The Red Shift without Expansion

Olli S wrote:

A> The red shift tells that the galaxies are going away from us in the manner the science says.

B> This is science. It does not follow that the space of the universe is expanding.

C> This is logic,

These three things cannot all be written the way you have done so. I know that this goes back to your original post but looking back into time we can almost get back to the big bang. Are you saying that the Universe is infinitely huge and galaxies are just moving into that space or that galaxies are not actually moving away from us?

You cant have both equal distance expansion AND galaxy filaments. They contradict.

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

Abstract

An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame. In this study, it is shown that ALT is compatible with current experiments to test Lorentz invariance only if the proposed preferred reference frame is locally equivalent to the Earth-centered non-rotating inertial reference frame, with the inference that in an ALT framework, preferred reference frames are associated with centers of gravitational mass. Applying this theoretical framework to cosmological data produces a scenario of universal time contraction in the past. In this scenario, past time contraction would be associated with increased levels of blueshifted light emissions from cosmological objects when viewed from our current perspective. The observation that distant Type Ia supernovae are dimmer than predicted by linear Hubble expansion currently provides the most direct evidence for an accelerating universe. Adjusting for the effects of time contraction on a redshift–distance modulus diagram produces a linear distribution of supernovae over the full redshift spectrum that is consistent with a non-accelerating universe.

===
Cosmological redshift can be interpreted as kinematic relativistic Doppler shift by a mathematical treatment of transporting the velocity four-vector from the source to the observer [24], and through analyses of Friedman–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) models [25], [26]. While the kinematic interpretation of cosmological redshift is unconventional, it incorporates a well-characterized mechanism, relativistic Doppler shift, and can also explain the lengthening of light wavelengths with universe expansion. Application of the relativistic Doppler shift equation and the relativistic law of addition of velocities to the kinematic motion of cosmological objects produces the same linkage between the cosmic scale factor and changes in wavelength [27]. The kinematic interpretation of redshift therefore provides an alternate explanation for the observed lengthening of wavelength and cooling of the CMB radiation.


In summary, current experimental evidence fails to definitively distinguish between SR and AST. This study shows that a valid AST would have significant implications for cosmology, including universal time dilation, increased ages and distances for high-redshift objects, and a linear, non-accelerating rate of universe expansion during the most recent era.

Dark energy is proposed to drive the accelerated universe expansion, but its composition and mechanism of action are unknown.... The prevailing theory, while it can accurately model the effects of dark energy, is mechanistically not understood at multiple levels, including the nature of dark energy, and why it has significantly increased activity only in the most recent era. The UTD scenario is much simpler: ...

Notably, the signature of dark energy has only been observed with data for distant, high-redshift events. In contrast, the expected effect of dark energy on expansion within the solar system has not been observed [61]. This apparent contradiction does not apply to the UTD scenario, where the effects of time contraction manifest only at higher redshifts.

Lorentz about Albert:
members then had the privilege of hearing him explain, in his own fascinating, clear and simple way, his interpretations of the fundamental questions to which his theory gives rise.

You could definitely take a queue from Albert on that

Quote:

Lorentz about Albert:
members then had the privilege of hearing him explain, in his own fascinating, clear and simple way, his interpretations of the fundamental questions to which his theory gives rise.

You could definitely take a queue from Albert on that

"My feeling of intellectual inferiority with regard to you cannot spoil the great delight of our conversation; especially because the fatherly kindness you show to all people does not allow any feeling of despondency to arise."--letter 2/18/12

"To me personally he meant more than all the others encountered in my lifetime."-- 1953

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Lorentz about Albert:
members then had the privilege of hearing him explain, in his own fascinating, clear and simple way, his interpretations of the fundamental questions to which his theory gives rise.

You could definitely take a queue from Albert on that

It follows only if we accept the GR and BB. There is other possibilities than you think. The expansion is a fact only in the context of a certain model. A different model does not need expansion.

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

An Open Letter to the Scientific, Community Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do....

The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.

The Hubble Constant
Expanding raisin bread loaf moves the raisins apart at different speeds with greater distance between raisins. The specific form of Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is proportional to distance. Hubble expressed this idea in an equation - distance/time per megaparsec. A megaparsec is a really big distance (3.26 million light-years). The expanding raisin bread model at left illustrates why this proportion law is important. If every portion of the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time, then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 71.0 ± 2.5 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.4 ± 1.4 (km/sec)/Mpc.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry

Good enough for NASA, good enough for me...

The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe.

Summary of RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For descriptions and links to journal references, see below.
- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.4Bly distant GN-z11)
- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction
- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth
- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed search has implied simply never existed
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar system formation theory wrong too
- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)
- These "shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.