Big Bang Hubble Fix

Big Bang Hubble Fix

I don’t usually do astronomy or astronomers because they are so erratic. Back in the halcyon days of the early Internet when it was all porn and message boards I used to occasionally go to a site called UK Astronomy? or something similar. I’d read a book by Charles Hoy Fort who said that astronomers were mathematicians at heart and spent their time calculating rather than peering through a telescope eyepiece. I put the question to the denizens of UK Astronomy and they agreed, maths was their forte . Some time later I asked a question about the Moon and Earth tides and the tide on the opposite side of the earth away from the moon, adding a few comments of my own; lunar anomalies being an enigma bordering on the paranormal . They started arguing among themselves, an argument that became so heated that one of them threatened to “bitch-slap” one of the other posters. It was at this point the moderator stepped in and I think one or two were banned. Nothing under the sun is new.

 

Edwin Hubble, is his constant inconstant?

Edwin_Powell_Hubble_ Wiki
Edwin Hubble

Hubble’s constant
A ratio used in Hubble’s law to express the rate of apparent expansion of the universe, equal to the velocity at which a typical galaxy is receding from Earth divided by its distance from Earth, approximately 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hubble%27s+constant

Wiki: The Hubble law is often expressed by the equation v = H0D What Wiki fails to mention is the controversy among astronomers regarding both Hubble himself and his equation.

An alternative equation to fix Hubble’s law was posted on my site by an anonymous donor:
The Fix: “In its simplest form, the Hubble ‘fixing’ equation is 2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.98047 kilometres per second per megaparsec. For this equation a parsec is the standard unit of 3.26 light years.”

anon2

He says,”The equation stands squarely on it’s own, and is a firm statement about the universal expansion rate that proves the Big Bang false. Th(e) equation is a complete statement, which gives Hubble’s Constant as 70.98047, and stands firm on its own, despite numerous attempts from the secular scientists trying in vain to prove it wrong. ALL have failed to offer a proper scientific challenge to it… The Imperial College space communications Professor described it as ‘elegant’, before he was ordered to drop working on it. He did notice that calculated Hubble value of 70.98047 directly relates to the Gravitational Constant, but he was forced to ‘forget it’, or get a job in McDonalds!!”

Not being a mathematician nor thankfully an astronomer I’m going to need someone who can check this out. I invite volunteers.

The Big Bang
Wiki: Hubble’s law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble’s_law

Wiki: The Big Bang… The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large-scale structure and Hubble’s law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

fred_ hoyleWiki: Fred Hoyle (The original) Rejection of the Big Bang
While having no argument with the Lemaître/(Hubble) theory… … that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, “for it’s an irrational process, and can’t be described in scientific terms” (see Kalam cosmological argument below). Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a “steady state” and formulated their Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a “steady state” in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.

The theory was one alternative to the Big Bang which, like the Big Bang, agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble’s red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term “Big Bang” on BBC radio’s Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949. It was popularly reported by George Gamov and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be “vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC”. Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience. In another BBC interview he said “The reason why scientists like the “big bang” is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang

religionvscience
The Big Bang is fraught with metaphysical religious and philosophical arguments that bleed through into a modern science, that itself had a religious past whether it likes it or not. These days science denies any religious affiliation but then comes up-against cause and effect and the Big Bang which is undeniably creationist. ‘We just want one small miracle and the rest falls into place’.

Kalam cosmological argument
Wiki: One of the earliest formulations of the cosmological argument in Islamic tradition comes from Al-Kindi (9th century), who was one of the first Islamic philosophers to attempt to introduce an argument for the existence of God based upon purely empirical premises. His chief contribution is the cosmological argument (dalil al-huduth) for the existence of God, in his work “On First Philosophy”. He writes: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Historical_background

It seems it’s god, infinite regression or back to Hoyle’s steady state theory.
I always liked Fred Hoyle.

So who lit the blue touch paper?

Alexander Friedmann in 1922 introduced the idea of an expanding universe that contained moving matter; Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître would later independently reach the same conclusion in 1927
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann

Lemaître 1927

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître

Wiki: Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître RAS Associate 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966)… was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law, or the Hubble–Lemaître law, and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what later became known as the “Big Bang theory” of the origin of the universe, initially calling it the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

So Hubble had nothing to do with it?
Wiki now has three contenders for “the first to derive what is known as Hubble’s law” if Hubble is included.

Astronomy2018g: While the discovery of the expansion of the Universe is one of the founding observations for cosmology, the history of who exactly first made it is more fuzzy. At the GA on Thursday, IAU members will vote on whether to rename the equation describing the expansion of the Universe from “Hubble’s law” to the “Hubble-Lemaître Law”, with an option to extend electronic voting to the full IAU membership.
http://astronomy2018g.cosmoquest.or/newspaper/should-hubbles-law-be-renamed-your-vote-counts/

The Doppler Effect or Red Shift
The Doppler Effect can be experienced when a vehicle passes with it’s horn sounding. As it passes the listener there is a change in tone (frequency). The effect is applied to all waves, in the following instance to light.

Arp
Halton Arp

Halton Arp
According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recession velocity.

At the very least, it seemed that some modification had to be made to the theory, but some influential specialists reacted very strongly to these anomalous observations. It was said they “violated the known laws of physics” and must therefore be wrong; that is to say, a useful hypothesis had been enshrined in dogma. Arp states that the dogmatists attitude was akin to saying ‘At this moment in history we know all the important aspects of nature we shall ever know.’ http://heretical.com/science/redshift.html

Arp was kicked-out. I’m not sure if he worked for McDonalds.

Hubble constant mismatch no fluke; new physics may be needed
Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope say they have crossed an important threshold in revealing a discrepancy between the two key techniques for measuring the universe’s expansion rate. The recent study strengthens the case that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos.
https://astronomynow.com/2019/04/27/hubble-constant-mismatch-no-fluke-new-physics-may-be-needed/

Yet another theory?

shapley
Harlow Shapley

I found a little history that may shed light on the mindset of the astronomical community of Hubble’s day:

[Note: Hubble and Shapley were rival astronomers, prior to Hubble’s discovery, Shapley believed that the Universe was filled almost entirely by the Milky Way.]

I just read the most interesting anecdote about the Harvard University pseudoscientist crackpot Harlow Shapley… (Shapley was convinced that spiral nebulae (galaxies) are inside our Milky Way and therefore the whole universe was confined to the Milky Way.)”

According to Milton Humason, the astronomer [Humason] had given him [Harlow Shapley] plates of M31, the great Andromeda nebula, for examination on the stereocomparator. During the process of blinking the plates, the night assistant [Humason] discerned images never before seen. He marked their locations in ink and sought out Shapley for confirmation. If he was not mistaken, the plates contained Cepheid variables from beyond the Milky Way. Shapley, who was certain of himself, was having none of this. He launched into a shortened version of the same arguments he employed during the Great Debate [where Shapley argued that all galaxies were inside the Milky Way], then calmly took out his handkerchief, turned the plates over, and wiped them clean ….” — Gale E. Christianson, historian, Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, 1996. 15b

Nothing new there

Tightening the bolts on the ‘cosmic distance ladder’
Scientists use a “cosmic distance ladder” to determine how far away things are in the universe. This method depends on making accurate measurements of distances to nearby galaxies and then moving to galaxies farther and farther away, using their stars as milepost markers. Astronomers use these values, along with other measurements of the galaxies’ light that reddens as it passes through a stretching universe, to calculate how fast the cosmos expands with time, a value known as the Hubble constant. Riess and his SH0ES (Supernovae H0 for the Equation of State) team have been on a quest since 2005 to refine those distance measurements with Hubble and fine-tune the Hubble constant.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data

cosmic-distance-ladder

Wiki: Cosmic distance ladder
Wiki: The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the extragalactic distance scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects. A real direct distance measurement of an astronomical object is possible only for those objects that are “close enough” (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. (See paralax) The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances and methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity.

The ladder analogy arises because no single technique can measure distances at all ranges encountered in astronomy. Instead, one method can be used to measure nearby distances, a second can be used to measure nearby to intermediate distances, and so on. Each rung of the ladder provides information that can be used to determine the distances at the next higher rung.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

The The Cosmic Distance Ladder is a masterclass in adding assumption to assumption and coming-up with “fact”; but this combined with circular argument is what science is all about.

