Georgi Stankov, May 22, 2017
The method of measurement of escape velocity in Hubble’s law is the determination of redshifts of selected galaxies. Hubble was the first astronomer to suggest a relationship between his application of the universal equation for the one-dimensional space-time of the visible universe (read here, here and here) and the redshifts observed by the Doppler effect. In my article on the Doppler effect from April this year
I have shown that it is a ubiquitous phenomenon that demonstrates the reciprocity of space and time – that the two constituents (dimensions) of space-time are canonically conjugated entities. This fundamental knowledge is the core of all understanding of physics and cosmology. It is needless to reiterate, but I do it nonetheless for the sake of total clarity, that neither present-day physics nor cosmology have any clue about this fundamental property of energy = space-time = All-That-Is, which is the only object of their study. It is also the primary term of human or any other consciousness in All-That-Is. That is why the primary term is the first and only a priori axiom in the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law and there should not be any more if it is a true science.
I have used the Doppler effect to explain the mechanism of gravitation in my recent article The Mechanism of Gravitation – for the First Time Explained. It proves:
- Redshifts in visible light are observed when the space of the photon system confined by the source and the observer expands;
- violet-shifts are observed when the space of the system contracts.
These changes of space are relativistic and occur simultaneously everywhere in the universe. For instance, one can observe both redshifts and violet-shifts of distant galaxies. Altogether, redshifts are predominant. This has led to the idea of using them as a method of measurement of the escape velocity of galaxies in an “expanding” universe which is a wrongly postulated and so far unverified idea (or better “idio“) in current failed cosmology.
Until now modern cosmology has not been in a position to present a theoretical proof that redshifts really measure the expansion of the universe, as is clearly and surprisingly honestly stated in the following quotation of one prominent representative of this pseudo-science:
“The gravitational frequency and temperature shifts between observers are equivalent to the effects of a sequence of velocity shifts between a sequence of freely moving observers. For the same reason, the surface brightness of an object at a different (gravitational) potential would vary with its redshift… This is not a cosmology, however, for it is not known how one could get a reasonable redshift-distance relation from a stable static mass distribution, or what provision one would make for the apparently finite lifetimes of stars and galaxies…
If the redshifts of quasars did not follow the redshift-distance relation observed for galaxies, it would show we have missed something very significant… It is sensible and prudent that people should continue to think about alternatives to the standard model, because the evidence is not at all abundant…
The moral is that the invention of a credible alternative to the standard cosmological model would require consultation of a considerable suite of evidence. It is equally essential that the standard model be subject to scrutiny at a still closer level than the alternatives, for it takes only one well established failure to rule out a model, but many successes to make a convincing case that a cosmology really is on the right track.
Quoted from: P.J.E. Peeble, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1993, p. 226.
The last statement refers to what the new theory of the Universal Law has achieved – it proves all the mathematical experimental evidence (e.g in form of natural laws as mathematical equations) collected so far in physics and cosmology and rejects only its non-mathematical, verbal interpretation by the scientists. The latter are blatantly wrong as they do not use or understand the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law that unequivocally defines all terms and concepts in science from the primary term of our consciousness. Instead they have introduced, through their ambiguous, unprocessed language, infinite paradoxes, contradictions, blunders and outright stupidities, which I have resolved in tedious intellectual and forensic work in the new tetralogy of science as presented on this website.
I shall prove in the following that
redshifts measure the specific energy exchange of any gravitational system with photon space-time and therefore cannot be interpreted as evidence for the expansion of the universe.
It is a well-established fact that redshifts are a classical test for the validity of the theory of relativity. They are appreciated as the most exact test of this theory. The magnitude of the redshift depends on the magnitude of the local gravitational potential glocal = U = LRCG (see below). In the general theory of relativity, the redshift df/ f gives the (relativistic) change of the gravitational potential dU in relation to the LRC of photon space-time given as square speed of light:
df/f = dU/c2.
This relationship was first postulated by Einstein in 1911 without comprehending its true meaning. Since then it has been empirically confirmed by numerous experiments with growing precision. The relativistic formula that is usually employed is an application of the universal equation as a rule of three:
df /f = dU/c2 = LRCG/LRCp = EG / Ep = SP(A)
I have used the same application in Volume II, chapter 9.9 to establish the derivation rule of absolute coefficients of vertical energy exchange, with which we can build an input-output model of the universe based entirely on dimensionless numbers (quotients). This input-output model is equivalent to the continuum of real numbers. Therefore this rule proves in a fundamental theoretical manner why nature is of mathematical character and can be expressed in terms of mathematics, which itself is a hermeneutic system of the human mind and has no external object of study.
This theoretical breakthrough, which I made in 1995, has led to the resolution of the foundation crisis of mathematics that challenges the validity of the entire human science and in particular of the only exact discipline – physics – which is based on mathematical equations and calculations; from a methodological point of view physics is applied mathematics to the physical world. All other present-day scientific disciplines such as bio-sciences and social sciences are not exact sciences but a conglomeration of unproven and rather subjective opinions (see Volume III and all my books on Human Gnosis on this website). On the foundation crisis of mathematics and its resolution in the new theory of the Universal law read also:
As already discussed, any relativistic presentation in physics is a comparison of the actual space-time of a system with photon space-time as the initial reference frame. In this particular case, the local gravitational potential of any celestial body, which, according to Einstein, is responsible for the local curvature of the empty homogeneous space-time, is compared to the constant LRC of photon space-time.
From the above equation, we can obtain the so-called Schwarzschild radius RS when we use Newton’s law of gravity to determine the local gravitational potential on the surface of a celestial body (R is the radius of a star, planet, or any other celestial body; G is the gravitational constant; M is the mass of the celestial body):
df /f = dU/c2 = GM/Rc2 = RS /2R = SP(A)
The [1d-space]-quantity RS is obtained within geometry and is, in reality, a diameter and not a radius (imprecise terminology).
The Schwarzschild radius RS is of key importance to the theory of relativity, although this quantity cannot be explained in terms of knowledge. Traditionally, it is regarded as a measure for the relativistic effects of gravitational objects. In the light of the new Axiomatics, this space quantity assesses the local absolute coefficients of vertical energy exchange of the individual gravitational systems, such as stars, planets, pulsars, quasars, neutron stars, black holes etc., with photon space-time.
All gravitational systems undergo different states of material arrangement, such as white dwarfs, unstable stars, neutron stars, red giants etc., as assessed by Chandrasekhar’s equation of the boundary conditions of stellar transformation (finite lifetimes of stars). These stellar phases of specific space-time can be expressed by various quantities, such as mass, density, volume etc. and exhibit different coefficients of vertical energy exchange with photon space-time.
From this, we can easily conclude that we can build infinite levels of gravitational objects with respect to their specific vertical coefficient. The local geometry (structural complexity) of the space-time of the visible universe can be precisely described with such local coefficients. This aspect is further discussed in Volume II, chapter 9.9.
When the above equation of the Schwarzschild radius RS is derived from the equation of the circumference of the event horizon of the visible universe SU = c2 /G as discussed in my previous publication, we obtain the following simple application of the Universal Law for the local space curvature Slocal as a function of the local gravitation glocal :
Slocal = [1d-space] = c2 / glocal = world line of local curvature
This is the actual “universal field equation“ which Einstein was searching in vain his whole life. It assesses the local curvature of photon space-time in terms of “world lines“ Slocal (Weltlinien der Krümmung des Weltalls).
This [1d-space]-quantity is a function of the local gravitational potential given as the gravitational acceleration or field of the celestial objects of matter. This is, in fact, the only objective of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which is geometry applied to space-time.
It could not succeed, not only because Einstein did not master the complexity of the mathematical instruments (Riemann’s topology) which he intended to implement (it is a well-known fact that Einstein was a poor mathematician), but essentially because he neither explained, nor understood the epistemological background of his theory of relativity.
Let us now summarize the key knowledge that accrues from this elaboration:
The redshifts in the Doppler effect measure the local vertical energy exchange between the individual gravitational systems and photon space-time.
According to the principle of circular argument, these energy interactions are presented relativistically, in comparison to the constant space-time of the photon level as c which is the universal reference frame (read here). Therefore, redshifts should not be interpreted as evidence for the expansion of the universe.
The idea of an expanding universe based on redshifts has led to a plethora of fundamental paradoxes that expose modern cosmology as a system of fallacies. The first paradox is associated with the interpretation of black holes. According to the present view, these gravitational systems exhibit the maximal redshifts that are known at present. This is the current scientific opinion on this issue as expressed in the uniqueness theorems of black holes (M Heusler, Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems, Cambridge University Press, 1996.), which are applications of the Universal Law within mathematics.
If we now argue in the context of Hubble’s law, we must assume that black holes are the remotest objects from any observer within the visible universe (cosmological principle). In this case, we must expect to find black holes only near the event horizon of our visible universe (see above). The same holds true for quasars and pulsars, as they exhibit about 90% of the redshift-magnitude that has been determined for black holes.
However, the experimental evidence in astrophysics does not confirm this conclusion which follows logically from the current interpretation of Hubble’s law. In addition, this would be in breach of the cosmological principle which postulates an even distribution of celestial objects in the universe.
This paradox should be sufficient to reject the standard model on present evidence. It is indeed a mystery why this has not already been done, even without knowing the Universal Law.
The absurdity of the present interpretation of redshifts as evidence for an expanding universe becomes obvious when we analyse the present cosmological view of the age and radius of the “finite“ universe which is supposed to have emerged from the “big bang“. The general belief is that the objects with the maximal redshifts are the remotest from the observer. As a consequence, they should be regarded as the oldest material objects in the universe, if we accept the “genesis“ of the universe from the “big bang“ as stated in the standard model. This is explained by the fact that the light that comes from such objects should need the longest time to cover the greatest distance before reaching the observer. In this case, this light should be of the oldest origin – it should have existed from the very beginning of the universe.
The remotest objects that emit this light must have been very near to each other in this initial phase. As the universe is believed to have a finite age of about 15-20 billion years, this is considered to be the actual age of the light that comes from the remotest objects with the maximal redshifts.
The paradoxical nature of this concept becomes evident when we apply the principle of circular argument of the new Axiomatics as a deductive method. Let us depart from the cosmological principle as an application of the principle of last equivalence for the system “visible universe“. According to it, the above interpretation holds for any observer, at any place, at any time.
Let us assume that we are the initial observer placed on the earth. We can now imagine at least one more observer who is situated between us and the remotest object with the maximal redshift. In this case the second observer will measure redshifts from objects that are beyond our event horizon. The redshifts of such objects cannot be observed from the earth. These objects will have a greater distance from the earth than the remotest objects we can observe from our planet. At the same time they will be older than the oldest objects in the universe, the age of which is set equal to the age of the universe.
If we proceed with this deductive method, we can easily prove that there are objects in the universe that are infinitely remote from us and are thus infinitely old. It is important to observe that the same deductive method is used to define the term “infinity“ in the mathematical theory of sets. This method departs from any number to define the infinity of the continuum and, since Frege, the continuum theory is the foundation of modern mathematics (for further information see volume I and volume II)
In the new Axiomatics, we define the infinity of the primary term in an a priori manner and then confirm this property in a secondary manner by the empirical verification of the phenomenology of the parts (U-subsets). I have used exactly this second method to prove that space-time is infinite, that is, eternal. This proof should be sufficient to reject the standard model that assumes a finite age of the universe.
In fact, cosmologists can only measure the finite constant space-time of our visible universe as defined from the anthropocentric point of view of an earth’s observer. However, according to the cosmological principle, there are infinite visible universes, as there are infinite potential observers in space-time.
The idea of the standard model of cosmology that the universe is finite has led to another fundamental paradox, which has recently emerged from experimental evidence. The age of the universe is currently estimated by Hubble’s law to be about 15 billion years. However, recent empirical data in astrophysics does not fit into this concept. Astrophysicists have established that there are stars that are older than the universe. This is now called the “mother-child paradox“: the children (stars) are older than the mother (the universe).
The standard model postulates the emergence of stellar objects a long time after the occurrence of the “big bang“. According to this model it is impossible for the stars to be older than the universe. It is cogent that this fact alone should be sufficient to reject entirely the standard model postulating a finite expanding universe. Again, we are tempted to ask why this has not been done before.
If we, instead, consider the finite lifetimes of stars as described by Chandrasekhar, we must conclude that we are not allowed to make any statements on the actual age of material systems, that is, of matter, based on the age of the emitted light that reaches the earth or a satellite launched from the earth. If stars periodically undergo different phases of material organisation, a fact that is beyond any doubt, how can we know their actual age if we can only determine the age of the light emitted during a certain phase of transition (see also quotation above)?
For instance, when we register a light signal from a nova that is, let us say, seven billion years old, we can only say that seven billion years ago, that is, at a time when the earth did not exist, this particular star had this material configuration. As novae are recurrent stars, we cannot know their past or present states. For instance, there is no way of knowing how many transitions this nova has undergone in the past, that is, how old it really is.
These arguments are based on common sense and are accessible even to the layman. This cannot be claimed for the arguments of modern cosmology. In the last few years (with reference to the 90s), there has been a growing number of publications on cosmology that document the epistemological mess of this discipline. It is inutile to discuss them. I shall only mention a title of a recent book that is symbolic for this state-of-the-art: T. Ferris, The Whole Shebang, A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1997.
Present-day cosmology is indeed a terrible “She Bang” beginning with the “Big Bang” (The actual etymology of the word “shebang“, which you will not find on the Internet, comes from the Slavonic (Bulgarian) word “shibam“, through Yiddish, which means “to fuck“, so that the exact connotation of shebang should be “fucking shit” (shibano), note George).
In this respect, it is quite amusing to observe how many cosmologists earnestly believe in the existence of many universes, although they still believe in the singularity of the “big bang”. This is the culmination of human insanity. Why don’t they forget their pseudo-science and come to us to enjoy the clarity of mind based on our multidimensional gnostic thinking and daily experience as ascended masters.