. In 1983 he joined the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, the perfect place for the type of observations he was making. He died in Munich, Germany on December 28, 2013.
Arp would go on to demonstrate that quasars were not the the gigantic objects in the sky as it appeared redshift indicated, but were in fact dwarf galaxies ejected from the centres of active host galaxies.
Hubbles story is best told by Hubble himself since his disciples went on to ignore his reservations and that is what got us into this mess.
Free Book 1:) Here is a free download site for his book:
https://archive.org/details/TheRealmOfTheNebulae/mode/2up
One of Hubble's proteges was Halton Arp . His bachelor's degree was awarded by Harvard (1949), and his PhD by Caltech (1953). Afterwards he became a Fellow of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1953, performing research at the Mount Wilson Observatory and Palomar Observatory. Arp became a Research Assistant at Indiana University in 1955, and then in 1957 became a staff member at Palomar Observatory, where he worked for 29 years. In 1983 he joined the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, the perfect place for the type of observations he was making. He died in Munich, Germany on December 28, 2013.
Arp would go on to demonstrate that quasars were not the the gigantic objects in the sky as it appeared redshift indicated, but were in fact dwarf galaxies ejected from the centres of active host galaxies.
The ejections from misunderstood cosmic jets involve charged particles, mostly ions from one pole and electrons from the other (which is how we know it is not black holes doing it somehow but self contained plasma magnetic entities called plasmoids). The charge separation leading charge deficient new galaxies which charge equalise over time and become low redshift quasars and eventually galaxies introduces the age as one aspect, among others, that is surely a contender for what's causing the redshift but. Arp never went that far. Later work would. He was primarily interested in gathering together all the anomalous data. That is what lead to their cutting his telescope time. He refused on the basis it was far too important a line of research to knowingly turn away from. He tells his story in the documentary below, The Cosmology Quest, from around the 8 minute mark.
For his impudence at questioning the high priests of scientism we see an all too familiar pattern when consensus science tries to defend the status quo. His telescope time became more and more difficult to secure.
Subrahmanyam Chandesakar personally rejected his first paper on the topic with "This exceeds my imagination" scribbled on it (the precise reason he should have allowed it to roll out). This is just one of many instances where someone of considerable influence, whose fate was tied to the consensus establishment of the time, used their power to squash interesting new data purely because it represented a clear and present danger to the status quo. A threat.
The disillusioned Arp would ultimately be offered a position at the Max Planck Observatory, a place with all all the right Radio telescope equipment for his type of work, relatively new equipment at the time. He passed away in 2015
That's not all. It must never be forgotten that in-between he was publically humiliated by the scientific establishment and ridiculed. Subsequently more evidence has been allowed to slip through the cracks which backs up his research. High redshift quasars have indeed been found in front of or attached to low redshift galaxies which not only vindicates his findings but also imnediay tells us that recessional velocity is not the only component, or even the most important component of redshift. The best way the establishment deals with these issues is to ignore them as long as possible. Time has run out.
Free Book 2:) Here is a free download site for his book:
https://kupdf.net/download/halton-arp-seeing-red-red-shift-cosmology-and-academic-science-pdf_59f40d8ae2b6f5fa6e5225e9_pdf
An introduction to Arps cosmology (Above).
Free Book 2:) Here is a free download site for his book:
https://kupdf.net/download/halton-arp-seeing-red-red-shift-cosmology-and-academic-science-pdf_59f40d8ae2b6f5fa6e5225e9_pdf
An introduction to Arps cosmology (Above).
More recent corroboration of his findings in academic and scientific journals is easy to find, here are a couple highlighted below:
E. Zackrisson, On quasar host galaxies as tests of non-cosmological redshifts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 359, Issue 3, May 2005, Pages 1193–1200, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08989.x
Burbidge, Geoffrey. (2001). Noncosmological Redshifts. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 113. 899-902. 10.1086/322152.
Research on candidates for non-cosmological redshifts
(Abridged:) The paradox of apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshift problem, is around 35 years old, but is still without a clear solution and is surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community... MORE
On quasar host galaxies as tests of non-cosmological redshifts
A study of absorption redshifts of quasars
Study of Possible Local Quasars I: The First Sample
Below: A history of Arp's anomalies with a case study of just 5 anomalies with supporting links for the convenience of the incredulous reader. #1
Through to: #5
References to support citations on Arps evidence
http://quasar.square7.ch/
https://sky.esa.int
http://arpgalaxy.com/
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Ar...
https://isidore.co/calibre/get/PDF/Ar...
Clustering of quasars / Size of Quasars: No fewer than 29 quasar clusters larger than the theoretical maximum size possible for the age of the universe appear in this list of the largest structures in the universe. Either redshift has a problem of the dating from the big bang must have a problem....or both.
Here are some more troubling facts:
Clustering of quasars / Size of Quasars: No fewer than 29 quasar clusters larger than the theoretical maximum size possible for the age of the universe appear in this list of the largest structures in the universe. Either redshift has a problem of the dating from the big bang must have a problem....or both.
A recent find shows this problem is getting absurdly out of hand:
QUOTE: A giant arc of galaxies appears to stretch across more than 3 billion light-years in the distant universe. If the arc turns out to be real, it would challenge a bedrock assumption of cosmology: that on large scales, matter in the universe is evenly distributed no matter where you look.“ It would overturn cosmology as we know it,” said cosmologist Alexia Lopez at a June 7 news conference at the virtual American Astronomical Society meeting. “Our standard model, not to put it too heavily, kind of falls through.” Lopez, of the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, England, and colleagues discovered the purported structure, which they call simply the Giant Arc, by studying the light of about 40,000 quasars captured by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey......Continued HERE
....either the redshift error is rearing its head, or the understanding of the even big bang matter distribution is wrong. It can't be both, but it can be neither!
