Actually … Whatever can be imagined is possible. But there are two kinds of imaginations. First is simply imagining a unique unreal object like smiling sun or golden apple. Both these entities are capable to be imagined. And yes .. it is not impossible that any real golden apple or real smiling sun should exist in any unidentified world.

So principle is whatever is not impossible is possible. But it does not mean whatever is not impossible is real.

Only thing real is that real toys of golden mountain and flying horse can be made. Nature does not form new things on the basis of possibility of imagination. Only artificial things are made on the basis of their possibility of imagination.

Second type of imagination is even more wild. It is real Pink Panther world where you can capture sun into your bag and can travel to other galaxies in few seconds. These things are NOT possible in reality even in the form of toys but do are possible in the form of animation series. Even mathematics also can represent those animations. But these things cannot be real in any parallel world.

According to ‘FLRW metric’ expansion of space is taking place all the time everywhere. If 1 mm distance is becoming 2 mm in 1 billion years then 2 mm is becoming 4 mm in same 1 billion year and so on. Every length of space has to become double in same 1 billion years.

Image Credit: NASA

So it is like Big Bang of creation of empty space taking place right now – everywhere. Nothing solid is being created by this everyday-everywhere happening Big Bang. However solid things are getting distant apart due to this all the time everywhere happening Big Bang.

And we are told that this is science. Failure to rightly explain cosmological redshifts has resulted in this non-sense Physics. This is really possible only in balloon surface like expansion where every point of surface keeps on expanding. But balloon is expanded due to continuous application of pumping action or force whereas in Big Bang Model, it is said that only the original one time pumping action is still doing its work. It cannot be argued that current expansion is the inertial motion generated by original one time Big Bang because it is not one time thing. This ‘Big Bang’ is taking place all the time – even now.

This type of Big Bang is all the time creating only ‘new empty space’. We should conclude that matter was never created by Big Bang. Matter existed already. Big Bang could only create ‘space’ and even now doing only the same. Given that Universe existed prior to Big Bang, the Big Bang only started ‘expansion’. Before start of Big Bang, it was a static universe. After stoppage of ongoing Big Bang, universe shall be again static.

For the further in-depth analysis, please read free PDF book A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

Edwin Hubble DID NOT say that Universe is expanding.

Still from Hubblecast episode 89: Edwin Hubble
Credit: NASA & ESA

Let us see what he actually said in year 1929. Following is link to his original 1929 paper:

A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae

Title of the paper is: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.”

Here “radial velocity” means “redshift”.

From 1912 onwards, scientists had been noticing redshifts in far off galaxies (then thought of spiral nebulae). Naturally by that time those redshifts were interpreted in terms of Doppler’s Effect. Due to Doppler’s interpretation, those redshifts were also called “radial velocities”.

Here in the title of his paper, Hubble has used common term “radial velocity” for “redshift”.

But to determine what he actually wants to say, we must very carefully study the first paragraph of 1929 paper. Following is the first paragraph:

“Determinations of the motion of the sun with respect to the extra-galactic nebulae have involved a K term of several hundred kilometers which appears to be variable. Explanations of this paradox have been sought in a correlation between apparent radial velocities and distances, but so far the results have not been convincing. The present paper is a re-examination of the question, based on only those nebular distances which are believed to be fairly reliable.”

Here it is also true that he starts his paper with sentence “Determinations of the motion of the sun with respect to the extra-galactic nebulae”.

But … in the very first paragraph … he is pointing something perplexing for which he is using word ‘paradox’ and after pointing out this ‘paradox’, now he is using term apparent velocities instead of velocities.

Following is relevant sentence in the first paragraph:

“Explanations of this paradox have been sought in a correlation between apparent radial velocities and distances, but so far the results have not been convincing.”

Here is the point. In Doppler’s Shift, there is no redshift-distance relationship but what Hubble was observing was a redshift-distance relationship. Therefore with this paper, he was seeking explanations for this ‘paradox’.

From whom he was seeking explanation?

He wrote this question in a public paper so he asked it from wise community. But he asked for this explanation from particular people of his choice also. Furthermore, he has skeptically concluded this paper with following words:

“In the de Sitter cosmology, displacements of the spectra arise from two sources, an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter. The latter involves an acceleration and hence introduces the element of time. The relative importance of these two effects should determine the form of the relation between distances and observed velocities; and in this connection it may be emphasized that the linear relation found in the present discussion is a first approximation representing a restricted range in distance.”

In the letter to de-Sitter, he writes:

“Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term ‘apparent’ velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority.[i]”

Thus ‘apparently’ redshifts seemed like velocities but for Hubble, the actual interpretation of redshifts was unresolved question. With this, he actually rightly recognized the fact that redshift involved in extra galactic nebulae was of a different kind than to the usual Doppler’s Shift.

With his 1929 paper, Hubble not only did not suggest ‘expansion of universe’, he also almost denied that meaning of ‘redshifts’ was ‘velocities’. He used term ‘apparent velocities’ and he even looked for such reasons of redshift as apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter.

The usage of term ‘apparent’ for velocities and then looking for explanation of redshifts in such reasons as apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter indicates that for Edwin Hubble, ‘velocities’ was not the final meaning for redshifts. The term ‘apparent’ points to the determination of meaning of redshifts as indeterminate.

But soon Robertson and Walker were going to give him an undue gift of literal meaning of ‘apparent velocities’. FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker) was declared to be the only possible interpretation of cosmological redshifts. In this so-called metric, ‘apparent velocities’ of galaxies literally became ‘apparent velocities’ such that there was no actual velocity but ‘space’ was expanding thus galaxies were ‘apparently’ receding away from our solar system.

Whatever FLRW metric says but point of this blog post is only to show that Edwin Hubble himself did not suggest expansion of universe and neither did he took redshifts of galaxies as actual receding velocities of those galaxies.

After having seen what Hubble exactly told us in year 1929, now we should guess the level of misinformation in general public about Hubble’s finding when NASA itself is also gravely misinformed. Following is a quote from NASA website:


“The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein’s General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.”

For heaven’s sake NASA – Hubble DID NOT say that galaxies are ‘moving away’. At the most he said that galaxies are APPARENTLY moving away.

In year 1936, Edwin Hubble clearly stated following in his book “Realm of the Nebulae”:

And … he reached to final conclusion by the end of year 1941 where he clearly stated that observations are actually showing a static universe.

For details, Please read free PDF complete book A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory 


[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

It is supposed that dark matter is the source of extra gravity which cannot be traced to detectable sources. Fact is however that there is no extra gravity at all. Scientists applied irrelevant Newton’s Theorem XXXI to the galactic rotations and observed that actual effect of gravity was greater than what could be calculated using Theorem XXXI.

But Theorem XXXI was applicable to systems like solar system or planet moon systems. For the galactic settings, Newton had another Theorem XXXIII and scientists terribly missed to apply the actually relevant Theorem. In case Theorem XXXIII is applied, then calculated gravity would reasonably tally with observed gravity and there will be no need of dark matter. And it is to be noted that Theorems XXXI and XXXIII are different variations of Shell Theorem. [i]

[i] https://zenodo.org/record/3530781#.XdalQ9UzbIU

‘Thinking’ is chain of abstract ideas that may proceed without accompanying ongoing perception of relevant real stuff to which that chain refers.

‘Remembering’ may not be totally abstract. For example one real entity is currently perceived and associated things are ‘remembered’.

For example let’s say I am not thinking at all. I just see an old class fellow and suddenly ‘remember’ many associated things of old class life like daily routine of that time and other class fellows.

Animals do remember their stuff in this way. For example an animal has reached to a turn in its usual path or route. Now that animal, while physically perceiving the turn, ‘remembers’ which side to take turn.

Yes it is possible that simplistic logical thought be misleading. But complex mathematical thought also can be misleading. Following is reliable for me however:

  • Start from observation/ observed facts.
  • Simplistic logical thought.
  • Internally consistent.
  • Does not defy observations.
  • Free from twisted logic.

Simplistic logical thought that starts not from observations but from larger ideas or theories about reality are not reliable. Examples …

  • Universe is finite having radius R >>> interpretion of observed redshifts.
  • Universe is moving at speed of light >>> observed data tallies with my theory.
  • Universe started from xyz waves >>> everything gets explained.

Science has progressed because Sir Humphry Davy did not believe in degrees and duly and rightfully offered job of Laboratory Assistant to Michael Faraday who had the relevant talent despite not having formal education.

Britannica – Michael Faraday

James Clerk Maxwell is Maxwell because he humbly and passionately listened to Faraday despite Faraday not having relevant degree. Maxwell is Maxwell because he did not refuse to listen to Faraday by calling him crank.

This online source is confirming my stance that scientists had actually applied Newton’s Theorem XXXI to the Galactic Rotation Problem.

Above source is criticizing that scientists should not have modeled gravity of galaxy like that (i.e. like Theorem XXXI). However this source has not reached to the point of Theorem XXXIII.

My book Philosophy Unscrambles Dark Matter has pointed out that Scientists should have applied Newton’s Theorem XXXIII to galactic rotation problem but they had applied irrelevant Theorem XXXI which was applicable to solar system and that’s why scientists were wrongfully expecting “Keplerian drop-off” from galactic rotations.

Here is the free complete section of book that explains that actually applicable Theorem was XXXIII that naturally gives flat rotation curves for galaxies.