Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Monday, October 16, 2017, 23:05 (2375 days ago) @ John Kalber

At root here is the continuing influence of Royal Society dogma. Both Hoyle and Velikovsky [the fathers of modern revolutionary cosmology] had ideas that are the basis of Electric Universe theory. On those grounds, the ‘establishment’ pour scorn upon their research and publications. They refuse even to debate the issues. If they should publicly do that they fear upsetting their professional and financial masters.

Millions in cash are involved – not least in U.S.government funding of NASA. Should the government be presented with doubts the anti lobby would easily succeed in jettisoning NASA and its expensive space research and its staff, possibly bankrupting huge, dependent companies.

Here it becomes even clearer why ‘top’ science prefers promoting a ‘status quo’ for establishment cosmology! The more mystical they can make it ...
I have neglected the ‘Redshift. It comes shortly.

“Heigh-ho ho Silver!” Oh no, it’s not Roy Rogers it’s Redshift!
Either way, it is, allegorically a bucking bronco!

As poor old Hubble’s ‘findings’ have been distorted to satisfy establishment wishes, it becomes desirable to present relevant material from his 1937 Royal Society lecture.
This lecture can be viewed by right-clicking: The Observational Approach to Cosmology
If necessary r/clk this link: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
The idea of an expanding universe was invented independently by the Russian scientist Alexander Friedmann and by the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaıtre, with their solutions of Einstein’s theory of general relativity applied to the cosmic fluid. Their pioneering papers on the subject were published in 1922 and 1924, as well as 1927 and 1931. The redshift: apparent magnitude (or distance) relation discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929, fitted nicely the new theoretical picture. The so-called Hubble’s law was precisely the one predicted by both Friedmann’s and Lemaıtre’s models. It was immediately raised to the status of an “observational” discovery of the expanding universe.

This, of course, is not the case.

The idea of an expansion is, first of all, a theoretical idea — a strange “effect” in the earlier, empty de Sitter model. Hubble’s observations are consistent with the idea but are not necessarily a proof of it. Hubble himself was aware of this and sought all his life for the correct answer to the question posed by his discovery: What does cause redshifts? The two possibilities considered by him were the expanding relativistic models and the tired-light paradigm.

“... The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the universe itself.”...
“...The small volume of the universe is another strange and dubious conclusion. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, avoids both difficulties and presents the observable region as an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time...”
“...But the essential clue, the interpretation of redshifts, must still be unravelled. The former sense of certainty has faded and the clue stands forth as a problem for investigation. Larger telescopes may resolve the question, or theory may be revised to account for the new data. But with regard to relativistic cosmology in its present form, and the observations now available, the conclusion can be stated quite simply. Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature...”

Leaving aside subsequent observations [the proofs needed have not been found and for clarity of purpose, we need to understand the ‘Newton attitude’ prevailing at that time.
Hubble was totally unsure as to the verity of Redshift and was very upset by having his words and evidence being falsely presented as actual proof of either theory.

There is no proof by Hubble that Redshift denotes an expanding Universe.That theory should of course be the subject of research and debate but it is unpardonable that it is claimed as proven by Hubble – that is a deliberate lie. At some point he retracted that view but never found its way into ‘scientific’ circles. What a surprise! You may now see understand how such an ‘attitude’ together with absolutely huge financial implications can develop into a near criminal conspiracy, ruining peoples lives with, for the perpetrators, no escape plan.