Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.
What about the red shift?
Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.
Lemaître's relativistic cosmology was based on the belief that the universe was created from a "primeval atom" and the radius of the universe increases over time because of the explosion from the creation event. Lemaître (1927, 1931a,b) proposed, therefore, that the expansion of the universe explains the redshift of galaxies following the "creation." Lemaître derivation antedated Hubble's formulation by two years. Even so, it became known as Hubble's law and provided the numerical value of the Hubble constant which in turn has been employed to describe the hypothetical expansion rate and age and size of the universe (Hubble 1936a, 1937a,b, 1953).
There is however, nothing constant about the "Hubble Constant" which initially predicted the universe was expanding at a rate of about 160 km/sec per million-light-years (Lerner 1991; Mitchell 1997). This expansion rate meant the universe had been created 2 billion years ago. When it was subsequently determined that Earth was over 4 billion years old, and thus 2 billion years older than the Big Bang (BB), the Hubble Constant was adjusted and then adjusted again, and adjusted yet again as yet more discomfirming evidence began to pour in (Lerner 1991; Mitchell 1997; Van Flandern 2004). The "Hubble Constant" therefore, has been repeatedly and continually falsified. And yet, the proponents of BB theology continue to cling to this measure which essentially means whatever they want it to mean.
Hubble's Law/Constant, and thus estimates as to the age and supposed expansion rate of the universe are also predicated on a complete and purposeful misinterpretation of a phenomenon referred to as "standard candles" (distant galaxies whose absolute luminosity supposedly does not vary with distance) and "red shifts" i.e. the changes in the wavelengths of light as an object moves toward or away from an observer (Hubble 1929, 1930, 1936a,b; Hubble and Humason, 1931, 1934; Hubble and Tolman 1935). The concept of "red shift" is based on the Doppler effect; i.e. wave lengths of light contract or expand as they approach and then speed toward or away from Earth. Thus, for red shifts to have any meaning, the Earth becomes the center of the universe; which, of course, is absurd.
Illusion of an accelerating universe?
Gravitational red shift due to a universe-in-mass black hole, is responsible for the illusion of an accelerating universe. This universe-in-mass black hole model not only explains why distant galaxies have a greater velocity than those closer to Earth, but the dim illumination and red shifts of those distant stars.
The infinite universe and life?
Yet, in an infinite universe, over infinite time, and given infinite chance combinations, it can be predicted that the constituent elements necessary for fashioning an energy-extracting, self-replicating molecule may have been jumbled together infinite times. In an infinite, eternal universe with no beginning and no end, the odds are that life would arise not just once, but infinite times, and in infinite locations. Given infinite chance combinations over infinite time, it can also be deduced that an infinite variety of life may have been created, and that not all life forms in the universe are like those of Earth. Life on this planet may be just a sample of life's possibilities.
Occam's razor:
Relying on the concept of "Occam's razo" ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"), the simplest explanation is not that the universe was created by unknown forces and for unknown reasons that can't be explained with physics but only with supernatural constructs. Nor it is necessary to invent convoluted theoretical appendages to paper over the glaring holes in Big Bang theology, or to invent phantom forces to explain why distant galaxies are accelerating. The universe is infinite, eternal, peppered with holes which continually destroy, recreate, and recycle matter, liberating then assembling elementary particles, and creating hydrogen atoms, which leads to stars, which collapse, forming black holes which consume and destroy and then recreate matter, and in so doing creates all the necessary chemicals, elements, metals, and gasses necessary for the creation and evolution of life. It is an infinite cycle which has been ongoing for all eternity.
The Big Bang is a myth. The Big Bang is religion masquerading as science. The universe was not created. There is no creator god.
The living universe is infinite and eternal, continually recycles itself, and has no beginning, and, no end.
You did it again, kkwan. Taking some fringe author, and then think you have an interesting point.
The second article is by Rawn Joseph, of which RationalWiki] writes:
Rhawn Joseph is an American neuropsychologist and writer known for his controversial views on the origin of life on Earth and the origin of the universe.
Joseph is an advocate of directed panspermia and has developed his own hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth. He believes that life did not originate on Earth but was transplanted here by “cosmic seeds” encased in space debris 700 million years after the formation of the planet. He claims that these genetic seeds filled with DNA contained the genetic instructions for the metamorphosis of all life, including human beings. He also rejects the neo-Darwinian synthesis, instead advocating a form of non-Darwinian evolution which he describes as a “pre-determined evolutionary metamorphosis” that is pre-programmed in DNA of all terrestrial life.
