Modern Cosmology and its dogma. The 'Standard Model' does not explain observable phenomena.
Relativity is disproven by observational data from our visible universe. So too, by default, is the Biggest of the Bangs.
“E. Hubble has shown that the observational data which he has obtained do not agree satisfactorily with the homogeneous relativistic cosmological models [Big Bang models]…the homogeneous models give an unrealistic picture of the physical universe.
Perhaps this should not be too surprising, since Tolman [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, 169, 1934] has shown that, subject to certain simplifying conditions, a homogeneous model is unstable under perturbations in density. Any local tendency to expand would be emphasized by further expansion. Likewise, any local tendency to contract would be followed by further contraction. Thus if a homogeneous model is disturbed, it becomes nonhomogeneous.”
Guy C. Omer, Jr., “A Nonhomogeneous Cosmological Model,” Journal of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 109, 1949, pp. 165-166.
Omer is right. It was known back in the 1930s and 40s that Hubble’s claim of endless universal expansion did not comport with the data. The universe does not display the ‘homogenous’ characteristics demanded by Hubble, the Big Bang, or Relativity. Yet the ‘Standard Model’ of cosmology is entirely constructured around these false declamations. Why?
‘Science’
Modern cosmology is a new domain which does not make it ‘The Science’. It is just over 100 years in age and is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which is fundamentally invalid; Hubble’s ‘law’ (more below) and the ‘Big Bang’ model (‘The Science’ delusion) which is incoherent and suffers from any number of defects. The ‘gravitational effect’ promoted by GTR is unproven and lies outside any possible physical proof, provides the mathematical-philosophical foundation for much of Big Bang cosmology, along with Hubble’s law (discussed below). Neither are ‘scientific’ or ‘proven’.
Geometry is not science
First, Einstein’s GTR is a geometric interpretation of space, itself defined as ‘empty’ which is wrong. Space is not a vacuum. It can’t be empty for the simple reason there would be no life on this planet, and no ‘luminous’ orbs in our sky. An aether around the Earth is proven to exist which nullifies the Special Theory of Relativity and GTR, which proposes a non-existent ‘gravity-only’ aether. The only argument should be over the type of aether, and how it operates.
Saying space is empty is akin to suggesting that the atmosphere which exists on the surface of our planet is confined to magnetic fields and gravitational attraction, devoid of the chemicals and particles necessary for life.
It is as inane as saying that the light bulb and its emitted light can never exist because no ‘medium’ exists to transfer the electrically charged photons.
It is as silly as saying that the transmission of sound, energy, gamma rays, cosmic rays, or light energy occurs in an absolute ‘nothing’ of a black box.
Nothing is nothing. It means nothing.
If you say spaces is an environment of ‘reduced energy’ you are engaged in worthless word-salads which describe an aether.
Further Einstein and the Relativity magicians merged space with time. This is criminal. There are legions of problems with this formulation developed by Minkowski, Palagyi1, Einstein, Lemaître, de Sitter, Friedmann and others. First, the geometric necromancy is unsupported by Euclidean reality and is entirely unprovable. You can never ‘prove’ a 4th dimension where ‘space’ (absolute) and time (a calculated, subjective measurement) are ‘merged’. Only in maths can you merge the absolute with the subjective. Not in reality.
Space and time is a mathematical artifice designed to enable the calculus of Relativity to demonstrate relative movement, velocity, and measurements in different (relative) frames of reference, but allowing for gravity’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ (to quote Einstein) through a dimensional aether based solely on gravity waves, from unknown sources. We live in a 3-dimensional Euclidean universe, one admitted to by Einstein and de Ritter in the early 1930s. It is intellectually dishonest to propose ‘dimensions’ which you can never prove to make your equations balance or appear relevant.
Standard Model
Second, the philosophy of the Big Bang is explicated by a so-called ‘Standard Model’ which is a motley collection of heterogeneous ideas, artificially arranged as an explanatory framework, similar to that of the ‘Standard Model of physics’2 (hence the same name as first suggested by Weinberg in 1972). This model is premised on the following primary ideas which we will discuss in this post:
1. Our Universe is homogenous and isotropic (this is wrong)
2. The Universe expands according to ‘Hubble’s law’ (this is false)
3. There is a past and present expansion of the Universe (unsupported by the James Webb Telescope)
1-Homogeneity, Isotropy
Many posts on here discuss why this dogma is false. It is based on the ‘cosmological principle’. This philosophical concept is basic to any cosmological approach. It is an application of the principle of last equivalence. The cosmological principle was first introduced by Milne (Milne model, 1935) based on the false and disproven idea of empty space, and then further developed by the Einstotle as a variation of his own principle of equivalence.
