Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, October 27, 2017, 22:57 (2366 days ago) @ John Kalber

reblak: Redshift: This is of fundamental importance in seeking evidence that may prove vital to the fate of scientific cosmological theory. If it relates only to speed of recession, I and everything I have to say is wrong. Even so, the puted effect may have another, physically rational explanation. HoweverI don’t think so. Let’s get at it.

The work of the American astronomer Edwin Hubble [1889–1953)] has been at the centre point of the Redshift controversy. In 1925 he demonstrated the existence of other galaxies besides the Milky Way, profoundly changing the way we look at the universe. Later, in 1929, he definitively demonstrated that the universe was expanding, (considered by many as one of the most important cosmological discoveries ever made), and formulated what is now known as Hubble's Law [this states that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation] to show that the other galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way at a speed directly proportionate to their distance from it. He has been called one of the most influential astronomers since the times of Galileo, Kepler and Newton.

Hubble: “But these lectures will present a remarkable situation. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts seems to imply a strange and dubious universe, very young and very small. On the other hand, the plausible and, in a sense, familiar conception of a universe extending indefinitely in space and time, a universe vastly greater than the observable region, seems to imply that red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts.
In view of this possible conflict, whether of facts or theories or speculations, the observer is inclined to keep an open mind and to adopt parallel working hypotheses for the interpretation of his explorations. He may assume, first, that red-shifts are velocity-shifts, or, secondly, that red-shifts result from some unknown principle that does not involve actual motion, and always, of course, he will search for some empirical, critical test for distinguishing between the two assumptions, between motion and no motion.”

Neither here or later does Hubble state that the Redshift phenomenon is proven -either way.

So, this suiting their procreation stance, establishment science announced at once that their interpretation of Redshift [that ‘proved’ the Universe is expanding] had been established as correct by the great Hubble! Behind the scenes, Hubble objected but was pressured into silence. Many were not deceived but soon learned that if they did not shut up their jobs could disappear or promotions be blocked. No university would defy the hierarchy.

Most shut up.

In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky published the volume, 'Worlds in Collision' and sent a shockwave ricocheting through a whole range of research and scientific belief. This nasty “You are to be ostracised if you so much as mention it!” attitude can be compared to Herr Doctor Joseph Goebbels - but he wasn’t as effective! He had to kill people, the scientific hierarchy just gets you sacked, life and reputation destroyed – you move from a laboratory or a giant telescope onto the street – dustcart and broom optional extras!

Returning to Redshift:

Postwar it has been NASA that keeps this iron like control over what scientists are allowed think, let alone say!

A renowned professional astronomer, Halton Arp [29 years at the Palomar telescope] authored an amazing, highly accurate catalogue of unusual galaxies titled Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which was first published in 1966. Arp realized that astronomers understood little about how galaxies change over time, which led him to work on this project. This atlas was intended to provide images that would give astronomers data from which they could study the evolution of galaxies. Arp later used the atlas as evidence in his debate on quasi-stellar objects (QSOs).
Based on its citation by other astronomers, Arp's atlas is recognized now as an excellent compilation of interacting and merging galaxies. Many objects in the atlas are referred to primarily by their Arp number. Many of these objects (particularly Arp 220) are also used as spectral templates for studying high-redshift galaxies. Arp 220 is the result of a collision between two galaxies which are now in the process of merging. [Wikipedia].
NASA has used this map continuously, confident that it is accurate. Despite this, when in
1972 Arp showed that Redshift was clearly active between these galaxies and therefore could not represent only speed of recession. He was immediately black-balled by NASA, who forced him to be sacked, denied telescope access in the USA and driven to find work in Germany.

NASA claimed Arp had incompetently confused ‘inline’ galaxies with colliding galaxies! Arp was outraged by this blatant lie, but the NASA ‘nazis’ are, even today, ruthlessly dominant – twaddle like Big Bang and its spinoffs must not be questioned! This fantasy will soon now fall like the Berlin Wall!

It's fine quoting much older astronomers, but you've totally ignored my entry of today : 2017-10-27, 18:13, in which I quote an article about 3 ways to measure the Hubble constant. Your references are old.