In Rhawn Joseph’s own words:
I embrace the theory of evolution but reject Darwinism and the theory of the Big Bang. My views are the antithesis of that held by theologians, the Church, and the scientific establishment. The theory of the Big Bang is creationism; i.e., the universe is finite and was created. An eternal, infinite universe, does not require a creator, and this is my position. Most theologians and certainly the Church believe life on Earth originated on Earth, as detailed in the Bible, after a creator god blessed Earth with life giving powers. I believe the evidence demonstrates conclusively that life on Earth came from other planets.
Nah, it isn’t that the universe is expanding. Rather, space is shrinking. What we think of as a yard stick today would have been ten percent longer twenty years ago. Of course, that means we also are shrinking. :lol:
Occam
You did it again, kkwan. Taking some fringe author, and then think you have an interesting point.
You did it again, GdB.
Did you not read the article here]
before zeroing on the author of the article from the other link?
Wrt the other link, there is more to it than what you think it is:
The Journal of Cosmology here]
Do read carefully with an open mind before jumping to the wrong premature conclusions.
:cheese:
More from this article here]
In Nature News, Jon Cartwright explains: “Because the speed of light is finite, when we look at distant galaxies we are looking backwards in time — seeing them as they would have been when they emitted the light that we observe. If all masses were once lower, and had been constantly increasing, the colours of old galaxies would look redshifted in comparison to current frequencies, and the amount of redshift would be proportionate to their distances from Earth. Thus, the redshift would make galaxies seem to be receding even if they were not."
No Big Bang singularity:
Wetterich says that his interpretation could be useful for thinking about different cosmological models, in the same way that physicists use different interpretations of quantum mechanics that are all mathematically consistent. In particular, Wetterich says, the lack of a Big Bang singularity is a major advantage.
The Journal of Cosmology is a junk journal. No credibility at all. Referencing them just makes you look gullible. I made that mistake once. The difference is I learned from my mistake and you keep repeating your mistakes.
The Journal of Cosmology is a junk journal. No credibility at all. Referencing them just makes you look gullible. I made that mistake once. The difference is I learned from my mistake and you keep repeating your mistakes.
You have no credibility to come to that conclusion at all. :cheese:
Which conclusion you talkin' about? The Journal of Cosmology being a junk publication or your habit of citing crackpots?
Did you not watch the video from the University of Oxford?
Do read carefully from this website here]
The Expansion of the Universe Debunked
The Big Bang Theory - a flawed concept:
The Big Bang Theory - A Flawed Concept) the concept of an expansion of the universe (i.e. an overall recession of galaxies) is a physically unacceptable model and thus not even a potentially viable explanation.
Because:
The point is that an overall recession of galaxies would obviously mean that the number of galaxies in a given volume (i.e. their density) would permanently decrease, which however (as this decrease would happen in all volume elements due to the assumed homogeneity) would violate the continuity equation of physics (i.e the mass conservation law). As illustrated schematically in the figure below, if one has an equal number of masses in two volume elements (case a)), then mass conservation demands that if the number of masses decreases in one volume it must correspondingly increase in the other (case b)). A decrease in all volume elements like in case c) (which a general recession would imply) is physically not possible.
Bold added by me.
"Expansion of space" is logically flawed:
It is instructive to apply this insight to the frequently used 'expanding balloon' model: assume that initially the balloon does not expand and that one covers its surface with some kind of physically rigid grid structure (this grid structure defines thus the 'space' constitued by the balloon surface). If one now lets the balloon expand (assuming that somehow the rubber does not physically interact with the grid) then what happens is that points on the rubber surface (which may represent the galaxies here) will simply move out of the 'space' as defined by the stationary grid structure, so again mass conservation is violated (in this case one would even have abruptly a zero density in each grid cell).
If on the other hand one just paints a grid onto the rubber, then effectively nothing would happen at all, as all points on the balloon surface would maintain their grid coordinates (i.e. no expansion would be observed at all).
So this shows that the concept of an 'expansion of space' is logically flawed as it turns basic physical concepts and principles on its head.
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe:
Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
This is the paper here]
From the discussion:
The implications of this work are fundamental to our understanding of the universe and its history. If the universe is not expanding and the FRW model is invalid, there was no big bang and the general cosmological model will have to be replaced with another approach. There are alternative cosmological models that can explain major features of the universe such as large scale structure, the light element abundances and the cosmic background radiation without a big bang or an expanding universe. For example, plasma cosmology, which assumes an evolving universe without an origin in time has provided such explanations and accurate predictions of new phenomena.16,,1718 Such alternatives have received additional justification in recent years as contradictions with the big bang model have accumulated in many areas. These include the failure of predictions of the abundance of lithium19, the non-Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropies20 and the failure to predict very large voids in the distribution of galaxies21
Bold added by me.
