Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Saturday, October 28, 2017, 19:14 (2582 days ago) @ David Turell

I'm sorry you think I have ignored anything, let alone a brand new posting I knew nothing of.

My answer to Hubble's Law together with Einstein's 'Constant' is that they are neither laws nor constant.

They are figments of imagination born of a false interpretation of how the Universe works. Both men were intense observers of the mysteries of our perfect Universe and sought explanations that might throw light into a veritable 'darkness'. They have made us think.

Both men subsequently cast doubt upon their 'findings'.

Their theories reflect [particularly Einstein] a tremendous effort to rationalize a universe that they thought to be finite and expanding. Einstein's Constant is bedevilled as being in 'constant' need of revision! Hubble's Law insists that the further away galaxies are, the faster they recede!

Quite irrational. Irrational because no feasible explanation for this [cubist?] behaviour exists. Until it can be actually proved [not opined!] that my lovely Universe is not eternal but came out of nothing, I will sustain my ‘belief’.

What power has held together so many galaxies that are billions of years old and thousands of light years across? Why are they of so many different shapes and differing densities?

These questions suggest that ‘local’ conditions vary widely. Were this not so and galaxies are doing a ‘Louis Hamilton’, they like racing cars would look virtually identical!

I do not believe that galaxies can rush off at speeds in excess of 50,000 miles per second. Nor do I accept that gravity [the weakest force] can hold even a stationary galaxy together.

I ask that if, as propounded, we are all rushing away how the heck can galaxies collide? To collide they must first form elsewhere, then travel [outwards?] towards each other on a narrowing path. But, curiously, only a few do this. It introduces a new parameter – direction of travel!

If I am right I can hardly be expected to believe in what are nothing more than ‘ideas’ -minus substance – i.e. superstitions grounded in financially rewarding science fiction! Sad to say religious belief still dominates the higher reaches of most disciplines and distorts the view. This attitude sanctifies and accepts the impossible because there might be a God at work. Unbelievable! [But true].

Einstein, a truly brilliant original thinker, struggled to understand the basic’s of the Universe. Telescopy was in its infancy as a tool of cosmology. He correctly concluded that the interpretation of time and space dominate any ideas we may have. All of which seemed wrong anyway. He decided to introduce a totally new conception – Space-Time – as a physical reality. With a physical reality, you can do physical things and generate physical outcomes. He found Space-Time susceptible to grooving by planets and it is this, not gravity, that we experience. This offended against Newtonian physics and was not welcomed [it is also a rubbish theory!]

Other aspects were greeted as marvellous and ‘proven’ in research, becoming the establishment’s scientific truth.

But for the sceptic, it is an impossible scenario. In 1905 space was a word used to mean an area surrounding us that is basically empty. We now know that is wrong – but Einstein didn’t. You cannot bend space. Gravitational effects bend the paths of ‘physicalities’ through space. Space is insubstantial so cannot ‘bend’.

Time is an invented ‘ruler’ that we use to measure the distance between events. No events, no time. So, ‘Space-Time’ is nothing and non-existant. Consequently, ideas so founded are going to be wrong – guaranteed!

I have yet to see a proposition actually proved using Einstein’s theories. Lauded ‘proofs’ are all open to different interpretations. Tragically, latter-day science is riddled with phony ‘evidence’and what can only be seen as deliberate suppression and distortion intende to support a rigid ‘establishment’ position.

I have noticed that over the past year or two, articles in scientific magazines now occasionally discuss physics that challenge [albeit mildly] concepts such as gravity, Black Holes and Dark Matter. Time has carried off the original power boys and ‘old’ ideas are harder to suppress. A pity I will not see it so late in my lifetime.

Those who would like more scientific evidence should spend time trawling the internet seeing what people such as Wal Thornhill [of the Electric Universe] have to say. There are many video presentations on Utube. No outrageous claims, just logical, alternative interpretations.