## How far must they go to keep a gravitational model based on general relativity?

Are the measurements of the tiny tiny variations in what was originally predicted to be uniform cosmic microwave background radiation truly reliable enough to support a gravitational model of cosmology based on the general theory of relativity? The notion advanced by Stephen Hawking is that the tiny variations are from tiny tiny beginnings of the formations produced eventually after the Big Bang, as he said, by gravitational attraction.

To maintain a gravitational model based on the general theory of relativity, proponents have actually theorized that the outer cosmos is accelerating outward, the speed of receding galaxies now having reached a rate faster than the speed of light! And now it turns out that the general theory of relativity is based on self-contradicting non-Euclidean geometry. Why this flaw was overlooked is related in my book, *Back to the Metriscape.* The flaw itself you can understand even if your math education advanced only through high school geometry.

Why the non-Euclidean geometry is self-contradicting is explained in short order in a brief Facebook Note, that explains how general relativity lost its coordinates:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/when-is-an-assertion-about-coordinates-merely-an-assertionan-unsupported-asserti/789731027746140.

It is explained further in the Facebook Note, The Problem With Non-Euclidean Geometry…https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/the-problem-with-non-euclidean-geometry-or-the-lite-triangle-axiom-part-two/541137095938869.

Edwin Hubble hypothesized that there was a correlation between the “red shift” of light coming from stars and the speed at which the stars are receding, 'red shift' meaning a downward shift in the light frequency detected from the stars. In 1942 Hubble had said:

[R]apid recession of a star drags out and lengthens the light waves, and the spectral lines are seen to the red of their normal positions.

The amount of these displacements (they are called Doppler shifts) indicate the velocities of the stars in the line of sight. If the wavelengths are altered by a certain fraction of the normal wavelengths, the star is moving at a velocity which is that same faction of the velocity of light.

As for Hubble's reference to the red shift in light frequency as a Doppler shift, such a Doppler shift would be a light frequency drop proposed to be analogous to how the pitch from the sound of a passing train or emergency vehicle is heard to drop (a drop in the sound frequency) when the vehicle has suddenly passed nearby and is rapidly moving away. However, using red shift measurements to fix the speed of receding galaxies employing the Doppler explanation ran into trouble in the early half and mid 20th century; it produced velocities for the outer stars well in excess of the speed of light. So the speeds were modified with a relativistic reduction to eliminate these aberrations, which was seen as a confirmation of Einstein’s relativistic concepts.

**Doppler bites the dust**

Previous to some, not all, of the work that culminated in a 2011 Nobel Prize award, the brightness of type 1a supernovae at relatively closer distances than those of later Nobel observations were too dim to support Hubble’s ‘red shift’/speed correlation, even after a relativistic reduction. (Too dim implies they would be further away than a ‘red shift’ speed correlation would predict.) Some predicted that some kind of dust or material in space, between us and the star, possibly surrounding the star, made the starlight dimmer. Arguments were made against the "dust" explanation, but it held on as a minority view. Then Adam Riess, one of the Nobel recipients, found a supernovae at far distance, i.e. a lot of ‘red shift’, that was too bright for the ‘red shift’/speed correlation (it should have been dimmer if farther away, given larger ‘red shift’), but this was one item. Then by 2003 he had found at least 10 too bright. This eliminated the “dust” explanation, and the ‘red shift’/speed correlation was falling apart.

The acceptance of the relativistic doppler explanation for a ‘red shift’/speed correlation suffered most from the faltering ‘red shift’/speed correlation, although Brian Schmidt seemed to give the Doppler concept currency in his lecture. Many scientists including the Nobel recipients adopted, instead of relativistic doppler, the space-time stretching explanation for red shift that had been proposed by George LeMaitre according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

**The surviving Hubble law**

At the same time Hubble proposed the red shift as a Doppler shift, he also allowed, as he had early on, that the altered wavelengths could be from space-time alteration according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Hubble's law is one of the pillars of the Big Bang theory, a theory which employs a gravitational cosmological model based on Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Hubble’s surviving law, however, is that the relative distance away of a star on average correlates to the red shift of light from the star.

It was very disappointing to see Brian Schmidt, in his Nobel Prize lecture, fail to acknowledge the contribution of Henrietta Swan Leavitt in the discovery of the ‘red shift’ correlation to relative distance. Schmidt said in his lecture that Hubble just assumed that the stars that he examined had the same intrinsic brightness from which he was able to find a correlation between ‘red shift’ and brightness, i.e. larger ‘red shift’ correlated to dimmer light, which, given the same intrinsic brightness, implied light coming from a greater distance. On the contrary, Hubble didn’t just assume the same intrinsic brightness; he was able to find the intrinsic brightness based on the period luminosity relationship of Cepheid variable stars, painstakingly worked out by Henrietta Leavitt. (Hubble may have assumed the intrinsic brightness for broad groups in woking out statistical correlations, but this was undergirded by the work of Henrietta Leavitt.)

**The Big Bang’s Second Pillar**

Closely related to the estimates of the ages of galaxy formation and of the universe itself according to the received versions of the red shift theory, is the Big Bang theory. It is said that cosmic microwave background radiation, detected in the 1960's coming from every direction uniformly, established the Big Bang theory of George Gamow over Fred Hoyle's steady state theory.

“Big bang” was the striking description of Gamow’s theory given by Hoyle in opposition on BBC radio in 1950, which became the label that identified the accepted model for modern cosmology. Hoyle’s complaint may not have been totally wrong, however. There never seemed to be an explanation of how Cosmic Microwave Background radiation came uniformly from every direction EXACTLY from a “bang,” and how this would support a gravitational model. Well, Stephen Hawking produced an answer in his new book in which he described the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. He said there are tiny tiny variations in what had previously appeared to be uniform background radiation, and these are from tiny tiny beginnings of the formations produced eventually after the big bang, he said, by gravitational attraction. What this doesn't really explain is how the force of gravity, tiny tiny compared to electric and magnetic force, could form galaxies out of matter that was in a plasma state (plasma being a state of matter in which its atomic parts are not in stable form–like inside a lightning bolt) said to be prevalent at the very beginning.

So where have the measurements of the CMBR, and red shift, and the theory of general relativity brought us? These statements were made in a public lecture by Andrew Lang, chair at Cal Tech:

We have now constrained the spectrum [of the CMBR curve] with much higher precision. …

So what have we learned from this? … We get an age … [the universe] … We now can tell you it is 13.7 billion years old. …

The amount of ordinary matter in the universe, atoms etc., is in fact only about four and a half percent. … 95 and some odd percent of it is made of other stuff. The other stuff comes in two different flavors.

23 percent of the total is some form of cold dark matter. …

And then the really disturbing thing is, because this is something we can grasp, over two thirds of the matter and energy in the universe is in the form of something called dark energy, which is a technical term which we use to encapsulate our ignorance of it. Dark energy has the remarkable property discovered, as I’ill say in a moment, before these measurements were made, that it is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, every day. So we knew about dark energy before the CMB results, and we knew about that thanks to the work of Saul Perlmutter [one of the 2011 Nobel prize recipients]. … By looking at the brightness in the red shift of very distant supernovae … Saul and his colleagues set out to measure the deceleration of the expansion. It is an old question in cosmology. The universe is expanding but we know that there is gravity acting between the galaxies so it must every day be gradually decelerating. … If we could measure how quickly it was decelerating, we would measure all the mass of the universe. It is a brilliant technique. And the most wonderful thing happened. Saul and his group went out and discovered that it [the expansion of the cosmos] wasn't decelerating at all; it was accelerating. And we don't really understand that, at least I don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_4bMIqmV9U

This is what Roger Penrose said about dark energy in a radio interview by Ira Flatow on Science Friday, May, 2014:

IRA FLATOW: Do you think we'll discover ever what the dark energy is? or where it comes from?

ROGER PENROSE: Well, you see, I think we know what it is; it's the cosmological constant.

FLATOW: "We know."

PENROSE: Now, you see, what we don't know is why it has a particular value.

FLATOW: Well does it have a particle attached to it?

PENROSE: No. No, not dark energy.

FLATOW: "No."

PENROSE: No. Its just a number. Thats all it is.

FLATOW: You say mathematical fiction that we use to explain something that we don't know.

PENROSE: Its just a determinate equation. I mean I think that's …

FLATOW: But it has no real …

PENROSE: the wrong way of looking at it, to look for a particle or something like that. A lot of people do that.

FLATOW: Is it real or is it not or is it just a number in math?

PENROSE: It's real.

FLATOW: "It's real."

PENROSE: Yes, sure.

To understand more, see the Facebook Note, Where 20th Century Physicists and Cosmologists Went Wrong,

https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/where-20th-century-physicists-and-cosmologists-went-wrong/1025038640882043

Next is more about the CMBR.

Next is more about the CMBR.

For satellite developments of the CMBR first let’s consult Wikipedia, but how right was Wikipedia? From Wikipedia:

The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), also referred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to cosmology. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and provide measurements that would help shape our understanding of the cosmos.’

This work provided evidence that supported the Big Bang theory of the universe: that the CMB was a near-perfect black-body spectrum and that it had very faint anisotropies.

Fred Hoyle used to open the science conference he chaired with the statement, We are in a fog. He was referring to the microwave radiation first detected by Penzias and Wilson dubbed the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

Its detection led to a scientific consensus that rejected Hoyle’s steady state theory in favor of the cosmological theory he labeled in opposition on BBC radio, the “Big Bang.” I wonder if he had in mind that after first detecting the microwaves which they identified as the CMB, they did not subtract out microwaves from water or water vapor that would have originated from the earth, and so he called it a fog. Or did he just see it as a mysterious “fog” coming from where to where?

But Hoyle hadn’t seen anything yet. The proponents that the outer cosmos is accelerating outward, the speed of receding galaxies now having supposedly reached a rate faster than the speed of light, to maintain a gravitational model based on the general theory of relativity, in effect threw the Doppler analysis of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite science team under the bus. They threw it under the bus because the COBE scientists interpreted the CMB radiation that COBE detected as Doppler shifted spectrum from the primeval surface from which it originated, and this means they interpreted the spectrum according to Edwin Hubble's abandoned Doppler red shift-speed correlation hypothesis. So what does this mean the proponents of universe acceleration did with the COBE scientists' Fourier transforms and their CMB curve fitting? It means they dumped it right in the shredder.

This undermined the foundation of subsequent satellite based analysis, which, though applicable to microwave radiation sufficiently out of range from that originating from earth, depended on the original COBE satellite data record of the basic CMB spectrum (called the COBE monopole signal). And the proponents’ accelerating universe theory is based on self-contradicting non-Euclidean geometry! Now that’s a fog.

So, to repeat the question, Are the measurements of the tiny tiny variations in what was originally predicted to be uniform cosmic microwave background radiation truly reliable enough to support a gravitational model of cosmology based on the general theory of relativity with the notion advanced by Stephen Hawking that the tiny variations are from tiny tiny beginnings of the formations produced eventually after the Big Bang, as he said, by gravitational attraction?