Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
عطية زاهدة

قانون هابل لا يصح إلّا في كون كالأميبا

Recommended Posts

Hubble's Law
Introduction:
What is Hubble's Law?
Scientists consider that the dominant motion in the universe is the smooth expansion known as Hubble's Law.
It can be stated as:

Recessional Velocity of the galaxy= Hubble's constant times distance to the galaxy

V = Ho D
Where:
V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec
H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc
D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc

In other terms, Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation (direct proportionality) between the distance to a galaxy from the Earth and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift.

Please do not forget for any moment that the recessional velocity of the galaxy is measured by the Doppler red shift of the spectral lines of the intended galaxy.
So far, we can simply conclude that unless the measured redshift is completely due to the intended galaxy itself, Hubble's law couldn't be right. Said another way, Hubble's law can turn out to be right if and only if the observed redshift attributed to the intended galaxy is in complete due to the relative motion between the Earth and the intended galaxy itself. Therefore, Hubble's law will turn out to be wrong if the redshift attributed to the intended galaxy is not caused completely by such a relative motion. Expressed in other words, Hubble's law becomes wrong immediately if it is proven that any significant ratio of the redshift of the intended galaxy is due to another agent other than the relative motion.
Really, you still remember that in order to apply Hubble's law (V = Ho D), scientists must measure the redshift of the galaxy so as to determine its recessional velocity with respect to the Earth.
In short, to demonstrate that Hubbe's law is wrong all that we need is to prove that a significant ratio of its redshift is acquired from other sources other than the relative motion. Please let us see that this is the factual situation.

???????

The 'event horizon'-caused redshift is saying: goodbye, Hubble's law!

For our purpose which is to show that Hubble's law is not right, it suffices to deal with two probabilities:
(First) The intended galaxy might be in the upper layer of overlapping layers of galaxies which might permit the passage of light when the relative positions of their stars are arranged such that they let a path for the passage of the light from the uppermost galaxy all the way to the outside of the lowermost one. In such a case the light from the same intended galaxy is probably liable to enter an 'event horizon' of one of black holes whether these holes belong to the galaxies themselves or are dispersed among them. Such a light becomes sucked in and will not reach the Earth for ever. But when the light from the intended galaxy passes close to an 'event horizon' of one of the black holes, it inevitably suffers a great amount of the redshift. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.

(Second) The intended galaxy might be at the farthest end of a 'space pipe' such that there are many black holes around the pipe in a manner such the light from the uppermost galaxy might pass close to one or more of the "event horizons' belonging to these black holes whether they belong to the galaxies or are dispersed among them. In such a case the light becomes subjected to be strongly redshfited. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.
Well, such probabilities are real and greatly strong such that they are certainly found in the universe.

So far, as long as the galactic light is subject to an extremely strong probability to pass close to, at least, one of the 'event horizons' spread in its path toward the Earth, it must be immensely redshifted. Taking for granted that the relative motion between the Earth and the galaxy is due to both of the Earth's motions and the galaxy's motions, say its recession from the Earth, the redshift due to such a relative motion cannot at all be competitive to the 'event horizon'-caused redshift the light of the same galaxy might suffer while in its path toward the Earth.

Anyway, unless three redshifts are excluded, Hubble's law cannot be right, at all. These three redshifts are:
1- The gravitational redshift caused by the galaxy itself, especially if it is so massive, or densely compact.
2- The gravitational redshift caused by the gravitational lensing.
3- The 'event horizon'-caused redshift.
However, it is worthwhile mentioning again that whatever the galaxy's redshift due to the relative motion between the Earth and this galaxy itself, it couldn't at all compete with its horizon'-caused redshift.
At last, the 'event horizon'-caused redshift must drive scientists to say: goodbye, Hubble's law!
*******
Attiyah's Declaration

By his virtue as a layman with so little knowledge of cosmology, Aattiyah Zahdeh on the day of 15th March, 2011, declares with every certainty and full self-confidence, but with the highest degree of unpretentiousness, that Hubble's law is wrong and all the information acquired by its application should be revised.
*******


In which case is Hubble's law probable to be acceptable?

Hubble's law is probable to be acceptable if and only if the universe has an amoeba-like configuration such that:
1- The Milky Way corresponds to its nucleus.
2- The Earth is positioned on the surface of the Milky Way.
3- The periMilky-Way space corresponds to its cytoplasm.
4- There is no more than one layer of other galaxies all of which are positioned such that they form a 'universal membrane' i.e. the thickness of this 'universal membrane' is only one galaxy.

N.B. amoeba is a unicellular organism that possesses pseudopodia.

********
Attiyah's Ten Universal Impossibilities
Due to the reality and effectiveness of the 'gravitational lensing' and, hence, the reality of the gravitational redshift, it necessarily turns out that all the astronomical and cosmological information based on Hubble's law cannot be right. Accordingly, unless we find a trustable alternative for Hubble's law itself, we will continue standing in front of the following inevitable impossibilities:
1-
The impossibility of even an approximate estimation of the age of the universe.
2- The impossibility of even an approximate estimation of the volume of the universe or its extensions.
3- The impossibility of knowing whether the universe is expanding or contracting.
4- The impossibility of forming any acceptable theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe.
5- The impossibility of even an approximate estimation of the velocities of the galaxies.
6- The impossibility of even an approximate estimation of the distances of the galaxies.
7- The impossibility of even an approximate estimation of the masses of the galaxies.
8- The impossibility of reaching even an approximate estimation of the temperatures of the galaxies.
9- The impossibility of proving that Hubble's law is probable to be right.
10- The impossibility of the success of any computerized simulation concerning the cosmology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×