From the conclusion:
The data from HUDF and GALEX give a clear answer to the surface brightness test of the expansion of the universe. The data is clearly compatible with the non-expanding hypothesis and clearly incompatible with the expanding hypothesis, even with evolution. The universe, therefore, is not expanding. Surface brightness is independent of redshift to well within narrow statistical uncertainties, while the FRW evolutionary hypothesis requires that high-z galaxies have FUV surface brightness that are more than an order of magnitude outside the entire range of low-z galaxies and which appear to be physically impossible.
You did it again, kkwan. Taking some fringe author, and then think you have an interesting point.
The second article is by Rawn Joseph, of which RationalWiki] writes:
Rhawn Joseph is an American neuropsychologist and writer known for his controversial views on the origin of life on Earth and the origin of the universe.
Joseph is an advocate of directed panspermia and has developed his own hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth. He believes that life did not originate on Earth but was transplanted here by “cosmic seeds” encased in space debris 700 million years after the formation of the planet. He claims that these genetic seeds filled with DNA contained the genetic instructions for the metamorphosis of all life, including human beings. He also rejects the neo-Darwinian synthesis, instead advocating a form of non-Darwinian evolution which he describes as a “pre-determined evolutionary metamorphosis” that is pre-programmed in DNA of all terrestrial life.
In Rhawn Joseph’s own words:
I embrace the theory of evolution but reject Darwinism and the theory of the Big Bang. My views are the antithesis of that held by theologians, the Church, and the scientific establishment. The theory of the Big Bang is creationism; i.e., the universe is finite and was created. An eternal, infinite universe, does not require a creator, and this is my position. Most theologians and certainly the Church believe life on Earth originated on Earth, as detailed in the Bible, after a creator god blessed Earth with life giving powers. I believe the evidence demonstrates conclusively that life on Earth came from other planets.
I did a Google serch for Rawn Joseph and received not one hit. He must be a very popular author or neuropsychologist. He apparently has no known professional connection. There isn't a website Google could find that even mentions him either as a "neuropsychologist" or as an author. Where did you get the information that he's a neuropsychologist? Does he claim to have have a degree from any known university! Where did you find the quote attributed to him? Where was it published?
I did a Google serch for Rawn Joseph and received not one hit. He must be a very popular author or neuropsychologist. He apparently has no known professional connection. There isn't a website Google could find that even mentions him either as a "neuropsychologist" or as an author. Where did you get the information that he's a neuropsychologist? Does he claim to have have a degree from any known university! Where did you find the quote attributed to him? Where was it published?
No idea what your problem is. See attachment. And you could use the link I provided.
I did a Google serch for Rawn Joseph and received not one hit. He must be a very popular author or neuropsychologist. He apparently has no known professional connection. There isn't a website Google could find that even mentions him either as a "neuropsychologist" or as an author. Where did you get the information that he's a neuropsychologist? Does he claim to have have a degree from any known university! Where did you find the quote attributed to him? Where was it published?
It is Rhawn Joseph, not Rawn Joseph.
From this website here]
Rhawn Joseph PH. D
Dr. Joseph obtained his Ph.D. from the Chicago Medical School and completed his training at Yale University Medical School (in the department of Neurology and Neuropsychology). Dr. Joseph has pioneered research on the role of environmental influences on the brain and human behaviour, looking at the role of hormonal influences on memory, intelligence, perception, sex differences and learning. He has a staggering list of scientific publications covering a vast array of topics such as evolution, astrobiology, self destructive behaviour and learning deficits. He was among the first to demonstrate neural plasticity in the primate brain as well as highlighting the splitting or duality of the brain as talked about in neurotheology i.e. left and right hemispheres dealing independently with logic and emotions.
It was he who discovered that the amygdala, hypocampus and the right hemisphere are particularly affected by trauma and early childhood experiences. His contribution to the debate of life and its origins are difficult to dismiss and although there are many that would find his views controversial, however, we think is it dangerous to dismiss his contribution because so much of what he says stands up to reason? Judge for yourself….
Scientific publications of Rhawn Joseph here]
Consider this article here]
Origins, Evolution, and Distribution of Life in the Cosmos:
Panspermia, Genetics, Microbes, and Viral Visitors From the Stars
From the abstract:
Life originated in a nebular cloud, over 10 billion years ago, but may have had multiple origins in multiple locations, including in galaxies older than the Milky Way. Multiple origins could account for the different domains of life: archae, bacteria, eukaryotes. The first steps toward life may have been achieved when self-replicating nano-particles initially comprised of a mixture of carbon, calcium, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, sugars, and other elements and gasses were combined and radiated, forming a nucleus around which a lipid-like permeable membrane was established, and within which DNA-bases were laddered together with phosphates and sugars; a process which may have taken billions of years. DNA-based life may be a "cosmic imperative" such that life can only achieve life upon acquiring a DNA genome. Alternatively, the "Universal Genetic Code" may have won out over inferior codes through natural selection. When the first microbe evolved, it immediately began multiplying and spreading throughout the cosmos. Mechanisms of panspermia and the dispersal of life are detailed including: Solar winds, Bolide Impact, Comets, Ejection of living planets prior to supernova which are then captured by a newly forming solar system, Galactic collisions and following the exchange of stars between galaxies. Bacteria, archae, and viruses, act as intergalactic genetic messengers, acquiring genes from and transferring genes to life forms dwelling on other planets. Viruses serve as gene depositories, storing vast numbers of genes which may be transferred to archae and bacteria depending on cellular needs. The acquisition of these genes from the denizens of other worlds, enables prokaryotes and viruses to immediately adapt to the most extreme environments, such as might be encountered on other planets.