Proximity to parent galaxies: Most quasars appear in pairs in close proximity to active galactic nuclei. They exhibit a pattern where they are moving away from the parent galaxy.
Quasars with high redshift located in front of galaxies with low redshift: The problem here is obvious, and here is some further reading.
Quasars with high redshift located in front of galaxies with low redshift: The problem here is obvious, and here is some further reading.
Connection to parent galaxy: Objects of different redshift being attached to each other are a more devastating blow to the redshift being a 1-1 indicator of recessional velocity than finding them in front of low redshift objects. NGC4319 and Markarian 205 are a good example of this. Some cases have huge differences in redshift so any attempts to explain in terms of galaxies rotating around quasars at the end of the universe is self defeating for the theory. Attempts to explain in terms of galaxies close to each other rotating around each other (one heading towards us and one away) would need to be rotating faster than light in one direction relative to the Milky Way or their dance partner (the "dark energy" of ^CDM does not afford enough "expanding space" to get around this scenario)
 |
| The first discovered connected Galaxy/Quasar pairing of differing redshift values quantized in discrete steps to nearby quasars/satellite galaxies (depending whose interpretation you go by) set to Markarian 205 as a fit as parent. |
Thousands more anomalous galaxy & quasar cases can be found at Arps revised database at Caltech:
The evidence is mounting: The evidence for problems with redshift and cosmological distance are growing. Many research papers are available on this topic, here is one example.
Redshift shows objects moving faster than light: Not just faster, up to SEVEN TIMES faster. This cannot be explained in any conceivable way, even using "Dark Energy" since the given age of the universe simply does not allow for this even using the sorcery of the most mischievous mathemagicians. Its easy to explain if the galactic jets are not at the other side of the the universe, then the speed would not be superluminal, case closed. The simple alternative is that our understanding of redshift, as a 1:1 indicator of recessional velocity, is flawed.
But let's be serious here, space is a concept in 3D with no material properties and it cannot be acted on in any way. How can you expand a concept? The notion of expansion of space, a concept, s not directly measurable, we ASSUME redshift is a way of inferred measurement.
Since quasars are proposed as ejected from parent active galaxies, it makes sense that so many redshifted objects are quasars, new galaxies would be redshifted and gradually step down their charge commensurate with their redshift, and would be visible in the same direction of the galactic birkeland current in our part of the universe. We are looking at new, close galaxies, not distant behemoths that break the universes size limit and prove that space is expanding, and "dark energy" is a thing.
This would mean many low redshift quasars would quite probably have their recessional component slightly blue shifted after being adjusted, ending our sense of certainty the universe is expanding.
Conclusion: One would think with the case for redshift being so shaky, the message that the expansion rate of the universe, if the universe is even expanding at all, would have gotten out to the general public by now. You would think that the message that the big bang can no longer be considered a hard fact, and should be considered on of many possibly theoretical possibilities, would also have gotten out.
Instead we have the gatekeepers of the religion of modern Cosmology marshalling and gaming the situation, as I elaborate on in my post on explaining the motivation for corruption in science. We have to take accountability for our own information in the age of information by sharpening our skills and our nose for bullshit.
Here is a recent scientific paper for a Quantum equation that concludes the universe has no begining. The Quantum universe is no stranger to counter-intuitive ideas, but lets face it, all universe origin concepts are counter-intuitive.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahmed_Farag_Ali
We will deal with the CMB next and see where that leaves the case made for an expending universe. However, what can we reasonably conclude so far?
 |
| This understanding of the universe cannot last. |
Conclusion: One would think with the case for redshift being so shaky, the message that the expansion rate of the universe, if the universe is even expanding at all, would have gotten out to the general public by now. You would think that the message that the big bang can no longer be considered a hard fact, and should be considered on of many possibly theoretical possibilities, would also have gotten out.
Instead we have the gatekeepers of the religion of modern Cosmology marshalling and gaming the situation, as I elaborate on in my post on explaining the motivation for corruption in science. We have to take accountability for our own information in the age of information by sharpening our skills and our nose for bullshit.
Here is a recent scientific paper for a Quantum equation that concludes the universe has no begining. The Quantum universe is no stranger to counter-intuitive ideas, but lets face it, all universe origin concepts are counter-intuitive.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahmed_Farag_Ali
What are the other theories for redshift?
Find out more in the video clip below:
Was there a big bang if recessional velocity is not established
reliably at a 1:1 ratio commensurate with cosmological redshift?
We will deal with the CMB next and see where that leaves the case made for an expending universe. However, what can we reasonably conclude so far?
We cannot be sure there was a big bang based on our current understanding of Cosmological Redshift if that is to be used as evidence.
At the very least we cannot be anywhere near sure of the age of the universe with apparent magnitudes and recessional velocities calculated by interpretation of redshift being exposed in the way if has.
The real question is why does big science hide this fact in a colluding manner that can only be referred to as corruption in big science. Read more about it here.
Using supernova as standard candles has been under scrutiny from mainstream science itself recently:
PDF
Part "B" of this "Big Bang" and expanding universe focussed segment in my "Assumptions in science" series, deals with the CMB, find it HERE.
