^{Is "Hubble's Law}"  _Law?

 

Give a physicist a workable set of field equations and he happily applies them to his scientific measurements and to designing marvelous technologies.   Most physicists are pragmatic, in this sense, and would say that questions like:  Why does gravity do what it does?  Why do opposite charged particles attract each other?  And what is a particle, anyway?   The “why” is not important, unless it can enable you to predict something! 

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?
Where is the disputer of this world?

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Isn’t it due time that someone ask even “more fundamental” questions?

Yes, it’s when you get as far as asking our third epistemological question to sort out raw data, information, “facts”, and understanding -- from the heaps of assumptions, postulates, and theories.

 

When science makes a discovery they publish their conclusions.  Most people accept these conclusions as fact and never ask:  “How do they know?”  “What were their perceptions?”  “From what mental perspective did they perceive those perceptions?”  This has everything to do with how they arrived at their conclusions.

Einstein visited CalTech starting December 1931. Edwin Hubble (pictured center) discovered the “redshift” in light from distant galaxies, noting the further the galaxy -- the more the shift, therefore, the faster it’s fleeing.  The obvious conclusion: the universe is expanding.  He and Einstein discussed the implications this had on Relativity theories. They visited Mt. Wilson Observatory, here; Einstein is looking through the eye piece of the 100-inch Hooker telescope.

 

Let’s equip one set of scientists with Hubble’s Law.  Is it, in fact, Law?ak-after: avoid">Let’s equip one set of scientists with Hubble’s Law.  Is it, in fact, Law?

Then we give them the redshift for a galaxy and -- after some quick calculating -- they can immediately conclude their -- believed to be -- “fact” that the galaxy is “r”-million or billion light years away.  

For this group of scientists: What fundamental questions did they NOT ask?  

1.       When Hubble said the word “expanding”, could he have really meant “spreading”?

2.      What’s the difference between the meanings of: spreading, expanding or stretching?

3.       Did he perceive this “expansion” or “spreading” as occurring in just 3 or 4 dimensions?

4.      Is Hubble’s constant – Constant? 

5.      Besides the Doppler effect, did Hubble even consider other causes of redshift?

6.      Did he assume that Euclidean geometry even applied to this universe?

7.      Does…?

Ok, enough questions!

Fine! Let’s save the rest for a later chapter.  For now let’s try answering these questions and see what we might learn:

1. When Hubble said the word “expanding”, could he have really meant “spreading”?

a.      His words say “expanding” whereas, his formulations seem to say “spreading”.
Perhaps it did not occur to Hubble that this distinction made any difference.

2. What’s the difference between the meanings of the words: spreading, expanding or stretching?

a.      SP R  E  A    D     I      N       G:
would mean the galaxies just spread apart, .  .    .
but individually remain the same size.

b.      EX P  A   N    D     I      N       G  :
means that everything naturally grows:
    the gaps between galaxies AND the galaxies themselves,
  AND – more importantly -- the observers observing those galaxies!

c.       ST R  E   T    C     H      I       N        G:
would mean the space-time medium itself, the firmament, was being influenced continually from an external force which would not only result in things getting bigger, but would cause ever increasing tension within the firmament itself.  (This is not the case, but I had to mention it so the reader would, at least, be aware of this distinction.)

3. Did he perceive this “expansion” or “spreading” as occurring in just 3 or 4 dimensions?

a.      Neither! His one dimensional view of the beam of light yielded the correct formulation for a universe spreading in only one dimension! 

b.      From a 3D Euclidian perspective whether “spreading” or “expanding” his distance and velocity formulations are way wrong!     
It’s a question of perspective.   Apparently Hubble and Einstein’s perceptions were both totally immersed in space-time.  Both agreed all observers from any galaxy, “reference frame”, would see the same phenomenon – everything is moving away.  
So what wrong with that?  
A universal law of the mind is: in order to truly understand a problem you must not only grasp its elements and relationships but also need to identify the boundaries in which it exists.  What Hubble and Einstein needed is a “Frame of Reference” that transcends space-time – a mental vantage point outside.  You see even if Hubble considered a universe as expanding at a “constant rate” in just three dimensions – it would be expanding “linearly” in EACH of those three dimensions!  

So for a 3D universe expanding at a constant rate – then when it was half its current age it its size was:[1]

= 86.6% of its current size.

            When a 3D constantly expanding universe was 1/100^th its present age, then its size was:

= 1.73% of its current size

                        Even considering only 3 dimensions this is DEFINITELY NOT a linear relationship. 

Absurd! 

The situation for our 4D universe is even worse for Hubble.  But before we can even talk about the 4^th dimension we need to discuss the geometry and structure of space-time.[2] 

4. Is Hubble’s constant – Constant?  His initial calculations yielded 500 km/s/MPc[3]  Later they blame this huge variance on a type I Cepheid variable stars are younger (2nd  generation, more massive, metal-rich stars in galactic-disks) vs. a type-II Cepheid are dimmer, older (1^st generation) less massive (0.4-0.6 solar masses), metal-poor stars in galactic halos). [4] The IIs are dimmer. Chapter 6 will explain why the younger stars are dimmer?
   Hubble’s constant value is a subject of debate: typically ranging from 50 to 100 km/sec [5] per mega-parsec [6].
5. Besides the Doppler effect, did Hubble or Einstein even consider other causes of redshift?

a.      Apparently, Einstein was still stuck in the mind-set of non-Euclidian geometry meaning, a Euclidian geometry with local dents.  Like a rectangular slab of warm marble with a small round cylinder of dry-ice resting on its surface.  The cold would contract the marble under the dry-ice.  The area immediately surrounding it would also contract with diminishing effect.  But the lukewarm area just further away would be stressed having to stretch to accommodate the local contraction!  A pre-stretched 4D medium with a 3D wave-front expanding from within its depths solves this problem.  Chapter 5 will describe how this was constructed.

6. Did he assume that Euclidean geometry even applied to this universe?
   * Its pretty apparent that he did not consider spherical geometry as a possibility.

b.      Gravitational redshift is another factor, but would only become a significant factor around giant stars, black-holes or other extremely massive or dense concentrations of matter.

c.       The expansion of space-time itself would affect the light in transit to a much greater extent.  Most cosmologists today agree the universe had some point of origin in the past and has been expanding away from ever since.  Space-Time expansion is prime candidate for explaining the redshift.   But, how does one describe the path light takes across expanding space-time?  More hints in Chapter 3 with explanation in Chapter 5.

Wow!  There are more reasons to doubt Hubble’s Law than to believe it. The only thing “constant” about Hubble’s Constant is its constant need for continual revision!  Now they’ve gone as far as inventing “Dark Energy!”   What does it take before someone realizes there’s something basically wrong with common perceptions of space-time?

How dare you question Hubble’s Law!  After all they named a Space Telescope after him.