This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. In , Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered a direct relation between the brightness of Cepheid variable stars and the period of their pulsations [ 4 ]. This brightness-periodicity relationship tells us at what stage each Cepheid may be in its unique life cycle-and absolutely nothing about where said star may be located.
Edwin Hubble made three a priori assumptions: 1 the universe began at a single point in time; 2 all Cepheids are the same age; and 3 the brightness of Cepheids is a function of their distance.
Both LeMaitre and Hubble calculated what they believed to be radial velocities of nebulae. Both scientists started with the a priori assumption that the universe was created by a singularity that happened at a specific point in space, then developed calculations to justify their foregone conclusion. Edwin Hubble studied 24 galaxies and selected the results from five of these that demonstrated a perfect straight-line relationship between distance and velocity.
Five is a statistically insignificant sample size from which to project meaningful data about the entire universe. Selection bias: Hubble used only the data of galaxies from which light was redshifted and ignored data of galaxies from which he knew light appeared to be blueshifted e. He thus chose only data that supported his foregone conclusion and ignored data that conflicted with it. This selection bias disqualifies the Hubble theory as constituting a law.
A law in physics permits no exceptions. Faulty assumptions: Hubble did not and could not measure velocities of galaxies. Instead, he relied on the following false or unwarranted assumptions to infer velocity:. All galaxies are approximately the same size. This assumption caused Hubble to overestimate the distances of small galaxies and underestimate the distances of large ones.
The brightness of a Cepheid star is a function of its distance. The pulsations of these super massive stars are caused by physical changes that are a function of the life cycle of that star, regardless of how far away it may be.
An older, brighter Cepheid star with slower pulsations in a nearby galaxy would thus appear to Hubble to be closer than a newer, less bright Cepheid star. The dimness of a galaxy is a function of its motion away, i. Without also measuring the surface brightness of a galaxy per unit area , we can conclude absolutely nothing about its supposed motion. Only if the surface brightness of a distant galaxy is significantly less than the surface brightness of nearby galaxies is it reasonable to infer that said galaxy is in motion away from us.
The redshifting of light from galaxies is caused by rapid movement of those galaxies away from us. This error is rampant in mainstream cosmology-that of mistaking redshift for a Doppler effect, whereas they are in fact two fundamentally different phenomena. Fallacy of Presumption circular reasoning : Hubble inadvertently included his conclusion in his assumption, then used this assumption to prove his conclusion.
He a presumed that galaxies are accelerating away from us, b presumed that redshift measures velocity, then c produced estimates of distance to justify that the redshifts in question demonstrated acceleration.
False premise: Hubble based his entire theory on the misconception that redshift measures velocity. Details above make it clear that redshift can only be construed as a measure of distance and temperature of source. The following TABLE 1 summarizes the estimates from which Edwin Hubble in concluded that galaxies are receding from the Milk y Way at a velocity proportional to their distance.
The results in the Ratio column above are the five points that Hubble posted on a graph to create a remarkably tight straightline relationship between the distance of a galaxy and how fast it is supposedly moving away.
These calculations support a distancevelocity relationship that is considered the ultimate definitive evidence supporting expansion theory FIG. If we substitute modern estimates of distance in the Distance-Modern column below, a very different picture emerges.
Data in the Distance-Hubble column are the figures published by Edwin Hubble in his seminal paper. Data in the Distance-Modern column are published data sourced from the Hipparcos Catalogue of Edwin Hubble apparently estimated Virgo to be about 3.
If Hubble had used realistic estimates of distance, there would have been no straight line on his graph, only random points indicating a zero correlation between distance and velocity. Thus, it appears that Hubble may have manipulated data to produce the results he wanted. Either galaxies are moving apart, or they are not.
The theory which suggests that the distances between galaxies are increasing is fatally flawed. Therefore, we must presume that galaxies are in the same positions relative to each other that they have always been in.
This burden of proof is the same as required in a court of law. The Hubble theory that galaxies are moving apart cannot be substantiated; therefore, we must presume that they are not moving apart.
Redshift is not Doppler. Galaxies are not retreating from the Milk y Way. If galaxies are not in retreat, then their imagined velocity of retreat cannot be increasing. We now have direct evidence that the universe is not expanding.
Such measurements tell a very different story. In , mathematical physicist Richard Tolman devised a surface brightness test to determine whether the universe is static or expanding. Tolman believed redshift to be the degree of reduction in energy of each photon [ 5 ]. In a static universe, the light received from an object drops in proportion to the square of its distance, and the apparent area of the object also drops in proportion to the square of its distance, so the surface brightness light received per surface area would be constant, independent of distance.
For 90 years, mainstream astrophysicists have never checked the validity of their assumptions by means of the Tolman test. In , Eric Lerner and a team of astrophysicists applied the Tolman test by measuring the surface brightness per unit area of over 1, near and far galaxies. If galaxies were moving away from each other, they would appear fainter the farther away they get, i. If any faraway galaxy had been in motion away from us, its surface brightness would have been much less than that of nearby galaxies, a phenomenon that has never been observed.
Thus, there is zero tangible evidence that galaxies are moving apart and overwhelming evidence that they are not [ 6 ]. One thousand galaxies in the above study is a statistically significant sample size from which to project meaningful data about the entire known universe. It is times the number of galaxies that Edwin Hubble included in his biased sample. Conclusion: galaxies are not moving apart. They are in the same relative positions to each other that they have always been in.
In , VestoSlipher presumed that galaxies from which light is redshifted are in motion away from us and conversely, those from which light is blueshifted are in motion toward us. In , Edwin Hubble studied Andromeda and estimated that it was 0.
This omission is an example of selection bias at its worst. To include Andromeda would have been like Isaac Newton saying that there are exceptions whereby some kinds of fruit fall upwards. In , Eric Lerner demonstrated that the surface brightness of 1, near and far galaxies is constant, without exception. This observation means that a galaxies from which light is redshifted are not moving away from us, and b galaxies from which light is blueshifted e.
If Andromeda were approaching us, its surface brightness per unit area would be more intense than the surface brightness of galaxies that are much farther away.
Said phenomenon has never been observed. Surface brightness of all galaxies is constant, regardless of their distance away.
We are not on a collision course with Andromeda. Light emitted by stars and galaxies is subject to redshift attenuation over extreme distances, regardless of its frequency at source. This gives the false impression that light from supernovae has been blueshifted, but it is in fact heading towards the red end of the spectrum and still has a long way to go to get there. And now, scientists from the University of Liverpool and Imperial College London have come up with a whole new theory of their own.
The experts investigated Chance Set Theory and looked deep into the study of how the cosmos began. Some scientists already take issue with the idea of a singularity as something infinitely dense has never been observed in the universe.
So after vigorous research, two researchers boldly put forward their theory that the universe has simply always existed. In our work, instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite for the past, so there is always something before it. And today, many other scientists accept the notion that there were space events that occurred before the Big Bang. Roger Penrose, the winner of a Nobel Prize for demonstrating, alongside Stephen Hawking, the properties of black holes , holds this view.
The two scientists have defended the concept that there was another universe existing before ours, specifically another cosmos that expanded and then retracted until it returned to singularity.
The difference between this hypothesis and the Causal Set Theory is that, in the latter, there is no singularity. He says he found one. These skeptics have ascribed the microwave background to assortments of glowing clouds of gas, dust, and charged particles throughout the galaxy and nearby universe.
The problem with these alternative models has been that the cosmic microwave background is not patchy, like gas, dust, and charged particles are.
In a controversial paper in the journal Annalen der Physik , Fahr suggested an answer to this problem, drawing on his own deep expertise in the solar wind. Space probes voyaging throughout the solar system for the past five decades have detected unexpected hot and cold spots in the solar wind as it works its way past the planets and toward interstellar space.
These result from a kind of turbulent interaction of photons with other photons—an interaction which is usually impossible, but is enabled by the mediation of charged particles inside the solar wind. In Fahr says he began to realize that the vacuum of space itself has a kind of remote kinship to a plasma.
After all, modern physics describes the vacuum as frothy with virtual electric charges blipping into existence only to annihilate and blip back out again. Typically, though not always, these virtual particles are electrons and their antimatter counterparts positrons. If this were happening, then empty space itself could be the source of the microwave background. The photons of starlight that have been streaming through the universe over millions and billions of years interact with each other over time, gradually achieving a kind of thermal equilibrium, and translating hot point-sources of starlight into a dull all-sky glow.
Fahr says the effect should be observable in the lab. If laser light of a single wavelength were bounced back and forth in a vacuum for a half-year or more, its color should begin to smear, with some photons slipping into slightly higher wavelengths and others into slightly lower ones.
They interact with each other and redistribute their energies to other energies and other wavelengths. Fahr also suggests another experimental test that could decide between standard and alternative interpretations of the microwave background. According to conventional cosmology, the microwave background harkens back to when the universe had cooled enough to become transparent to light for the first time, about , years after the Big Bang.
0コメント