Most grammar school students are informed that the universe is expanding, and that the universe began with a Big Bang.  These concepts are now common knowledge and the vast majority of people on the planet agree that they are correct.  In fact, the Pope has recently acknowledged that God created the expanding universe with a Big Bang.[1]

But what if someone could now produce indisputable experimental evidence that the scientists who invented these amazing theories a long time ago based them on one gigantic false assumption of fact?  In other words, what if it could now be factually established beyond any doubt that Hubble’s 1929 Law of Redshifts did not indicate that the universe was rapidly expanding in all directions?

The answers to these questions are obvious.  These undisputed factual revelations would create a world-wide revolution in physics, cosmology, theology and many other realms of knowledge.  As a result, many currently accepted theories would be falsified, some new theories would have to be devised, and entire libraries would have to be discarded and rewritten.

It is probably not an overstatement to assert that anyone who does not adequately understand the phenomena of redshifted light in space, which is emitted from luminous celestial bodies and received by observers on Earth, cannot really understand cosmology.  Why?  Because, depending upon how redshifts observed from distant galaxies are interpreted, the universe of galaxies that we observe in space is most likely either:  1) Einstein’s expanding finite spherical universe which possibly originated from a microscopic Big Bang; or  2) it is infinite in space and eternal in time, and has no geometrical shape or systematic motion on a cosmic scale, as Newton theorized in 1692.[2] 

To paraphrase Professor Herbert Dingle (President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1951-53):  without the galactic redshift phenomena “cosmology would scarcely exist as a scientific subject.”[3]  Why?  Because the entire subject of cosmology (including the expanding universe theory and the Big Bang theory) is almost entirely premised upon:  1) the observations of, and current interpretation that, galactic redshifts are Doppler velocity indicators; and  2) the current inferences, deductions, and extrapolations based on such interpretation.

In our Milky Way Galaxy, there are two observed, confirmed, and universally accepted effects of light waves that describe and measure the relative linear velocity between any two luminous celestial bodies (i.e. a star and a planet) moving through space.[4]  We will now describe and explain these very important Doppler velocity effects of light waves with the following examples.

When a luminous celestial body (i.e. the planet Mars) approaches the Earth through space, the body’s light waves emitted or reflected (at a certain normal frequency) toward the Earth become slightly compressed together (because of such bodies’ relative motion) so that such light waves are actually received more frequently than normal (i.e. without such relative motion) on the Earth.[5]  This effect of light waves is often called a ‘blueshift,’ because the entire spectrum of light waves (or more currently spectrum lines) received from such body by a telescope and a spectrograph on Earth is shifted slightly toward the blue (shorter wavelength) end of the normal rainbow-like spectrum.[6]  For these reasons, a blueshift observed in our Milky Way galaxy must always be interpreted to mean that there is a relative velocity of approach between the Earth and such luminous body (i.e. Mars).  For historical reasons, this effect is now called a ‘Doppler velocity blueshift.’[7]

Similarly, if such luminous celestial body separates (or relatively moves away) from the Earth through space, its light waves emitted (at a certain normal frequency) toward the Earth become slightly more separated apart (because of such bodies’ relative motion), so that they are actually received less frequently than normal (i.e. without such relative motion) on the Earth.[8]  This effect of light waves is often called a ‘redshift,’ because the entire spectrum of light waves (or more correctly spectrum lines) received from such body by a telescope and a spectrograph on Earth is shifted slightly toward the red (longer wavelength) end of the normal rainbow-like spectrum.[9]  For these reasons, a redshift observed in our Milky Way galaxy must always be interpreted to mean that there is a relative velocity of separation between the Earth and such luminous body (i.e. Mars).  For similar historical reasons, this phenomenon is now called a ‘Doppler velocity redshift.’

It is undisputed that these Doppler velocity light shifts (which are observed in our galaxy) must only be interpreted to mean that there is a relative velocity of approach or of separation between the Earth and such celestial bodies, and that the amount of such relative velocity is proportional to the magnitude of each observed light shift.[10]  Very importantly, it is also undisputed that such Doppler light shifts observed in our galaxy do not depend upon the distance between the observer on Earth and the light source (i.e. Mars).  Doppler light shifts only depend upon the relative velocities of these bodies.[11]  All of the above facts have been physically confirmed many times, and by reams of experimental data.[12]

In early 1929, American Astronomer Edwin Hubble described what he had observed through his telescope and spectroscope:  that the magnitudes of redshifts received on Earth from all of the more distant observed galaxies were approximately proportional to the estimated distances of such galaxies from the Earth.[13]  The farther out into deep space that Hubble observed, the more exact this proportionality became.[14]  Hubble called all of these observed facts:  ‘the law of redshifts.’

By 1932, English scientist Arthur Eddington and almost every other astronomer and cosmologist in the world had interpreted Hubble’s systematically increasing magnitudes of galactic redshifts (which were almost exactly proportional to the distance of their source galaxies) to be the same phenomenon of nature as the previously described Doppler velocity redshifts observed in our Milky Way galaxy.[15]  These scientists then deduced from such interpretation and assertions that the universe must be systematically expanding in all directions away from the Earth.[16]

In his 1933 book, entitled The Expanding Universe, Eddington described Hubble’s observations, and such interpretations and deductions based thereon, as follows:

“The simple proportionality of speed to distance was first found by Hubble in 1929…The more distant [galaxies] have bigger velocities; the results seem to agree very well with a linear law of increase, the velocity being simply proportional to the distance.[17]  The most striking feature is that the galaxies are almost unanimously running away from us…Their picture is the picture of an expanding universe.”[18]

In 1952, Russian-American physicist George Gamow metaphorically played the ‘movie’ of Eddington’s so-called expanding universe back to its beginning (i.e. to a ‘big squeeze’ or a singularity), and then he deduced that the universe must have begun with a Big Bang explosion.[19]

The monumental problem with all of these fanciful theories, imaginations, interpretations, deductions and metaphors, is that they were all based upon the same completely false premise.  One simple, undeniable, contradictory, and empirically confirmed experimental fact had been totally overlooked by everyone (even Hubble).  That simple, contradictory fact is described as follows.  In the local space of our Milky Way Galaxy, Doppler velocity effects and light shifts are never observed to be systematically proportional to any distance whatsoever.  In our Milky Way galaxy there is absolutely no correlation or proportionality between the magnitudes of Doppler velocity light shifts and the distance from any light source to any observer.  See Chart 9 and Figure 10 attached hereto, which obviously confirm these undeniable contradictory facts and conclusions.[20] 

            Because of these simple and undeniable contradictory facts, Hubble’s observed magnitudes of galactic redshifts (which were systematically exactly proportional to distance) could never be validly interpreted to be the same phenomenon of nature as local Doppler velocity light effects observed in the Milky Way galaxy (which are never systematically proportional to any distances).  Nor could any deduction be validly made from such incorrect interpretations that the universe was systematically expanding in all directions. 

These incorrect interpretations and deductions were completely false premises for the Expanding Universe theories proposed by such scientists.[21]  In fact, Hubble’s proportional linear law of galactic redshifts (upon which Eddington, Einstein, et. al. incorrectly based their interpretations, deductions and theories), actually contradicts Eddington’s and Einstein’s Expanding Universe theories, for the reasons stated above. [22] 

Without a valid interpretation that galactic redshifts are Doppler velocity indicators, there are absolutely no experimental facts (observations, or anything else) upon which to base a deduction or a theory that the galaxies are all systematically expanding in all directions from the Earth.  As British physicist and astronomer George McVittie stated in his 1974 treatise: 

“the [typical] galaxy shows no sign of being in motion; the direction in which it lies never changes; its angular diameter does not alter, and so on.”[23]

For all of the above reasons, the Expanding Universe theory (in all of its various forms) is thus falsified in its entirety, and must be discarded.[24]  The day that you (the reader) understand, realize and accept all of the above mentioned indisputable facts, experimental data, and the obvious conclusions based thereon, is the day that the universe will stop expanding for you.

In his 1933 book, The Expanding Universe, Eddington also described part of the correct alternative interpretation and deduction for galactic redshifts, as follows:

“The reddening [redshift] signifies lower frequency of the light-waves and (in accordance with quantum theory) lower energy; so that if for any cause a light-quantum loses some of its energy in traveling to reach us, the reddening [magnitude of redshift] is accounted for without assuming any [Doppler] velocity of the source.

