Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

Redshift Distance relationship in a non expanding model of the universe

 Redshift/Distance relationship for a Non expanding model

In cosmology redshift is given by the letter z.  The z to wavelength relationship in an expanding model works as follows:

A restframe source emits a wavelength range of 500-1000 nm. At z= 1 it doubles to an observed range of 1000-2000. At z=2 the range is 1500 to 3000. At z=3 the range is redshifted to 2000 to 4000 etc. The distance to the source in an expanding model is explained and given as velocity in km/s. The higher the redshift the faster it is moving away from us and the farther away it is. 

In other words the distance to a source at z=2 in an expanding model is much farther than predicted for a non expanding model because in a non expanding universe the source is not moving away from the observer on earth. So that for instance in a non expanding model a star at z=2 is twice as far away from earth as a star at z=1 is from earth.

Unfortunately to date the best confirmed real actual distance of any star from earth is much less than z=1. Which is z=0.1 to the Virgo cluster. The table below assumes distance X at z=1 is a known actual real distance and not an assumed distance related to velocity, as is the case in a Big Bang universe. 

z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe

z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A

z=3  (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA

z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA

z=15 (8000 to 16000)

z=31 (16000 to 32000)

z=63 (32000 to 64000)

z=127

z=255

z=511

z=1023(ie Microwave)=distance 10xA

Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1 

So far the current available limits of detection in optical are via the JWST mid infrared camera. ( JWST MIR camera range is 5-28 microns. Equivelent to a redshift range of z=9 to z=49)

The big question is...how far away is z=1 in a non expanding model?

That will be hard to quantify as so far only the Virgo cluster at approx z=0.001 has a known real distance. Using various methods like parralax. 

Thus in a non expanding universe the CMBR is explained as redshifted light from galaxies at and around z=1023. That is galaxies at around 10 times the distance from earth as any source observed at a distance where the light is redshifted to z=1.

The average black body spectrum of all the billions of stars in that distance parameter around z=1023 combine to give the observed CMBR. And because at that distance there is still a small variation in distribution of galaxies this also accounts for the slight graininess observed in the COBE CMBR images.

James Webb observations contradict Big Bang Theory predictions

 Getting closer now to the JWST observing galaxies in a new deep field survey that were not predicted explained or even expected from the Big Bang Theory.

But how will the BB theorists get out of admitting their theory and its predictions screwed up (again)?

Brian Cox has led the way for the new revisionist version of BBT and has explained on his BBC religious program “Universe” exactly how the new upcoming JWST data and current data on large scale structures that until now cannot be explained by the BBT, can be made consistent with current dogma.

Apparently Brian and his fellow BBT fantasists are going to pretend the galaxies and large scale structures  that shouldn’t be there in the so called “early universe” predicted by these BBT nutters (and soon to be observed by the JWST) are “echoes” of the previous Big Bang.

And in an extra footnote to the whole BBT hoax here is a quote below from the historical record showing Hubble himself didn’t think redshift was due to expansion. Because in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge having just won the Nobel prize for pretending photons could not lose energy over distance. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

CERN particle Myth

Since the early part of the 20th C theoretical physics has using the standard model, attempted to describe the nature of atoms and light as being particulate. Ignoring the fact that almost all other scientific observations point to radiation being wave only and atoms as being only wave like resonating points in space. The only observation supporting the particle model are the observed "particle like" paths seen in cloud and bubble chambers and particle accelerator collisions. This video shows how the traditional explanation that these paths can only be caused by particles, to be a false assumption. By overlapping only 3 expanding wavefronts in 3 dimensions, all straight,curved, split,spiral,positive and negative paths observed in cloud chambers can be succesfully modeled using overlapping wavefronts only. I have produced a video of my own theoretical model of how particles are “created” in cloud chambers showing digital simulations of 3 expanding wavefronts and how they can recreate most if not all the observed "particle paths" seen in colliders.

  https://youtu.be/uU6VMPeuxRo 

I challenge anyone in the particle physics community: Give me a “particle path” and I’ll show you how it can be made by three overlapping wavefronts. No need for particles. Just as there was no need for an earth centered universe.

James Webb Space Telescope is expected to observe mature galaxy formation in early universe

Looking forward to having the JWST confirm the following observations. That mature galaxies are observed in any new deep field survey of the distant universe. Confounding the current predictions of BB theorists that JWST would confirm their predictions that no early mature galaxy formations would be observed in any new deep field survey conducted by the JWST. Note the theoretical physicists who have to date predicted that the JWST would see no new or early galaxy formation will rapidly make up new excuses to explain the failure of the BB model and its predictions. They will say...that they had predicted these galaxies in the early universe!! My guess is they will invoke "distortion of time itself in the early era of the Big Bang universe " to explain why the JWST observed mature galaxies where none were predicted previously by the BBT. Separate to this is my expectation that the JWST will also observe what I predicted on this blog for a decade and more and also as far back as 2001 on my www.gammarayburst.com webpage. That in the near and far infrared the delay in peak flux of gammarayburst afterglows will occur later and in longer wavelengths. A delay that will be Proportional to wavelength. The same wavelength/time delay relationship as seen in current observed Fast radio burst(FRB)decays in radio. Described currently on the wiki FRB page as: "The component frequencies of each burst are delayed by different amounts of time depending on the wavelength". In 2001 I described this expected delay as "proportional to wavelength". I expect this wavelength/delay in peak flux of GRB afterglows to be observed by JWST whenever it finally comes online later this year Why do I say this? Because the literature on the JWST suggests that it can observe multiple points simultaneously in its field of view at any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum within near and far infrared wavelengths. I assume this means the programmers of the JWST can observe GRB afterglows, if they feel inclined, in multiple wavelength observations from the *SAME* point in the sky simultaneously in different parts of the near and far infrared emr spectrum. My prediction is if they do make these observations of GRB afterglows they will not only confirm my models predictions, but also not be consistent with current established theory. Nor will they be able to explain these observations without admitting that their theoretical assumptions of a constant speed of light in all frames has been proved incorrect.

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.