Some more modern history:
“With the coming of the space probes, all pre-space-age astronomical theories of the Moon and indeed those of the whole Solar System had to be abandoned and reconsidered. Therefore, unless some major changes in the astronomer’s mode of thinking has taken place, ALL astronomical theories without direct observations are somewhat suspect: “The Solar System” (Oxford University Press, 1973) “Books written about the solar system before the advent of the space age could as well have been written in Latin or Greek, so dated do they appear to a contemporary reader.” Zdenek Kopal  
https://www.amazon.com/Solar-System-Zdenek-Kopal/dp/0198850611

Let us consider the abandonment of all Solar System astronomy in the sixties and seventies due to new discoveries by NASA. Put this alongside the implied knowledge of stars, galaxies, black holes, neutron stars, quasars, dark energy dark matter – infinitely further away or completely inaccessible. These are untested, untestable, never seen, no one has a starship. How much of this is likely to be valid by comparison? To say the least it has to be unreliable. This ‘science’ is then defused to all other branches of science where it is used in the guise of theory to support other theories.

The LHC the Large Hadron Collider is one such victim:

How the Large Hadron Collider Works
science.howstuffworks.com: Dark matter might also play an important role in LHC research. Our current understanding of the universe suggests that the matter we can observe only accounts for about 4 percent of all the matter that must exist. When we look at the movement of galaxies and other celestial bodies, we see that their motions suggest there’s much more matter in the universe than we can detect. Scientists named this undetectable material dark matter. Together, observable matter and dark matter could account for about 25 percent of the universe. The other three-quarters would come from a force called dark energy, a hypothetical energy that contributes to the expansion of the universe. Scientists hope that their experiments will either provide further evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy or provide evidence that could support an alternate theory. https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider1.htm

Dark Matter Dark Energy
Above we read: “…(In) the movement of galaxies and other celestial bodies, we see that their motions suggest there’s much more matter in the universe than we can detect.”

Well no, the reason is that they don’t move as they ‘ought-to’ according to the gravitational theories of Newton Kepler and Einstein. Gravity is sacrosanct like evolution, a pillar of science, untouchable, it guides the stars in their courses. See the page on Moon Anomalies Gravity. Dark Matter was invented, out of thin air, to explain the awkward rotations of galaxies. The amount of ordinary matter in the universe was reduced to 5% plus or minus to allow this to happen.

In science gravity is king even though the titanic force of electricity was not known to Newton and Kepler and a self-admitted mystery to Einstein. Science loves dumb   outdated theories and debunks those of value.

Wiki: From Kepler’s Second Law, it is expected that the rotation velocities will decrease with distance from the centre, similar to the Solar System. This is not observed. Instead, the galaxy rotation curve remains flat as distance from the centre increases.
If Kepler’s laws are correct, then the obvious way to resolve this discrepancy is to conclude the mass distribution in spiral galaxies is not similar to that of the Solar System. In particular, there is a lot of non-luminous matter in the outskirts of the galaxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Early_history

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, states that many writers make claims about what ought to be, based on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume’s law or Hume’s guillotine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Science has been struggling with Hume’s “is ought problem” since the end of the eighteenth century. What ought to be becomes what is according to which way the political wind happens to be blowing.

Dark Energy
Wiki: Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy 

Never observed. The biggest self inflicted problem for science is that the universe works and science does not.
Note: The reader will find that the amount of dark matter dark energy and ordinary matter changes depending on who it is giving the proportions.

http://heretical.com/science/redshift.html

CERN: Biggest Science Scam in History

CERN: Biggest Science Scam in History

 

6 thoughts on “Big Bang Hubble Fix

  1. Hi CADXX. This looks to be a fascinating new web page, that’s as impartial to the factors around Hubble’s Constant as it can be. It considers all the aspects around this subject, including the ‘out of the establishment’s favour’, The Steady State Theory of mathematician and Atheist, Fred Hoyle. Fred was also ‘banished’ from establishment science because his Steady State theory was opposed to the Big Bang theory, and not for having a Creationist agenda. Fred, although an Atheist, also became classed as a heretic outcast because he did not tow the establishment line of the ‘sacred’ Royal Society!! How does the scientific establishment know for certain the Big Bang theory is correct, and the Steady State theory wrong?? Fred also accounted in his equations the cosmic background radiation, in which he said were the building blocks of new cosmic hydrogen, from which new stars were continuously forming. So this web site promises to be a fascinating, and impartial view of theoretical cosmology, conducted in a truthful, and openminded scientific way. An excellent new web page from CADXX. I wonder what establishment comments it will collect? Will they be nice, nasty or will they ‘hide’ like cowards from the information of the honest science described? Watch this ‘space!!’, Regards, David