“If the loss occurs during the passage of the light from the [galaxy] to the observer, we should expect it to be proportional to the distance; thus the red-shift, misinterpreted as a velocity, should be proportional to the distance—which is the law actually found.”[25]

            Since the Big Bang theory was directly deduced by Gamow from the invalid Expanding Universe theory, it too is based upon a false premise and must be totally falsified and discarded.  These conclusions of falsification and discarding also hold true for many other imaginative and/or mathematical theories which were also falsely premised upon the invalid Expanding Universe theory, such as:  Lemaitre’s expansion of space theory,[26] Lemaitre’s exploding atomic star theory, Guth’s inflationary expansion theory, Einstein and De Sitter’s 1931 expanding finite spherical universe theory, Hoyle’s steady state theory, the dark matter theory, the dark energy theory, the cosmic microwave background radiation theory, much of particle physics, etc., etc.  In fact, the invalid Expanding Universe theory (in any form) is just a giant house of cards which was constructed upon a non-existent foundation.

 Partial Bibliography and References

 

Astronomical Almanac. (2002).  The Stationary Office:  London, United Kingdom.

Bonnor, W. (1964).  The Mystery of the Expanding Universe. The Macmillan Company.

Bruno, G. (c. 1590).  On the Infinite Universe and Worlds. [Munitz, pp. 174 – 183].

Collins Encyclopedia of the Universe.  (2001).

Dingle, H. (1961). The Doppler Effects and the Foundations of Physics. The British

Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XI, XII.

Doppler, C. (1842).  (Doppler’s treatise on the relative velocity effect of sound).

Eddington, A. (1933).  The Expanding Universe.  The Cambridge University Press.

Einstein, A. (1916). Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. [1961 Three Rivers

            Press: New York].

Einstein, A. (1917). Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity

[Dover, 1952, pp. 177 – 188].

Einstein, A. & De Sitter, W. (1931).  On the Relation between the Expansion and the Mean Density

            of the Universe.  National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 213 – 214.

Friedmann, A.  (1922 – 1924).  [see Kragh (1996)].

Gamow, G. (1952).  The Creation of the Universe.  Viking Press: New York.

Gill, T. P. (1965), The Doppler Effect.

Goldberg, S. (1984).  Understanding Relativity.  Berkhäuser, Inc.

Harrison, E.  (1981)  Cosmology.  Cambridge University Press.

Hubble, E. (1925).  Extra Galactic Nebulae.  Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 321 – 369.

Hubble, E.  (1929).  A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity  among Extra-

            galactic Nebulae.  Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 168 – 173.

Hubble, E. and Humason, M.L. (1931), Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 74, p. 43.

Hubble, E. (1936a).  Effect of Redshifts on the Distribution of Nebulae.  Astrophysical

            Journal, Vol. 84, pp. 517 – 554.

Hubble, E.  (1936b).  The Realm of the Nebulae.  Yale University Press.

Hubble, E.  (1937).  The Observational Approach to Cosmology.  Oxford University Press.

Hubble, E. (1942).  The Problem of the Expanding Universe.  American Scientist, Vol.

            30, pp. 99 – 115.

Jacobs, J. M. (2001 – 2011). RelativityofLight.com and The Day The Universe Stopped

Expanding.com

Kragh, H. (1996).  Cosmology and Controversy.  Princeton University Press: New Jersey

Lemaitre, G. (1931). Expansion of the Universe, The Expanding Universe.  Monthly

            Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 91, 490-501

McVittie, G. (1974).  See Q. H. R. Astronomical Society.  Vol. 15, pp. 246 – 263.

Munitz, (1957).  Theories of the Universe.  The Free Press: New York.

Newton, I. (1692).  Four Letters to Richard Bentley.  [Munitz, pp. 211 – 219].

Seeds, M.  (1990).  Foundations of Astronomy.  Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc.

SIMBAD.  (the Set of Identifications, Measurements, and Bibliography for Astronomical Data).

Zeilik, M.  (1988).  Astronomy.  Wadsworth Publishing, John Wiley & Sons: New York.