Note that within the dogma of ‘Science’, a principle is akin to a ‘law’. It is a Mosaic declaration equivalent to an ‘axiom’ or a ‘postulate’. We discussed the fallacy of axioms and principles in a previous post.
Einstein’s ‘principle of equivalence’ is wrong. This essentially states that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration. In simpler terms, if you were in a closed box, you couldn't tell the difference between being stationary in a gravitational field and being accelerated in empty space. This is nonsense of course. There is no proof that gravity and acceleration are similar in their effects given they impact the object or subject differently.
Another ‘principle’ abridges Einstotle’s intellectual confusion. Mach’s principle postulates that the inertial reference frames adopted from classical mechanics should be regarded in relation to the distribution and motion of cosmic mass, that is, in relation to the actual space-time relationships. This supposes an absolute (classical physics), which is anathema to the Relativity cult.
Einstein took Mach’s principle, as he did with the relativity of space and time in electromagnetism developed by Lorentz and other physicists before him, and applied it to the whole universe, removing the absolute frame of reference and claiming that all actions occurred in their own reference grid. He thus ‘relativises’ Mach’s idea.
It is fair to say that the Einstotle never had a truly original idea of his own.
This philosophical and arbitrary decision was based on mathematics. In the Einstotle’s view the local space-time relationships which we observe are heterogeneous and discrete. He is right, but wrong on their locality. Einstein denies the obvious rule of simultaneity (different interactions in different places occur at the same time, in Relativity, even time is ‘relative’). This leads to a fantasy world.
The cosmological principle, mentioned above, postulates a homogeneous and isotropic universe. This is also wrong. It is not what we see. The universe is isotropic and inhomogeneous. Neither do we see discrete reference maps and motions without an absolute frame of reference. So both Einstein’s Relativity, based on an incorrect philosophical tenet, and the cosmological principle, are falsified at their core.
Take the simple example of ‘stellar aberration’ or the deflection of light beams by the Sun’s gravity. This phenomenon can only be assessed from this planet by mapping the movement of stars over time against the absolute backdrop of our galaxies stars (an absolute). You can’t have it both ways. The fact that stellar aberration is so minimal as to be meaningless, (the angle dislocation is the same as a subtended hair viewed at 50 km) and which can be explained by many ‘models’ does not prove anything (certainly not ‘Relativity’). The point to be made, is that there is always an absolute frame of reference and simultaneity. Otherwise nothing exists.
2-Hubble’s ‘law’
According to the Standard Model and its Hubble ‘law’, the universe expands with the escape velocity v of the galaxies, being proportional to the distance (d) of an observer from the galaxies:
v = H₀d
V represents the recessional velocity of a galaxy (how fast it is moving away from us). This is an assumption. We assume that all galaxies move away from the Earth. This assumption is based on Redshifting which has many issues and does not mean a planet or galaxy is moving away from us. Redshift is a light spectrum emission. It has nothing to do with recessional velocity.
Planets and galaxies are known to blueshift (supposedly moving closer to us). Examples of blueshifting include the Andromeda galaxy, which is the closest galaxy to the Earth and which is moving toward us, and Barnard’s star which is moving toward our solar system. The Hubble equation simply ignores blueshifting. We should assume that at some point Andromeda collides with the Milky Way. So much for endless expansion.
H₀ represents the Hubble constant, which is the current rate of expansion of the universe. This is also fictitious and simply an assumption based on assumed values. Determining the precise value of H₀ is ‘contentious’ to say the least. There are two main methods, which currently yield quite different results:
1- The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): Measurements of the CMB provide a value around 67-68 km/s/Mpc. CMB is also called CMR (cosmic microwave background radiation).
2- The Cosmic Distance Ladder: Measurements of distances to galaxies using standard candles (like Cepheid variable stars and supernovae) provide a value around 73-74 km/s/Mpc.
Mpc = megaparsec. One megaparsec is approximately 3.26 million light-years. It is enormous. The above equation is almost impossible to explain using an analogy comprehensible to our everyday activities.
Constantly Inconstant
Hubble’s original calculation from the 1930s, had a constant of 500 km/s/Mpc. This was ‘refined’ to about 100 km/s/Mpc in the 1970s. It is now being refined further into the 50 km/s/Mpc range. In the future, expect this to be reduced down to 10-20 km/s/Mpc or a fraction of the original.
In other words, the constant has constantly been inconstant and might not be a constant at all. This is also where the wizards invoke ‘dark energy’, some unknown source of energy pushing the universe out and ‘dark matter’, some unknown matter keeping the universe stable, akin probably to what the aether is doing (more below).
However, CMB/CBR does not support the Big Bang or the universe’s endless surging.
“The Earth-viewed observation of CMB isotropy serves as the absolute frame of reference, anathema to Special Relativity and the cult of Einstein. But there it is. As V. J. Weisskopf states:
‘It is remarkable that we now are justified in talking about an absolute motion, and that we can measure it. The great dream of Michelson and Morley is realized….It makes sense to say that an observer is at rest in an absolute sense when the 3K radiation appears to have the same frequencies in all directions. Nature has provided an absolute frame of reference. The deeper significance of this concept is not yet clear.’” (Weisskopf, 1983).
For Big Bangers like Weisskopf ‘Nature’ is similar to their God. His ‘deeper significance’ would be that the Earth is near the barycentre of the universe (don’t say that out loud you might be imprisoned).
Again, we are told that a ‘law’ is immutable truth. It is anything but. We could view the universe using different equations and assumptions and make equally plausible claims for the utility of the equation, by ‘saving the phenomena’ in the cosmos, or explaining what we see with those equations.
Further, according to Hubble’s law, the values of Hubble’s universal time (Au) and the radius of the universe (Ru), are natural constants. This is in direct contradiction with the assumption that the universe ‘expands’ and is unsupported by evidence that these constants appear to be inconstant over time. Modern cosmology does not give any explanation of this obvious paradox between Hubble’s law and the hypothesis of the expanding universe as put forward in the standard model.
It is therefore wrong.
Dark Matter, so dark you can’t see it
Currently the dogma maintains, quite implausibly, that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old. This attempts to consider the gravitational forces between the galaxies. Einstein left gravity out of his STR, but inserted a theoretical ‘gravitational aether’ into his GTR. However, the ‘mass’ of these galaxies even within the incorrect GTR maths, which underpins Big Bang theory, cannot be determined, so it is claimed that 90% of the mass of the universe is some sort of ‘dark matter’. This means that most of cosmological physics is a game of theory and philosophies. The equations are all over the place.
This fact is important. All the basic space and time magnitudes in cosmology, such as the Hubble constant, can only be roughly estimated, if at all. This fact shows that present-day cosmology is anything but an exact empirical science. As these quantities are basic to the ‘Standard Model’, fundamental paradoxes have emerged, depending on the values employed. For example there are some galaxies defined as ‘children’ to the parent galaxy, yet they are claimed to be older! 3
This is impossible within the Big Bang hypothesis of how the universe was developed. Such anomalies are strong indications that the ‘Standard Model’ is invalid. There is also the reality that the entire universe could never have been reduced to a singularity, exploded and then the fantastical arrangement of design, ‘laws’, constants and life itself, satisfied by blind chance and luck. This is ridiculous. Even Saint Stephen of the Hawking knew that a theory like Relativity, which proposed a ‘singularity’, was wrong (Briefer History of Time, 2010).
Visible Universe
Back to reality. Only the visible universe is a possible object of study. Everything else is philosophical conjecture. Every person interested in ‘science’ and truth would accept this sentence. Einstein, Relativists and Bangers, did not, and do not. They want to engage in speculation.
The visible universe is a specific, concrete cosmological system of unmerged space and time. It determines the limits of human knowledge at present. It is important to understand that the universe is like any other system. It must have a constant and absolute space and time. For this reason the radius of the universe (or Ru) and time (Ho=1/AU) magnitudes are natural constants. From this, and from specific observations, you could derive ideas about how the visible universe is behaving and what this might mean for age and structure. But this is not what happens.
