‘Dr X’ Says Universe Is NOT Expanding
The following quote from Dr X does add credibility to this challenge to eight decades of ‘settled’ science:
Dr X has “admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view.
Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of red shift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one.”
What gives this Dr X usurper, along with that engineer turned rogue astronomer, the right to challenge this cornerstone of modern astronomy?
The identity of the mysterious Dr X is none other than “Mount Wilson Observatory’s brilliant Astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble,” who with coworker Milton LaSalle Humason first observed the red-shift of light from distant stars.
Continuing, “It was assumed that the distant nebulae were retreating in all directions.” One interesting fact is that this interview was for Time Magazine and was published as “Science: Shift on Shift” on Dec 14, 1936.
Here you have proof that the ‘father of the Expanding Universe Theory’ had misgivings just years after his 1929 disclosure. Following the motto of P T Barnum, of “there’s a sucker born every minute” the existing ‘big science’ teams saw an unlimited opportunity to expand astronomy budgets.
The ‘sucker’ in this case is the taxpayer, forced by errant bureaucrats for funding side-show science on an ever expanding universe with ever expanding grants, awards and fellowships.
Bureaucrats do have an affection for expanding concepts, witness the vast expansion of planetary maladies they have been able to ascribe to the ‘expansion of carbon dioxide’ gas in our atmosphere.
Dr Hubble (the previous mentioned Dr X) made his scientific discoveries on the 100-inch Hooker telescope, the world’s largest at the time. In the Times interview, he communicated to the National Academy of Sciences that:
“The distribution of these bodies [distant nebulae] in space forced him to conclude that a non-expanding universe theory is more economical and less vulnerable”
Having birthed this brand of Franken-science the good doctor was now powerless to stop what now had a life of its own. He was “now willing to abandon the expanding universe to mathematical cosmologists” and they we only too happy for this new gravy train.
In a Pontius Pilate moment during the interview, Dr Hubbell states his hope that the new 200 inch Caltech super telescope to be completed in the 1940s would settle this question. Since the ability to gather light is a function of area, and therefore of a square, this new eye in the sky could see four times as much, four times as far back, as the Hooker telescope.
What dismayed Dr Hubble at the time was that the speed of the then edge of the universe was “equal to 25,000 miles per second”. This was the speed that Milky Way sized galaxies were perceived to be moving.
The world had to take time out to counter a virulent form of ‘master race planet domination’ which caused a delay in completing of the 200 inch Mt Palomar telescope until 1948.
When even deeper space light was showing even greater ‘apparent acceleration’ the mathematical cosmologists descended on the witless bureaucrats at the NAS for an ever expanding list of fanciful solutions, including dark matter, invisible universes and vacuum energy.
SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510
No, this is not the tattooed armband coordinates for Anglia Jolie’s latest offspring. This is the name for the newest and most distant cluster galaxy estimated at 9.6 billion light years away and closest yet observed to the 13.7 year old universe edge.
As the speed of these supposed distant galaxies are now approaching the actual speed of light, we are left to question some of the hypothesis of these bureaucratically over feed cosmologists.
One must question the hypothesis that 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible dark matter, yet light is able to pass such great distances unblocked and un-absorbed.
The supposed vacuum force is many times greater than gravity, but curiously also invisible. The last count on invisible universes also included five invisible dimensions. In addition to the four ‘visible dimensions’ of length, width, depth and time there were sorcerers equations for five more dimensions.
A radio interview last week indicated that a hopeful cosmologist was seeking grants for two new additional invisible dimensions. With unlimited funding we will soon find that we live in a universe with more invisible dimensions than Starbucks locations.
What began with a real scientist and a Hooker at the observatory has turned into a science #. What we must do is to show these spendthrifts the real meaning of ‘invisible’ as in the invisible universe that we are all now experiencing.
We must show these NAS pimps and their cosmologist harlots the meaning of ‘invisible paycheck’, ‘invisible pension’ and ‘invisible health benefits’. It is time for the honest voices of science to demand that this circus side show be closed.
I’m certain that Dr X would heartily agree. By the way, that engineer turned rouge astronomer is ME. [“Science: Shift on Shift” ]
See more here canadafreepress.com
Header image: Getty Images
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Charles Higley
| #
It makes perfect sense. As light passes through the gravitational fields of stars and matter on its way to us, it gets slowed down incrementally. Thus, the farther away the light source, the greater the red shift the light will feel.
Then, we have quasars being born from the centers of galaxies, with redshifts suiting their intense gravitational forces. No expanding universe and also no Big Bang, but a Steady State Universe.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
No, it doesn’t get slowed down incrementally, it recovers every time it exits a gravitational field, as if it never had entered it. This is physics.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Charles.
I just wanted to acknowledge that you are the only person who has described gravity in a way that was simple, rational, and without having to concoct otherworldly distortions to make it work.
Thank you.
Oh, and have a nice day.
Reply
MattH
| #
Oh PS, I am referring to a comment you made to Bob Beatty two or three years ago where you described an attractive energy inherent in biology and extrapolated that attraction with increased mass.
Thank you.
Reply
MattH
| #
Probably I should have used the word ‘force’, not energy.
Reply
MattH
| #
Are electrons blatting around a nucleus a form of perpetual motion?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Energy (v^2) produces motion and since energy cannot be created or destroyed everything in the universe is in perpetual motion.
Herb
Ken Hughes
| #
Well, I almost agree with him in that the expansion is purely relative between past and present. The physical expansion we see when looking back into the past, is actually the quickening of time, the decreasing of the wavelength of the energy wave that powers all events and gives us time. In other words, if you look back in time, you see red shift, of everything. But this is not just physical expansion on its own where we would get a less dense universe. Because time has also changed to just the right degree to compensate for the different distances between present and past. This is the way space time works. We, today simply don’t give a sh’t that the universe has expanded because it still takes us the same time to travel the same distance, even though that distance has changed compared to the past. This is WHY density does not change with our “expanding ” universe. Read my book, “The Binary Universe” – A Theory of Time.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
To simplify my statement. If your time is running more quickly but the distance has increased, then your velocity has also increased because your time has increased, then you get there in the same time. The distance, to you, is the same. Only when you look back in time do you see a red shift, but it’s a temporal cause, not a physical expansion on its own. Time is the power source for all events, including velocity. The time has increased exactly to compensate for the increased distance due to the time rate increase.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
The connection of time and distance is a result of the belief that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum (special relativity) and is disproven along with acceleration and gravity being the same (general relativity).
If the speed of light were constant then for every variation of time there must be a comparative variation in distance to preserve the ratio. This means as a gravitational field weakens time and distance expand causing a red shift while an increasing gravitational field cause blue shift, where time and distance contract. The light coming to us from distant stars should have a blue shift as the strength of the gravitational field increases.
Acceleration and gravity cannot be the same since acceleration is a function of distance while gravity is an inverse function of distance. They have opposite behavior as time-distance changes.
According to Einstein the atomic clocks on satellites should gain time with increasing altitude as their velocity decreases and the gravitational field weakens. This is not what the data shows.
Herb
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Gravitation “weakens” time, it slows it down. In fact. I argue that mass slows time and this time dilation recovering with distance, IS the gravitational field. However dilated time SHORTENS distance. or “shrinks” space. It does not expand it. You have it the wrong way around. The red shift IS the slowed time rate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
If the speed of light (c) is constant then when time dilates then distance must also dilates to keep it constant. If distance shortens as time gets longer then “c” gets smaller.
According to Planck’s law (E=h x frequency) an increase in frequency (blue shift) means that the light must be gaining energy as the distance from the source increases.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
There is no photon. Light is a wave/disturbance traveling in the energy (gravity/magnetic) field and matter (electric) fields emitted from objects. As the emitted energy field weakens the speed (frequency) slows and wavelength increases (redshift). As the disturbance travel towards a source of energy and the strength of the fields increase, the frequency increases as the wavelength decreases, producing a blue shift. Since light is a change in amplitude of the wave and a form of energy, it will not stop (disappear) until it impacts matter. As the disturbance travels through varying fields for different lengths of time and distances, the spectral lines will blur (red and blue shifts). The blurring is not because the source is simultaneously traveling towards and away from the observer but because the velocity changes during transit.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Charles, Ken, and Herb,
Can either of you state you have studied the history of the “red shift”?
Have a good day
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Hello Jerry,
Yeah, I have studied it, but I don’t accept the conclusions and assumptions made, because I think for myself. The fact that someone might not understand my argument, (they don’t have to agree with it), is testament to their lack of intelligence. By the way, please cut the “Have a nice day” bit. It arrogant and offensive.
Reply
RockyTSquirrel
| #
let us all stand back and clap our hands,
for the “hubris” of the human mind, and its “thought experiments”.
the bellicose babbling of self-righteous individuals, is sheer folly,
How do any of us “know”, as a fact, anything.
Even those things, we believe we’ve sensed personally..
.
Stand back folks, and let the matrix begin…
. . .
(as requested, this is an opinion and or SARCASM)
“Let’s Go, Brandon” – “Pedo-Joe” (F.J.B.)
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
The accelerating Universe expansion idea never made sense because it isn’t supportable as we know so little and with the absurd Big Bang sweeping claims based on a pile of fantasies over a dribble of data.
Suggest you consider reading these Four books showing the obvious holes in the weird cosmology community claims build over many decades.
The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner
The Electric Sky by Donald Scott
Seeing Red
Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies
by Dr. Halton Arp
I have all these books in my Library because they help me see what a pile of baloney the cosmology group have become with their numerous deductive blackboard bumbling trying to inject ad hoc explanations in their vain effort to fill in those obvious gaping holes and save their “holy” Big Bang cult.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
So you are a reader. So welcome to what seems to be a small club who trust, and agree with, what some more notable, than oneself, people have written.
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
DR Arp uses actual Observatory data to make his case and he post many science charts and actual photos made mainly by the Hale Telescope into his books.
The Electric Sky book talks about undeniable electric phenomenon in the solar system, stars and in galaxies where they can create spiral galaxies in laboratories using two Birkeland currents.
Jupiter and Saturn are actually protostars to small to be true stars but they emit far more energy than their gravity field can generate..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
The masses of Jupiter and Saturn are calculated using Newton’s formula and the data from their orbiting moons. The binary asteroids show that the formula does not give correct results. Gravity is not product of mass but the energy associated with the mass and the density/strength of that gravity field is determined by the strength of energy fields emitted by neighboring masses (the sun). We do not know the correct masses or composition of these planets (they are not “gas giants”).
Herb
Reply
VOWG
| #
and this information will improve my life, how?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote to ken: “The connection of time and distance is a result of the belief that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum (special relativity) and is disproven along with acceleration and gravity being the same (general relativity).”
It is not a belief that the speed of light is a constant; scientists at various times and in various ways have devised experiments to measure the speed of light and no one within possible experiment error, has found that the speed of lightvaries. This is science and not make-believe.
have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and any others who seem to play “make-believe”,
Have any of you used a Mettler microgram balance to measure a series of 14 small vials, each to a reproducible mass of a few micrograms. Which means one must measure each vail at least twice. I nave done many of such series, so I know the time (effort) required to produce REPRODUCIBLE REsULTS FOR EACH VIAL WITHIN THE LIMITS of the instrument being used.
Einstein, is said to have stated, “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
Have a good day
Reply