Pentcho Valev
2023-03-02 21:41:14 UTC
Cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their models, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:
"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/
"Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies" (more precisely, between non-expanding galactic clusters) is preposterous per se, and its implications are preposterous as well. Consider, for instance, the famous stretching of light caused by expansion:
"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml
So light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it?
Why do cosmologists apply expansion solutions only to voids where there is no gravitational attraction? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to spaces where objects attract one another gravitationally, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:
If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it assumes that intragalactic expansion does occur, will have to predict distortions.
But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have decided to apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Nothing new. Theoretical physics has been a dishonest ideology since 1905:
"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/
"Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies" (more precisely, between non-expanding galactic clusters) is preposterous per se, and its implications are preposterous as well. Consider, for instance, the famous stretching of light caused by expansion:
"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml
So light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it?
Why do cosmologists apply expansion solutions only to voids where there is no gravitational attraction? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to spaces where objects attract one another gravitationally, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:
If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it assumes that intragalactic expansion does occur, will have to predict distortions.
But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have decided to apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Nothing new. Theoretical physics has been a dishonest ideology since 1905:
"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev