Culture and Religion

A world view where the guide for society is based on human nature,
 not on ancient scriptures.  Home  or Topic Groups

 

New Cosmology

    New Cosmology by Observation

    Current cosmology has a single simple fatal assumption: any red shift or blue shift of either an emission line or an absorption line is always the relative velocity for that large object with the light source.
    This assumption should be immediately rejected - but it is not.

    An emission line occurs when single atom changes from a higher to lower energy state. An absorption line occurs when a single atom absorbs that wavelength allowing it to change to a higher energy state. If that atom is moving during each state change the wavelength is shifted for its direction. More atoms making the state change at the same time would strengthen the line.

    In either case the atom that exhibits the shift is not necessarily moving the same as the object. For an emission line the atom is probably related to the object because  it must be above the source of the broad spectrum light. For an absorption line the atom can be anywhere between the source and observer.
    Unfortunately for cosmologists absorption lines were commonly used and these are quite problematic; only in rare cases were emission lines used.

    This simple mistake of using absorption lines as the velocity of the object behind the atom has severe consequences for anything based on that wrong assumption.

    The presence of low density neutral hydrogen in intergalactic space results in its absorption line. That line has nothing to do with any objects behind that atom.

    Hubble’s Law is based on the wrong interpretation of the hydrogen absorption line. This law is the very foundation of modern cosmology, with its accompanying Hubble Flow, suggesting the assumed ongoing expansion of the universe which in turn implies an assumed big bang event.

    There is no expansion and there was no big bang.

    I know the Hubble Flow has widespread acceptance and that will not change, even across a few generations.


    Without the Hubble Flow, Cosmology must become a science based on observation.
    Without the Hubble Flow, there are no false velocities away from Earth. Everything is just as we see it.

    The quasars do not move at a superluminal velocity.
    Removing such velocities brings the universe back to normal physics.
    There is no expansion of the universe fabric in symmetry around the Earth as the center of the universe. There is no need to propose this fabric, so space is just space.

    Without the Hubble Flow there is no need for a big bang.
    The big bang is strictly a theoretical exercise for theorists to imagine how someone could create our universe. We don't understand it now when invisible black and dark things are needed

    This exercise is meaningless to anyone beyond the theorists.
    There is no defined start time with no defined initial conditions. Whatever  is in the universe before the proposed big bang event is totally unknown.
    This exercise has our current universe, without our current fictitious velocities, as the final goal. That means everything in the theory, until our present observations, is just pure speculation with no basis to identify an intermediate state of the universe.

    All theories for cosmology are to explain actual observations.

    Without the Hubble Flow leading down the wrong path cosmology can become relevant again.



    Cosmology definitely has relevance at the level of our solar system.
    The Sun affects life on earth with its light. It also affects our electronics with solar flares or other solar events. An improvement in our understanding of the Sun is obviously helpful.
    The other aspect of cosmology that is relevant involves when things are moving about and around the Earth. Apparently a huge meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. It is useful to know when that will happen again.
    Space probes visiting Jupiter and Saturn resulted in the conclusion the current configuration of moons around those planets might have settled down in the last 100-200 million years ago (mya). Saturn's rings are now thought to be formed in a similar recent time frame, 10-100 mya.
    If they settled that recently, we don't know what they were doing before settling.
    This is somewhat science fiction but if we could somehow understand why objects (big or small) move within the solar system that knowledge is helpful.
    Ganymede around Jupiter and Titan around Saturn are both bigger than Mercury. If either of those moons went roaming there could be a random 'billiard ball' re-arrangement as they moved, if not some major damage.
    By apparent coincidence Titan and Earth are the only two thick atmospheres in the solar system dominated by Nitrogen.

    Cosmology has relevance for understanding rare events within our solar system; for that reason cosmology is important.


    Cosmology currently has too many invalid assumptions. There are many posts and comments in this Cosmology topic group, including exchanges with Face Book group members. It is pointless to repeat a subset.

    Last updated (05/15/2019)

    Hit back to go to previous page in history.
    Select  Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.
    Research link is near the  bottom.