The cosmology crisis just got even worse (dark energy)

#11
DavidMH Offline
(Sep 19, 2025 12:17 AM)Syne Wrote: So all of science is now wrong and you know better. 9_9

Syne. It certainly looks like the basis of cosmology today is WRONG. 
The problem began when Hubble observed redshift increases with distance from his telescope. 

That was wrongly interpreted as a Doppler effect due to universe expansion. What they should have done is to return to Maxwell for the redshift explanation. 
The constants Maxwell used are the "inertia Aether constants" of electrostatic and magnetic "reluctance" (Faraday).
 
As the light vibrations travel through the "dynamic Aether", the "reluctance" of that Aether slows C.  
As C for the observer MUST be 299792.458 k/s, the light accordingly is redshifted by the required amount 

to preserve the integrity of C at 299792 k/s that the observer sees.

That's why 2MC/Pi^21 = 71 k/s/Mpc ? 

Because C is numerically "fixed" to Ho, Ho CANNOT be used to calculate the age of the universe, ONLY Hubble horizon distance at 13.8 billion years.

Therefore, we do NOT know how old the universe is, and the standard model has to be abandoned.
?
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
You don't think the universe is expanding?
Reply
#13
DavidMH Offline
(Sep 19, 2025 05:31 PM)Syne Wrote: You don't think the universe is expanding?

Syne, From the evidence revealed by the Ho equation, and knowing Maxwell, it looks like the universe is NOT expanding.

Obviously, I cannot be 100% certain, but because the Ho equation separates Ho (by fixing Ho numerically to C) from the

idea Ho's reciprocal represents the age of the universe, and that needs to be abandoned. 

Fred Hoyle's math indicated a non espanding universe.

The interesting point here is Einstein's equations idicated the opposite, so to make Einstein's universe appear static, he had to

insert Aether constants (Einstein's famous blunder) derived from Faraday / Maxwell.

It now looks like Maxwell's Aether constants will have to be re-inserted into Einstein's equations tomake the universe non expanding!!!

These are the cosmological constants that show Faraday / Maxwell's Aether "reluctance", or inertia.
Reply
#14
Syne Offline
Good luck trying to convince anyone that the universe is not expanding.
Reply
#15
DavidMH Offline
(Sep 19, 2025 09:57 PM)Syne Wrote: Good luck trying to convince anyone that the universe is not expanding.

Thanks for that, Syne. 

The challenge for the scientific establishment is to disprove the Ho equation       2MC/Pi^21  =  71

otherwise the "standard model" and universe expansion is totally wrong

So far, no one has disproved the Hoequation, and it's intensely hated by the scientific establishment BIG TIME.

It will be more than interesting when the new super powered "Vera" telescope Ho readings appear on Wiki's "Hubble's Law" page!!!!!

Best regards, dear Syne,    David Hine.
Reply
#16
Syne Offline
"Prove me wrong" is an argument from ignorance, often a hallmark of crackpots.
You're going to need more than luck.
Reply
#17
DavidMH Offline
(Sep 19, 2025 10:52 PM)Syne Wrote: "Prove me wrong" is an argument from ignorance, often a hallmark of crackpots.
You're going to need more than luck.

Hello Syne.

As with all great equations in cosmology, beginning with Maxwell, then Einstein, and now 2MC/Pi^21 = 71 k/s/Mpc

they first meet with extreme hate, BECAUSE previous ideas and "models" have to be abandoned.

Today, establishment physics is in financial crisis BECAUSE it no longer interests the public, due to its unwillingness to take "on board"

new concepts with its "closed shop old boy / young groveller" and extreme stuffy and ARROGANT manner.

Basically establishment science is now a huge waste of Gov. grants and tax payer's and student's cash.

Students will not wish to do cosmology, and turn to aspects of AI and learn AI as GOOGLE apprentices etc..

Meanwhile we wait to see what the new Vera telescope reveals about the numerical value of Ho.

It's possible Vera may never happen, due to cash problems, and today's general lack of public interest issues.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Occam's razor is leading cosmology astray C C 0 62 Oct 5, 2025 07:24 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Will this “naked” black hole finally change cosmology? C C 0 134 Sep 19, 2025 02:34 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Is dark energy no longer a cosmological constant? C C 0 217 Aug 31, 2025 05:07 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research How black holes could nuture life + Is dark energy getting weaker? New evidence for C C 1 621 Mar 20, 2025 07:41 PM
Last Post: stryder
  Model of ET intelligence got it wrong + More than gravity at work in Solar System C C 0 431 Jan 27, 2025 07:03 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research These physicists want to ditch dark energy (Sabine Hossenfelder) C C 2 606 Jan 11, 2025 09:21 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Dark energy: could the "force" seen as constant actually vary over cosmic time? C C 0 421 Oct 12, 2024 05:12 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research The odds that space aliens exist just got worse C C 1 617 Jul 23, 2024 01:48 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Research Mathematicians attempt to glimpse past the Big Bang (cosmology) C C 1 573 Jun 2, 2024 07:12 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Dark energy may be weakening, major astrophysics study finds C C 0 382 Apr 5, 2024 05:40 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)