However:
The age and extent of the universe is unknown. The "Big Bang" is a theory, not a fact. In an infinite universe life had infinite time and infinite possibilities to arise (Joseph 2010). In an infinite universe, there may have been multiple origins of life. And yet, if true, then why does the genetic code appear to be nearly universal? On the other hand, maybe it is not.
Be it a universe which began with a Big Bang, or an infinite, eternal universe with infinite time, it could well be that through endocytosis, phagocytosis, and genetic mechanisms involving gene transfer, that extreme variations in genetic coding were eventually averaged out, or that one code won out due to natural selection as it was the superior code. Thus, even if "non-DNA" life forms were to emerge they would acquire a genome upon encountering DNA-based life which successfully inserts its genes thereby giving rise to a universal genetic code which is common to all life. Just as there is evidence that Archae, Viruses and Bacteria may have mixed and combined their genes to fashion the first multi-cellular Eukaryotes (Joseph 2009b,c), non-DNA life forms or those with inferior genetic codes may have acquired a "universal" DNA-based genome following the transfer, insertion, and mixing of genes, such that one genetic code became universal. If these propositions are true, then different domains of life and of quasi-life, could have arisen in completely different environments and localized conditions, e.g. nebular clouds, the interior of comets, on different planets, or in the case of Viruses within RNA-worlds.
Bold added by me.
And:
Therefore, if "Nanobacteria" are abiotic chemical compounds which lack DNA, they still possess the capability of mimicking life and easily form cellular division-like structures similar to living microorganisms. Further, since they not only replicate but grow in size, it would be just one small step to cross the (arbitrary) threshold of 200 nm, to become large enough to incorporate DNA. Thus, one small step for a Nanobacteria could result in a giant leap to microbe, then mankind.
Science is not a democracy:
However, science is not a democracy, nor a theocracy, and although the majority may rule, this does not mean they are correct. There is considerable evidence the universe is infinite and eternal (Joseph 2010), which would give the domains of life and quasi-life infinite time and infinite opportunities to achieve life.
Panspermia: Distribution of Life in the Galaxy:
Viruses and microbes are preadapted for traveling through space and it can be assumed they would not have evolved these capabilities if their entire ancestral and genetic history had been confined to Earth and the conditions of this world. These genes could have only been inherited from Viruses and microbes who were born in or who lived in space. Thus, because of these genes, even Earthly microbes and Viruses are perfectly adapted for journeying from planet to planet, from solar system to solar system, and even from galaxy to galaxy.
Transfer of Life Between Colliding Galaxies: Life is Everywhere:
Therefore, given a trillion sextillion galaxies with stars which are even more numerous, then chance combinations of all the necessary chemicals to form life, could have taken place in each of these nebular clouds over billions of years of time, such that self-replicating molecules were repeatedly fashioned (Joseph and Schild 2010). However, this does not mean that all would have achieved life. Nevertheless, given even the odds of 1 in a trillion, it can be predicted that life could have arisen in multiple galaxies through chance combinations of the necessary ingredients in the womb of nebular clouds.
Evolution on earth:
Evolution on Earth could be likened to metamorphosis and embryology. Metamorphosis is genetically regulated. All aspects of development are guided and controlled by genetic-environmental interactions. Embryogenesis is under genetic control. Why should evolution be any different? However, rather than 9 months, or a single season, it takes billions of years to grow a human from a single cell.
What has been called "evolution" is under genetic regulatory control, in coordination with the biological activity of innumerable life forms which genetically engineer the environment. Genes act on genes, genes act on the environment, and the altered environment acts on gene selection, thereby giving rise to an evolutionary progression from simple cell to sentient intelligent being, each evolving into a world which has been genetically prepared for them. What has taken place on Earth represents not a random evolution, but the metamorphosis and replication of living creatures which long ago lived on other planets.
This is the rationale why he is suing NASA.
His writ to sue NASA is here]
Apparently, we are all alien nebular or ultimately, star children, of the universe. :lol:
