A New Cosmology in Science is Needed

Our new science columnist Christopher Brown (Georgia, USA) points out the critical flaw in current science cosmology: the interpretation of light from distant galaxies.

Pluto

In grade school in the 80s, we were taught the following to help remember the names of the planets, “My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas.” Today, students are taught that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, so the mother serves boring noodles. The scientific rejection of Pluto as a planet is entirely arbitrary. The boundaries we assign to planets, stars, and galaxies are all arbitrary. Objects are only objects because we view them as such. Pluto, in truth, is simply part of the whole. Pluto can be a planet, or it can be a dwarf planet, it all depends on how we define those words. For me, Pluto will always be a planet, regardless of the opinions of the IAU.

The Universe is Not Expanding

There are two primary reasons to doubt the credibility of the big bang theory. Exploring them honestly leads to an infinite and static universe, without the need for new physics or speculative substances.

1. The Big Bang violates the cosmological principle (over time).
2. The universe is not homogeneous (it’s scale variant).

When Einstein was developing a new cosmological model using relativity, he started with a few basic assumptions. He knew the universe should be relatively the same for all observers. In other words, someone on the other side of the universe should see the same type of structures that we see, meaning galaxies made of stars and whatnot. He also thought the universe should be stable. However, to solve the equations from general relativity, one must first describe the boundary conditions. This means you must choose a boundary for the universe, and in doing so, Einstein knew that the universe would be doomed to collapse. This was a major stumbling block for Einstein and it’s often referred to as his biggest blunder, i.e., the cosmological constant.

In essence, homogeneity and stability are the same concept, especially when they are considered on a 4-dimensional scale. Modern cosmology typically communicates the cosmological principle in a propagandized way, often neglecting the fact that if the big bang theory were true, observers in the past, present, and future would all see drastically different universes, especially at the upper limits.

The universe is not homogeneous. This is a fact. Homogeneity and isotropy are unfortunate and unnecessary assumptions that lack scientific rigor. Cosmologists typically use phrases like “nearly homogeneous” or “relatively homogeneous.” What they really mean is inhomogeneous or not homogeneous.

In our universe, mass clumps together to form objects that we call planets, stars, and galaxies. But there are also other, larger-scaled objects. Things like galaxy clusters, superclusters, filaments, veins, walls, and the observable universe are also gravitational objects. The existence of these objects is proof that our universe is not homogeneous. Each scale of our universe has a mass density. Atoms, planets, black holes, and stars are among the most dense objects. Galaxies are denser than clusters of galaxies, and so on. The observable universe is the least dense object. In our universe, density is scale-variant, not homogeneous.

The Hubble Redshift is Gravitational Redshift

Just like Pluto and its status in our solar system, many objects are not recognized as gravitationally important on the cosmological scale. Things like filaments, veins, and walls are never mentioned in regards to their gravitational redshift. Typically, the arbitrary boundary is cut off at galaxies, though there are some published works that discuss the gravitational redshift of galaxy clusters.

While there is not a clear consensus in cosmology, the bulk of cosmologists believe the FLRW metric is the right approach for describing the universe on the largest scale. However, there is another metric that works just as well, provided we use a more accurate method of distributing mass.

I believe the best approach is to think about the observable universe as the interior solution of the Schwarzschild metric, but perhaps more importantly, the mass should be distributed in a way that is inversely proportional to the chosen radius. Smaller cosmological objects, that is to say, objects with a smaller radius have a higher density. The largest object, the observable universe, should have the lowest density.

This method of distributing mass matches the hierarchical structure of our universe, but it also leads to an alternate interpretation of the Hubble redshift.

If you’re unaware, the Hubble redshift is the primary piece of evidence used in support of the expanding universe paradigm. There is an intrinsic redshift in the light from distant cosmological objects. Cosmologists have interpreted the redshift to be caused by the Doppler Effect via a recessional velocity. The FLRW metric doesn’t tell us if the universe is expanding or collapsing, it simply forces us to choose the conditions, meaning the Doppler interpretation is premature and cannot be used as evidence.

Gravitational redshift is not considered as a candidate for the Hubble redshift because the stars are not massive enough to align with the Hubble shift. However, as I mentioned earlier, gravitational boundaries are arbitrary and there are objects much larger than stars.

The basic assumption, and biggest mistake in cosmology, is that the distance between the emitting and receiving object does not come into play when calculating the gravitational redshift. However, as the distance increases, the radius encompasses more and more mass. Consider the examples below.

In the first image, Earth and the star are relatively close with no other mass in the image. In the second and third images, I’ve added a cloud of mass. The 1st and 2nd images the earth and star are the same distance apart. The 3rd image shows the bodies at a larger distance with more of the cloud exposed.

The modern cosmologist would claim the gravitational redshift is the same in all three image. Obviously, all three images require different parameters, which means the distance must be included in the equations.

Gravitational Redshift

The traditional gravitational redshift equation only uses the mass and radius of the bodies for observer and source and the distance is omitted.

For the puproses of demonstrating a theoretical framework, we can assume the observer is far away from gravitational bodies.

To complete the picture, let’s incorporate the inverse density relationship we discussed earlier so that we don’t have to guess the total mass. Now r is the distance between the emitting star and the observer. Because M=ρ(4/3)πr3,

The problem with the above approach is that the density is different for each scale. Galaxies are more dense than the observable universe. Fortunately, we can use gravitational acceleration as a means to maintain the inverse relationship. Here’s the justification for that,

Which brings us to the following gravitational redshift equation.

And the final relationship to the Hubble redshift H0,

For a density of around 1e-26 kg/m3 at the observable radius (~4100 Mpc), the gravitational acceleration g is approximately 3.5e-10m/s2, or 72km/s Mpc, when expressed in terms of the Hubble redshift.

Conclusion

There are many difficult areas of modern cosmology that one must tackle when attempting a new model but they must all be tackled individually.

To reiterate the most important claims:
- Traditional cosmological boundaries are arbitrary.
- Mass density is inversely proportional to the chosen radius.
- Gravitational redshift must include the distance between the emission and observation.
- The Hubble redshift is gravitational redshift.

Dark matter, dark energy, the CMBR, and black holes are all topics for another day. For now, I leave you with this challenge. What is the total amount of gravitational redshift of light viewed from a star 13.7 billion light years away? Does the answer make sense?

Date: 2024-01-31 06:59:19 - Views: 172

Home

A New Cosmology in Science is Needed

Pluto

The Universe is Not Expanding

The Hubble Redshift is Gravitational Redshift

Gravitational Redshift

Conclusion

Featured Blogs

DanteBlogs

Podcasts

TOP PICKS

Welcome to Dante Blogs!