In all this they are not seeking for theories and causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observations and trying to accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own. (Aristotle)
The Exploding Universe
“The majority is never right!”
So says Dr. Stockman in Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. It is also a scientific truth. You can read the history of science on the tombstones in its graveyard.
The majority now agrees that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
So it cannot be right!
My main objections to the theory are that the foundation is weak, and the development of the theory is unconvincing:
1. Einstein's second postulate of relativity is still short of experimental verification. The "expanding Universe" needs it but does not justify it. The Ritz postulate together with the extinction theorem will also predict a constant velocity at or close to c (ignoring the time lost to photon/particle interactions).
2. The relativistic Doppler effect is logically implausible. The space of the universe has no medium capable of transmitting an impulse. The mass value of a photon should not depend on an arbitrary choice of reference frame.
3. That the redshift is due to this Doppler effect is an inference, not a proven fact.
4. Hubble's Law is empirical. Within a radius of 65 light years we have observational data on distance, based on parallax measurements, and, independently, records of the redshift. About 2000 stars are estimated to be within this range. The total number of stars in the universe is said to be 8*1022. The expanding universe model assumes that Hubble’s law, derived from this small non-random sample (and confirmed by other means out to 60 Mly), applies to the entire Universe.
6. The extrapolation back to "The Beginning of Time" is an operation fraught with peril:
In the case of the expanding universe it is not funny. The time line ends in a singularity, in nothing. From this nothing, scientists believe that the universe was created with a bang. It has kept expanding ever since.
Yet, nothing comes from nothing. There are depths in nature that we cannot fathom. We still don't know what motion is but at least we know the limitation of our knowledge. We are a long way from saying the same about the universe.
“The majority is never right!”
So says Dr. Stockman in Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. It is also a scientific truth. You can read the history of science on the tombstones in its graveyard.
The majority now agrees that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
So it cannot be right!
My main objections to the theory are that the foundation is weak, and the development of the theory is unconvincing:
- Light is moving through the university at a constant speed, regardless of its source.
- The "Relativistic Doppler Effect" changes the quality of the photon.
- The redshift is due to the relativistic Doppler effect.
- Hubble's Law is valid at any distance
- "Time", a dimensionless concept, is transmogrified to a space dimension.
- The time-line of the space development is extrapolated back to "The Beginning of Time"
1. Einstein's second postulate of relativity is still short of experimental verification. The "expanding Universe" needs it but does not justify it. The Ritz postulate together with the extinction theorem will also predict a constant velocity at or close to c (ignoring the time lost to photon/particle interactions).
2. The relativistic Doppler effect is logically implausible. The space of the universe has no medium capable of transmitting an impulse. The mass value of a photon should not depend on an arbitrary choice of reference frame.
3. That the redshift is due to this Doppler effect is an inference, not a proven fact.
4. Hubble's Law is empirical. Within a radius of 65 light years we have observational data on distance, based on parallax measurements, and, independently, records of the redshift. About 2000 stars are estimated to be within this range. The total number of stars in the universe is said to be 8*1022. The expanding universe model assumes that Hubble’s law, derived from this small non-random sample (and confirmed by other means out to 60 Mly), applies to the entire Universe.
6. The extrapolation back to "The Beginning of Time" is an operation fraught with peril:
In Norway there is a universal duty to military service. The Norwegian Statistical Central Bureau has data on recruits over the last 150 years or so. The average height has increased steadily from decade to decade.
Kjell Aukrust, (author and cartoonist), extrapolated these data back to the year 1000. He concluded that the Vikings were about two inches tall. “If you had been present a Stiklestad”, he said, “you would not have seen the battle. You might have heard the rustle in the grass.”
Kjell Aukrust, (author and cartoonist), extrapolated these data back to the year 1000. He concluded that the Vikings were about two inches tall. “If you had been present a Stiklestad”, he said, “you would not have seen the battle. You might have heard the rustle in the grass.”
In the case of the expanding universe it is not funny. The time line ends in a singularity, in nothing. From this nothing, scientists believe that the universe was created with a bang. It has kept expanding ever since.
Yet, nothing comes from nothing. There are depths in nature that we cannot fathom. We still don't know what motion is but at least we know the limitation of our knowledge. We are a long way from saying the same about the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment