In this post I will focus on presenting overwhelming evidence against the theory of the Hubble law.
Many prominent scientists rejected the idea of the big bang when it was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest, in 1927. Notably,
these scientists included Einstein himself. Lemaitre's intent with his theory was to find a way to tie science and theology together for the
betterment of man. The defining piece of evidence that finally led scientists such as Einstein to change their minds and accept Lemaitre's proposed
theory of a big bang was an astronomical finding by a man named Edwin Hubble.
Hubble made what amounted to the finding of the century. When looking at the spectrum of light coming from distant galaxies, Hubble found that
absorption lines in the spectrum of galaxies were red shifted in accordance with their luminosity. When you take a piece of light and break it down
into its spectrum with a prism, you will see faint dark lines in the spectrum. These lines are called absorption lines, because elements in the light
absorb certain frequencies of light blocking them from view.
An example of red shifting absorption lines:
What Hubble found was that if you plotted the location of these dark lines in the spectrum of light coming from galaxies, the further to the red end
of the spectrum the lines fell, the dimmer the galaxy was observed to be. This red shifting of light lead Hubble to conclude that red shift was a
function of distance. This function of distance could be explained by something called the Doppler effect which postulates the faster something is
moving away from us the more red shifted its light will be. This idea matched nicely with Lemaitre's idea of expanding space and the Big Bang.
A plot of galaxies red shift compared to their luminosity:
Enter Quasars
At the time Hubble made his findings, quasars were not known to exist. Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, are dim point like objects we see in space
that have HUGE red shifts. According to standard theory, this means they must be on the edge of the observable universe and output extraordinary
amounts of energy for them to be visible. Why are quasars so important?
Because their red shift does NOT correlate to their observed luminosity
(brightness). In fact, Fred Hoyle (famous astronomer) commented that had Hubble first seen the plots for quasars instead of galaxies, he never
would have concluded that red shift was a function of velocity (distance).
A plot of quasars red shift compared to their luminosity:
The finding of quasars caused a stir among cosmologists. They weren't quite sure what to make of these objects, but they had already done so much
work involving Hilbert's black holes and Lemaitre's ideas of expanding space that rather than scrapping the big bang, they formulated hypothetical
theories of ultra-massive black holes spewing out more energy than millions of Milky Way galaxies combined. They had simply put too much effort in to
the assumption of expanding space to give it up.
There is actually a tremendous body of work out there observationally falsifying red shift as a function of distance if one chooses to look for it,
however these findings are simply dismissed and ignored by mainstream cosmologists.
Red Shift != Distance
More to follow.