The Universe Is Not Expanding

In this episode I discuss how the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be related to a static and infinite universe using Hawking Radiation.

If the Universe is not expanding, and gravitational redshift is responsible for Hubble’s law, we can use the equation for Hawking Radiation to predict the observable radius and the temperature of the CMBR.

What we find is an alignment between the observable radius using Hubble’s law and the temperature of a black hole with the same radius.

The Universe is Not Expanding: Episode 1 - An Introduction to Gravitational Redshift - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6yywc4LigM

Redshift Calculator - http://www.theuniverseisnotexpanding.com/gravitational-redshift-calculator/

Published - http://inspirehep.net/record/1682875?ln=en
Article - https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06205

Astrophysics for People Who Think Physicists are Full of Shift - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078Z5NRSZ

Gravitational Redshift Calculator - http://www.theuniverseisnotexpanding.com/gravitational-redshift-calculator/ (Warning, it’s a little glitchy)

This is a response to a recent comment on one of my videos. It comes from Donald Kasper.
It’s a great comment because it highlights the complexity of the issue and demonstrates the mentality of the people I’m up against.

If you fully understand my proposal, you’re going to have to respect it’s simplicity. And Donal Kasper, as much as I appreciate him, has completely failed to take my proposal seriously. He immediately jumps to what he thinks causes the cosmological redshift, derailing the topic in the process. Donald disputes gravitational redshifting. What am I suppose to do with that?

What am I suppose to do with someone who disputes general relativity? I’m not Einstein.

Anyways, Donald Writes:

If photons don't have mass, how are they affected by cosmological gravity?

Gravity affects light through geodesics. It is not my intent to offer a new theory of gravity. I am working within the existing framework of general relativity. I think Alfred Whitehead’s thoughts may be somewhat applicable, but none of that matters in this discussion. There are several rabbit holes I wish to avoid, so I have chosen to stay within the mainstream interpretations of gravity. Even still, I am able to completely eliminate the need for expansion or a cosmological constant. It’s an unprecedented claim that’s worth of investigation.

So then, there is no gravitational red shift.

I’m not exactly sure what Donald means by saying this. Gravitational redshift is indisputable at this point. If you want to try to explain it using some other proposal, then by all means go ahead, but that’s like trying to row upstream. All you have done so far is dispute general relativity. I am not willing to go down that rabbit hole.

But every red shift phenomena has problems.

Gravi..

In this installment of The Universe Is Not Expanding I discuss mass density and how it has been misinterpreted in mainstream cosmology.

Entropy and the arrow of time create gravitational homogeneity. A consequence of this is that the distribution of mass density depends on the scale in question but remains the same for all observers.

Using this logic we can use gravitational redshift to predict Hubble's law.

G*2e-26 kg/m^3 * 4/3*pi*4200 megaparsec*(1megaparsecs)/c

= 74,582.973 m / s

You can change the portion in the parenthesis to the distance of the emitting star. This equation is a reduced form that automatically adjusts the mass density for the scale of observation.

In this installment of The Universe Is Not Expanding I discuss mass density and how it has been misinterpreted in mainstream cosmology.

Entropy and the arrow of time create gravitational homogeneity. A consequence of this is that the distribution of mass density depends on the scale in question but remains the same for all observers.

Using this logic we can use gravitational redshift to predict Hubble's law.

G*2e-26 kg/m^3 * 4/3*pi*4200 megaparsec*(1megaparsecs)/c

= 74,582.973 m / s

You can change the portion in the parenthesis to the distance of the emitting star. This equation is a reduced form that automatically adjusts the mass density for the scale of observation.

In this short video I use the basic example of ticking clocks in gravitational wells to explain tired light.

http://www.theuniverseisnotexpanding.com

Buy my book - Astrophysics for People Who Think Physicists are Full of Shift
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078Z5NRSZ

In this short video I use the basic example of ticking clocks in gravity wells to explain tired light.

http://www.theuniverseisnotexpanding.com

Buy my book - Astrophysics for People Who Think Physicists are Full of Shift
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078Z5NRSZ

The Hubble redshift, also called the cosmological redshift, Hubble's law, and the Hubble flow, is an anomalous redshift found in distant starlight.

The decrease in frequency is anomalous because there is no known reason for the redshift, but that assumption is based on a false premise.

In gravitational physics, boundaries play an important role in describing the gravitational field of a region.

These boundaries are however, arbitrarily defined and not applicable to the largest scales.

On the cosmological scale, using the boundary of a star or galaxy is insufficient in determining the amount of gravitational redshift.

This tragic mistake has generated a lot of confusion in cosmology.

1. Gravity is responsible for the Hubble shift, not expansion.
2. The mass density of the universe is inversely proportional to the radius of the region in question.
3. The "missing mass" of dark matter is nothing more than the stuff lying in-between the visible mass.
4. Dark energy, or the accelerating redshift, is a result of the inhomogenity of mass density.
5. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a result of Hawking radiation just beyond the observable horizon.
6. The redshift can be predicted using the gravitational redshift equation, the distance of light travel, and a uniform gravitational acceleration for all scales.

Buy the book, Astrophysics for People Who Think Physicists are Full of Shift

The Hubble redshift, also called the cosmological redshift, Hubble's law, and the Hubble flow, is an anomalous redshift found in distant starlight.

The decrease in frequency is anomalous because there is no known reason for the redshift, but that assumption is based on a false premise.

In gravitational physics, boundaries play an important role in describing the gravitational field of a region.

These boundaries are however, arbitrarily defined and not applicable to the largest scales.

On the cosmological scale, using the boundary of a star or galaxy is insufficient in determining the amount of gravitational redshift.

This tragic mistake has generated a lot of confusion in cosmology.

1. Gravity is responsible for the Hubble shift, not expansion.
2. The mass density of the universe is inversely proportional to the radius of the region in question.
3. The "missing mass," aka, dark matter, is nothing more than the stuff lying in-between the visible mass.
4. Dark energy, or the accelerating redshift, is a result of natural inhomogeneities of mass density.
5. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a result of Hawking radiation just beyond the observable horizon.
6. The redshift can be predicted using the gravitational redshift equation, the distance of light travel, and a uniform gravitational acceleration for all scales.

Buy the book on Amazon, Astrophysics for People Who Think Physicists are Full of Shift

http://www.theuniverseisnotexpanding.com

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078Z5NRSZ

Created 8 months, 1 week ago.

8 videos

 Category Science & Technology

This channel is dedicated to discrediting Lambda cosmology and the Big Bang Theory