addresses a critical divide in world of
astronomy: Is the observed universe expanding?
Universal expansion is the bedrock of modern
cosmological theory, and it is here that the
battle lines are drawn. On one side,
mathematical theorists hold the high ground. On
the other, observational astronomers,
second-class citizens in the world of cosmology,
challenge the equations with images of real
things in space. The author realised the
fundamental error in isolating pure thought from
physical reality, and now argues for empirical
science as the basis for constructing theory. It
is pitched at the informed reader with some
elementary understanding of physical science and
astronomy, although it is couched in
conversational English and eschews mathematics.
Readers who digest the works of Patrick Moore,
Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and Martin Rees
should have no trouble following the arguments.
Included is a glossary of terms. It does,
however, also accommodate the serious scholar
with technical footnotes and an extensive
schedule of academic references. There are 9
chapters, and several addenda.
One: Far Things.
universe is put into perspective, listing points
of conflict with standard theory. “A man
cannot strongly enough ask of Heaven: if it
wants to let him discover something, may it be
something that makes a bang. It will resound
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799).The
Standard Model fails every reasonable test of
science. It flies in the face of the laws of
thermodynamics and the conservation of energy,
tenets so fundamental to physics that their
breach is simply inconceivable to sober
scientists. The assumptions of the Standard
Model are arbitrary, tuneable, in conflict with
observation, and supported only by great
uncertainty. We have no good reason to believe
what we do. No coherent philosophy could, or
should, be built upon such foundations.
Two: The Hubble Universe.
Edwin Hubble was the
first to realise it - there is no real
evidence for expansion. It is unsupported by
observation and actually contradicted by it.
Edwin Hubble did not discover the Hubble
Law, and spent the rest of his life trying
to tell people that. The original data
indicating expansion were found to be
specious, abandoned, and never replaced. It
came from nowhere and, observationally, it
seems it’s going nowhere. The false dawn of
universal expansion came from faulty data.
“…it seems likely that red-shifts may not be
due to an expanding Universe, and much of
the speculation on the structure of the
universe may require re-examination.”
(Dr Edwin Hubble, 1947).
Three: The Distance ladder.
questions, “How do we calculate the
remoteness of celestial objects, and how sure
can we be of the results?” The answer in
both cases is almost always, we cannot. At the
scale upon which Hubble-type expansion is
alleged, distance measurement using redshift is
unverified and totally unreliable. Cosmological
redshift is not a calibration of distance, and
does not lend support to or justify expansion
theory. The Hubble law is a myth. “Each step
on the distance ladder introduces further
uncertainty. Would it not be better to use
primary indicators to calculate galaxy
distances, and thus remove the need for the
treacherous distance ladder?” (Stephen Webb
in Measuring the Universe).
The Hubble law is
a systematic displacement in spectral lines
taken to mean recessional velocity. Cosmological
redshift is a cocktail, not a single ingredient.
It is currently quite impossible to determine
the original degree of redshift in cosmological
objects, and we therefore cannot claim to know
or infer the degree of change occurring during
astrophysical processes. “Needless to say
these values (quasar velocities) are without
physical significance and clearly indicate that
the cosmological red shift hypothesis is
completely untenable.” (Dr Y P Varshni,
University of Ottawa).
Chapter Five: Quasars.
They are assumed to be the brightest and most
distant objects known, but observations show
they might well be exceptions that demolish the
rule. Quasars provide observational proof of
intrinsic redshift and objectively falsify the
Hubble law. Those favouring the Standard Model
do not argue; they simply deny that the evidence
exists, and decline to publish it.
Chapter Six: The
A uniform radio
fog surrounding the Earth has been artificially
impregnated with meaning, and interpreted as an
image of the primordial fireball. It is no such
thing. Despite chronically flawed
instrumentation that could not possibly produce
sufficiently accurate data, the COBE satellite
was nevertheless credited with measuring “the
most perfect blackbody ever recorded in the
history of science”. The radio fog
surrounding us is ambient starlight reflecting
local structure and the equilibrium temperature
of space. It cannot logically be connected to an
expanding Universe or primeval fireball. “The
statement that big bang theory explains the
observed microwave background … is to distort
the meaning of words.” (Professor Geoffrey
Structures and Cycles.
Can a static
universe resist collapse? What does large scale
structure really look like? Observed systems
are unlikely given the time frame of the
Standard Model. The structural properties of the
cosmos militate against the finite, expanding
model, and favour an eternal, static, cyclic
Universe. The array of technical fixes
introduced to counter the evidence of plain
sight is unconvincing and contrived, no more
than desperate glue in the joints of a globally
worshipped house of cards. “The only way to
avoid this is to go to a cyclic universe model
in which the timescale is infinite.”
Eight: An Expanding Mind.
ontological, and epistemological review of how
geometry came to dictate observation. The shape
of space and its ability to erupt are nothing
more than mind games, quite incapable of being
verified observationally. Expansion is simply a
mathematical construct emerging from one of
three solutions to a particular set of
equations, and the choice is arbitrary. “No
amount of observations will be able to decide on
the true geometry of the Universe.” (Oxford
cosmologist Dr Joseph Silk).
A fireside précis
of preceding arguments: We have no good reason
to sustain belief in universal expansion while
observations at all sides tell us otherwise.
“There are things we know, things we know we
don’t know, and then there are things we don’t
know we don’t know.” (Dr Glenn Starkman,
Introducing Doubt in Bayesian Model Comparison,
Click here to
read reviews of this book