My views on Cosmology and Physics
site navigation menu
My new book, Cosmology Crisis Cleared, identifies the fundamental mistake causing the failure of cosmologists to agree on a value for Hubble's Constant, which is the most important constant in cosmology. After 92 years of trying, this is a crisis.
To clear this crisis in cosmology:
Astronomers must recognize every galaxy and quasar has its motion measured incorrectly.
This is simply because they are measured like a star in the Milky Way.
The velocity of a galaxy or quasar CANNOT be measured in a spectrum like a star. Only a star of the 3 has a photosphere surface for attached atoms.
I can explain why the method being used since the first measurement is wrong. Unfortunately, its use continues. That is why the cosmology crisis cannot be resolved.
The first measurement of a galaxy velocity was by Vesto Slipher in 1912; it was a redshift.
The first galaxy blue shift velocity was measured by Slipher in 1914. It was M31, and astronomers still use Slipher's value.
A redshift is a proportional increase in a specific wavelength of a specific atom; a blueshift is a decrease. This ratio is assigned to the value of z. The dimensionless value of z can be converted into a velocity by multiplying z times c, or the velocity of light. The measured value of z = 1 means the velocity of the atom driving the change in the spectrum by the Doppler effect was moving at the speed of light.
There are many galaxies and quasars with measured velocities of z> 1. The galaxy having the highest velocity is HCN-Z10 with z=10.1.
In my opinion, one's first response to any z>1 should be:
"This velocity is impossible, so its measurement was a mistake."
That such a velocity is impossible should not be debated, when billions of stars in a galaxy must be moving at that incredible velocity. Only a tiny proton can be superliuminal. Every high value of z comes from a proton moving at that velocity when it captures an electron, becoming a hydrogen atom.
Cosmologists have accepted these measurements and the method being used for more than 100 years. Though some values are clearly wrong, these velocities force awkward explanations.
Astronomers are apparently unwilling to question the validity of their measurements though so near impossible.
Unfortunately, cosmologists accepted these ridiculous values and proposed explanations for them. These solutions are ridiculous also.
They include 2 whoppers:
1) the invisible fabric of space is expanding at a velocity greater than the velocity of light, to stretch the light from distant objects; the claim is the light is unreliable due to changes within intergalactic space.
Unfortunately, light cannot be stretched by a fictious, invisible, undetectable fabric. Therefore, this unjustified new behavior of light requires "new" physics, because it conflicts with Maxwell's accepted explanation of light's propagation. This stretching requires a change to Maxwell's work, which used words like pendicular and synchronized; these do not suggest stretching.
Unfortunately for this excuse, the measured redshift in these galaxies and quasars is always from only a specific element, but never the entire spectrum, so (a) simply ignores the observed behavior, and so (a) never should have been proposed, or just simply rejected.
2) a big bang explosion.
This big bang event tried to explain these unexplainable (wrong) velocities away from Earth.
Since an awesome explosion was already required for the wrong velocities and some cosmologists wanted a creation story, so ...
they introduced more confusion:
a) the scope of the explosion was expanded to include the creation of all the matter in the universe,
b) the composition of the explosion's source is unknown. Lemaître's Primeval Atom in 1926 began with mass as we know it. Instead, the big bang explosion released some unknown stuff which was somehow converted into the mass we have in our present universe. Though everything was ejected, somehow everything came together to form galaxies having structure.
c) Cosmologists had a time limit for their show.
Using the wrong velocities to define the uncertain Hubble's constant (it's in crisis!), cosmologists set the age of the universe at exactly 13.8 billion years; the value has a very low uncertainty.
Cosmologists assumed they were measuring structures spanning billions of lightyears; since matter had random trajectories from the primeval explosion, more billions of years are needed for these structures to create themselves. This tme crunch is barely solved. The cosmological model claims it was done in time because dark matter did it! Really! (I checked the model)
In 1929, Edwin Hubble set the first value of the constant bearing his name. That was 92 years ago. It cannot be measured the same using different methods.. Despite its uncertainty, it is used often.
d) dark energy (the word dark is for either unmeasurable or imaginary) is the explanation for the individual (now wrong) trajectories of galaxies and quasars.
In my opinion, this is bad science getting worse.
The words redshift and blueshift should be banished from common use in cosmology. Both are a reminder of a century of confusion with invalid motion in the universe beyond our Milky Way.
Below is a link to the book on Amazon with its public description. No one that I know or in this FB group needs to buy this book from Amazon just to get its crucial conclusion. Here it is.
A star has a photosphere surface where atoms can attach, just like on our Sun. Neither a galaxy nor a quasar has that surface feature. Therefore, only a star can have atoms attached to, or on, its light-emitting surface, for us to see and measure their absorption and emission lines.
Please remember that every redshift and blueshift are mistakes for all galaxies and quasars.Cosmology must restrart. after discarding all those wrong values. Distances based on Hubble's Law are wrong,
All galaxies and quasars must have their motion measured just like was done for the planets, with years of recording positions to get a velocity by the change-in-position divided by the time-duration.
No spectrum can provide that 3-D velocity vector. It must done manually, like is done for every new comet, or even a newly captured moon of a gas giant.
The title of this post reveals another reason for my book.
Cosmologists claim to know the age of the universe since the big bang.
Cosmologists are convinced they know the life cycle of a star. We have never observed any star from its start to end.
In the course of this book, I analyze how we could determine the distance to a galaxy. Many functions or methods require the galaxy's at-rest luminosity. Some need an estimate of the galaxy's age, while using the ages of its stars.
Every reference to stars and their life cycle was taken as an opportinity to mention Robitaille's LMH model as the correct model for a star.
When this broken big bang cosmology is discarded along with its wrong solar fusion model, the Electric Universe (EU) cosmology is the only viable replacement.
Stars do not consume themselves by fusion, and non-existent black holes do not have a destiny of consuming everything else.
This is my 7th book about cosmology, with each having references to EU. There were 3 books about the atomic model. I have my theory of gravity based on Maxwell's work, and it affects the Standard atomic model.
After this book, I recommend the words redshift and blueshift are banished from cosmology. They are reminders of a century of confusion with wrong velocity asssignments. Foreground atoms in motion were also assumed to be the velocity of the backgound galaxies and quasars. This book should present a convincing case for this fix of cosmology.
I published this book just to get this topic into the cosmology book market, which desperately needs alternative views.
The book has 271 pages.
Much data are from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, or NED.
There are many pages having spectra and screen captures of NED pages; these consume space on pages.
Amazon has a minimum price to cover their costs. I am motivated to publish, not sell. Its conclusion was stated above. Of course, I hope someday, someone wanting to learn about cosmology considers it. I don't depend on it.
date posted 11/27/2021