3-Endless Expansion
The ‘Standard Model’ describes a past and present expansion of the universe. In the beginning, a few nano-seconds after the cosmic ‘egg’ exploded, there was a massive expansion which created space, time and particles far beyond the accepted ‘speed of light’. Then light speed, temperatures and expansion slowed and cooled off. More elements were formed. This conjecture is based in part, on Hubble’s law, which as given above, is inaccurate and wrong.
We also mentioned CMB or CBR, supposedly the remnant of the initial, extremely hot radiation of the big bang that has been adiabatically cooled down to the present temperature of 2.73 K. The theoretical basis of this hypothetical, hot expansion model is Einstein’s theory of Relativity, which is geometry applied to the visible universe and deals essentially with the level of gravitation (including his cosmological constant). CMB does not support the Standard Model nor the maths of the Einstotle.
The WMAP images have shown the exact same results as the earlier probe named the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), only with more clarity. COBE was launched in 1989 and is always used as ‘proof’ of Banging. But the actual data collected by COBE reveals quite the opposite picture, confirmed by WMAP. Both COBE and WMAP show that there is anisotropy in the universe, and that the Sun-Earth ecliptic plane was precisely in the centre, between the red poles (hotter regions) and the blue poles (colder regions). There is a difference of 50mK or 50 millionths of a degree Kelvin from the 2.725 Kelvin of the remaining CMB. This is not what the Bangers predicted or wanted.
The ‘Standard Model’ cannot explain many facts that have been accumulated through observation. CBR is not isotropic and homogeneous as postulated by the this model but exhibits a local anisotropy. Thus the invocation of ‘dark energy’.
The ‘Standard Model’ also excludes alternative cosmological explanations, such as the steady state-models of Hoyle, Bondi (1960) or Dicke (1970). The universe might not be expanding. The universe might also be a mirage. These other models may reflect more adequately the constant character of space-time.
The truth might well be that the universe is not expanding, it is finite, it is much smaller than expected and its vast age overstated, due to our ignorance about light speed, creative events (example from a White Hole or similar), and the enormous difference between Earth clocks and cosmological clocks due to gravity and other forces.
In other words, it is a good bet that Earth time is far younger than cosmological time.
Bottom Line
This post discusses the shortcomings of modern cosmology, a relatively new science that began in the 1920s. The mainstream cosmological model is founded on several assumptions that are incorrect. We have highlighted the ‘cosmological principle’ as one such assumption.
The assumption is that at a certain scale, the universe looks the same in all directions but, this is not what we see when we look at the universe. Patches of galaxy, separated by huge distances, is what we see. We also noted that many cosmological theories cannot be tested. An example is the inflationary model (dark energy) which is more science fiction than real science.
The Hubble constant is revealed to be tautological, assumption-based, and does not comport with observations. It ignores blueshifting where in our observable universe many galaxies appear to be older than the age of the universe itself, and child galaxies seem to be older than the parent. The universe might not be expanding, it might be a hall or mirrors, or it may expand, retract and repeat. We don’t know.
Finally, given our general ignorance, but based on observations and physics, it is entirely plausible that the universe is a small flat disc, and the age of this planet is much younger than that of the cosmos or our interpretation of cosmic time. Such ideas are never pursued and are anathema of course.
Going where the data leads and all that.
All hail.
==
1Melchior Palágyi 1856-1924, was a Hungarian philosopher and physicist who was really the first to discuss the space-time merger, picked up by Minkowski (who taught Einstein maths) and then Einstein. Palágyi’s theory while showing some similarities to early relativity concepts, differed significantly from what Lorentz and Einstein produced and was of course criticised and rubbished.
2 Standard Model of Particle Physics can describe forces at the particle level, namely, electromagnetic, weak, and strong and their behaviour and interactions. It includes subatomic particles like quarks, and leptons. It does not include gravity.
3Examples of child galaxies appearing more ‘aged’ than the parent include Maisie’s galaxy. Observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) confirm that Maisie and other galaxies are far too mature for their age, given their distance. This causes a problem for the current understanding of how quickly galaxies can form after the big bang. Research published from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) has shown that certain very distant massive galaxies appear to be older than the limit set by standard cosmology. Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC): https://www.iac.es/en
The more one studies about things one thinks they know about the more they realize they don’t know anything at all ???