Einsteinian Absurdity : Expanding Space Between Nonexpanding Galaxies

Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

Aug 27, 2022, 6:57:50 AMAug 27
"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion." https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, perhaps there is no expansion anywhere? "Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies" sounds awkward, doesn't it?

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

Aug 27, 2022, 6:13:25 PMAug 27
The following two texts are mutually exclusive, so either there is no stretching or "light is made of particles" is refuted by the cosmological redshift:

"The Cosmological redshift. One observable prediction of an expanding universe is that of redshifting. When a light wave is traveling from a distant galaxy, to our own, it must travel through the intervening spacetime. This results in a stretching of the wavelength of light, since the spacetime is expanding. This longer wavelength results in the light being shifted to a `redder' part of the spectrum." https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Watson/Watson2_2_3.html

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

If Feynman is correct and there is no stretching, the redshift is due to starlight gradually slowing down as it travels through space, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

The universe is not expanding.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages