Universe not expanding

I thought it contracts and expands.

The idea of an expanding universe was based on a particular interpretation of cosmic redshift, which has been shown to have been wrong.

OK, lets review the consequences.

Having that the universe is not expanding, then, Einstein's ideas based on imaginations are proved false one more time. The observation of stars/galaxies traveling faster than light was "justified" with the idea that the universe was expanding. Without this "justification" the statement of Einstein is proved false.

The "anti-gravity" phenomenon in the universe is also disregarded.

The biblical statement that god expanded the heavens with his hand appears not to be affected because the verb is in preterit and it doesn't mean that god still is expanding the universe but that such was a past event.

Reading the article from the link given in the first posting, the organization that made the experiment gave "honor" to Einstein's ideas by keeping the axioms made by this famous individual. Reality is that after his "photo-electric" this dude Einstein showed his true mentality of a guy who suffered retardation, autism and/or Attention Deficit Disorder (Recent studies show that he suffered on or more of these three conditions).

His new ideas after the photo-electric became not only imaginations but fantasies, like saying that time is flexible to the point of being affected by the motion of objects or the gravity of bodies. Even when "numbers in a piece of paper" can fit the observation, a true theory of science -according to the scientific method- must show the mechanism that is acting in the phenomenon. The hypothesis of relativity never presented any mechanism of how time is affected, by consequence, the lunatic ideas of Einstein are not even science.

(By the way, clocks themselves are affected by changes in the environment that surrounds them, and instead of "time dilatation" the affected data given of these devices is caused by malfunction when exposed to an environment different to the one where the clocks were calibrated)

There is no reason of trying to "survive" as a valid organization working on science with this action of kissing the butts of relativists -who control the media in science to protect their fantasy of relativity-. The experiment itself proves Einstein as a complete idiot, his theories are false because time doesn't exist as a physical entity but is merely a measurement as it is weight, volume, longitude, etc.

The experiment is great and won't be rare that relativists will try to diminish it one of these days, as soon as people starts to realize that Einstein was not a genius but a retarded dude with zero knowledge about reality but with lots and lots of imagination.

     Yes, besides the 'expansion' of the Universe, the red shift may have a lot of other plausible explanations - like for example blue shift in (shrinking of) the particles with the time, fading away of the photon with the time - nobody could guarantee that the photon will not lose part of its energy after 'hanging up in the space' for 14.28 BN years ... especially when passing over a distance of 14.28 light years (in non-ideal vacuum and non-zero gravity).

Don't knock Einstein, most of his ideas worked out great. He stated many times that he was not happy with his cosmological constant or the red shift/expanding universe theories as well. Knock the people who took his IDEAS as gospel. And how is atomic clock affected by a change of environment?

No it hasn't. It's been speculated to be wrong, not shown to be wrong. There's a big difference between speculated and shown.

What can be an plausible explanation of the red shift without expansion?

The universe just tells itself it's not expanding, and its pants are getting tighter because someone washed them in hot water.

What kind of a mean-spirited schlamozzle would down-vote a post for asking a simple question like that??

Halton Arp has shown multiple instances of pairs of cosmic objects which are clearly joined together, one with high and the other with low redshift values; that totally wrecks the idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as velocity or distance.

Cosmic redshift therefore has to be intrinsic, a property of objects themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyREfCOr-Y0

Are the foundings of Arp still good? Somebody in a forum said that they are not valuable any more.

I am curious Olli.

The people who have trouble with real science, and who gravitate (pun intended) to scientific fringe theories tend to be religious. They believe in a universe that was created by the Judeo-Christian God and non-standard "science" is necessary to explain where real science diverts from religious texts.

Do you fit in this category Olli?

Anything that changes the frequency of the light can cause a shift. But the operative word in your question is "plausible", and for that we need an explanation that not only explains the frequency change, but also doesn't conflict with other observations. And I don't know of any theories that do that except the standard idea of Cosmological Expansion.

The illusion of accelerating cosmic expansion is caused by the fundamental mistake of assuming that simultaneity is relative, as posited by Al's special theory of relativity.

Understanding and accepting that absolute simultaneity, as posited by Lorentz, Poncaire, and many others, is correct eliminates the whole problem.



journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550

Back in the 1960's Arp and a few other astronomers offered differing opinions on the interpretation of data (related to quasars), which they thought might supersede the implication of Cosmological Expansion. However, over the years, as the data accumulated and as our ability to measure distant objects with increasing precision, his interpretation of the data began to diverge more and more from the evidence. Cosmological Expansion however continued to match the evidence with even greater precision. His ideas were never much accepted even back in the 1960, and by the late 70's they had been pretty much dismissed due to lack of support of fundamental evidence.

Today they are accepted only by a fringe group of pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists desperate to cling to any alternative to the Standard Model they can find, no matter how weak the evidence is.

This is one of the newer theories floating around lately, isn't it? I thought I read that it had more conflicts with evidence than it has places that fit. Can you provide the source for the quote you gave.

Yeah, it's right below the excerpt quoting the abstract, eh. Roz?

PS: It looks like you have to cut and paste it--unless I copied it wrong. I'll try again here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550

Yeah, that link works---I missed the http part the first time.

This is exactly right. We do have plausible explanations as well.

We know that when a phonton moves from a higher gravitational field to a lower field there is redshift seen from the observer on the greater field side of the event. This means frequency dies shift due to gravity.

Dark matter (in my opinion) is gravitational lag. A large mass in motion leaves behind it a wake of gravity that lags behind the object due to gravity being limited to the speed of light. This might seem minute however massive objects can expert gravity fields over many light years in diameter.

As a photon passes into these gravity wakes it is effected by change in trajectory which ultimately stretches its frequency. The further a photon travels the more its frequency is shifted towards the red due to this fact.

The ONLY reason we have not adjusted expansion hypothesis is because we have not correctly deduced dark matter to be nothing more than a gravity wake (lag). When cosmologists and physicists finally conclude this the redshift expansion hypothesis will be re-examined to not be the case.

Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian God created the Universe Layman?

If so, maybe you can answer my question.