"The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-
expanding-01940.html

What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with
particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Any redshift/blueshift, in particular the Hubble redshift, is a direct consequence of two foundational principles in future, Einstein-free physics (the second principle is a corollary of the first):

1. The wavelength of light is invariable.

2. Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

The same holds true for the gravitational redshift/blueshift:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the
equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be
able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the
theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

The same holds true for the Doppler redshift/blueshift:

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is
given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The
increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Strange revelation:

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." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html [Note also the
shrewd comments by Ambi Valent and the not shrewd at all answers by Sabine Hossenfelder].

So honest Einsteinians apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why? Because, if Einsteinians applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters,
observations would immediately disprove the theory. If the universe were expanding, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort galaxies and galactic clusters - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to
expansion and fly away. No distortions observed. The universe is clearly not expanding.

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 00:16:17 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

"The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-

not-expanding-01940.html

What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming

with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Good try Petch. But incorrect. There is NO evidence light changes speed
over distance. Obviously yes, it’s a possibilty but thats an assumption.
Not an observation seeing as Hubble didn’t measure the speed changing.
He measured the frequency changing over distance.
And thus quantum fluctuations are also a lousy excuse. Because Einsteins photon model does not survive Hubbles observation that light changes frequency
over distance seeing as Albert said his photons cannot lose energy or change frequency over distance. Which means...light isn’t a particle.
And...Seeing as QT relies on the falsehood that light is sometimes a particle ..
then obviously QT is a load of wacky nonsense without any substantiating evidence.,
And therefore your imaginary quantum fluctuations causing an imaginary
speed change can be ruled out as the cause for the observedchange in
lights frequency over distance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from ten countries have signed a petition protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang Hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv." https://www.lppfusion.com/scientists-protest-
censorship-in-cosmology/

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 20:03:04 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

"Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from ten countries have signed a petition protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang Hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv." https://www.lppfusion.com/scientists-protest-

censorship-in-cosmology/

Pentcho Valev

Interesting to see people finally coming out against the censorship by the Big Bang
theory community. Shame though that they still make the same fundamental mistake that Big Bang theorists make. Which is to adhere to the ridiculous Photon
model of light. Because the fact is that the reason why we have the BBT is because
the physics community can’t give up their addiction to the nonsense
of a particle nature of light. It isn’t a particle. It’s a wave. And there is no evidence
to support its particle nature. Whereas in truth the fact that light redshifts over distance IS evidence that light is a wave only. Seeing as photons
are not allowed to change frequency over distance.
I notice Lerner thinks the observed fluctuations in the CMBR
are due to fluctuations in the Intergalactic medium. I think a better explanation
for the observed variation in background CMBR can be more easily described
as the density distribution of galaxies in the distant non expanding universe. At a distance where their emitted black body radiation spectrum in optical
gets redshifted to the microwave region. Which puts those galaxies at z=1023 Which in a non expanding universe is galaxies that are 10 times farther from earth than the distance of galaxies at z=1. This calculation is based on
the fact that light emitted in optical gets redshifted to microwave at z=1023. I arrive at the distance of ten times z=1 by assuming that if light doubles wavelength at z=1, then it needs to double its wavelength ten times to
get from optical to microwave. Which is equivelent to z=1023

(Of course it’s not known currently what distance from earth galaxies at z=1 are. I believe the farthest real distance measured and confirmed so far is to Virgo cluster. Given usually as around 65,000,000 light years distance.
Or at a rough calculation z=>0.1)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)