    Like

    1. David you are too kind.
      I will be making some changes in the coming days, as I tend to do, but that’s basically it. I found this interesting: “Fred also accounted in his equations the cosmic background radiation, in which he said were the building blocks of new cosmic hydrogen, from which new stars were continuously forming.” If you look at Ken Wheeler aka Theoria Apophasis videos
      https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/videos
      you will find he has the same theory. I warn you he’s a strange guy. He talks about matter made from the light of galactic jets.
      As for comments, I don’t get many. I tend to concentrate on electrical phenomena, something no one knows anything about these days. After the Victorian explosion of invention the academics got to work in destroying the real knowledge of the pioneers. Today everyone thinks electricity is electrons.
      If you look at my page “Electron Gone” you will see that electrons cannot possibly be flowing through the circuit. I won’t hold my breath because I doubt you have had any decent education on the subject.
      I don’t really care though, it’s there to rattle the cage of academia.

      Like

  2. Hi CADXX, A really interesting reply, and it’s the very basic forces and universe building (electrical forces) blocks that are not understood at all. “Immortal, invisible, God only wise” (Chalmers-Smith) is so very true!! Nikola Tesla (who the scientific establishment also banished as a heretic) originated long distance radio before Marconi, using another method that has big advantages over the Marconi method at frequencies below 30 MHz. You won’t get many replies, because the academics hate and hide from new ideas (vested interests, grants etc.), and lay folk can only believe what these ‘so called’ academics spew out on the media. 90% of what Brian Cox spouts on about the universe on TV is totally incorrect, so you can forgive the ordinary lay man regarding it as the truth. This is very damaging, and leads on to other insane ideas and the bad moral practices now taught in UK and USA schools, based on the fake principles that Brian Cox (a scientific establishment highly paid grinning chimp) regularly spews out. It is truly cringeworthy stuff. Regards, David

    Like

  3. CADXX, On carefully reading your excellent put together, and fair and open (as true science should be) web page dealing with the Hubble Constant, it definitely invites constructive comments from scientists and lay people. I fully agree the Big Bang idea is really a Creationist idea, as it cannot have happened by chance, all by itself from nothing. Any one with any intelligence can see that, EXCEPT the modern scientific narrow minded establishment, who cling desperately to Humanist doctrines. Humanism is a flawed concept that ALWAYS ends up with a Communist (Kim Jong un) or a Fascist (Hitler) type dictator!! Rev. Georges Lemaitre was a firm believer in a Creator God, and liked to think his his Big Bang idea was a reasonable ‘scientific’ explanation of Hubble’s discovery, and of Genesis Chapter One. Fred Hoyle (an Atheist) was a great mathematician, and the Steady State theory could be wholly or partly true, and Fred gave the Big Bang that name as an insult!! So this is wide open!! The key to this is, is the Hubble Constant fixed at 70.98047, or is it not?? The truthful outcome of that decides what theory really drives the Universe?? The stakes are that high, and this explains the deep quandary the modern Humanists and secular scientists are now in. Hubble’s Constant is THAT important. I think the secular scientists are running scared of this, and will spend a fortune trying to pin down Hubble’s Constant by measuring it. Then, because of strange and ever more diverging results (tension),, they will then ‘invent’ even more weird, and much more improbable explanations of the Universe!! They will hide from anyone questioning them, and be far too scared to post here!! Regards, David.

    Like

  4. If, by science, we assume all theories are provisional, being based solely on extant and present knowledge, than new facts or knowledge might change or falsify a theory. When the facts change, so too the theory. Hence there cannot be any scientific constants like the Hubble Constant. Which leads to Newton’s and Coulomb’s equations also being unscientific. But this issue occurs from thinking in terms of discrete objects, Newton’s m1, m2, or Coulomb’s q1, q2, and both /d^2 times a constant.

    The Roman Church uses Latin to limit discussion to the ruling hierarchy while modern science uses mathematics for the same end.

    Like

  5. Louis, A very simple equation that tells you Hubble’s Constant is 2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.98047 kilometres per second per megaparsecc. For this equation, a parsec is the standard 3.26 light years. This equation is not designed to fool anyone, only to give the true Hubble’s Constant. This equation comes from ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Kindle Books. The ‘trickster’ scientists hate this equation, as it exposes their false teachings about the universe. Regards to you and CADXX, David Hine

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to David Hine Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.