Thread: Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

Were Hubble's law right, it should, at least, satisfy the following twelve conditions:

1- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel at the same instant.
2- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding travel from at the same distance from the Earth.
3- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel while they were positioned stationary.
4- To prove that all the galaxies didn’t suffer any stopping whatever its cause.
5- To prove that all galaxies began their cosmological travel while having the same luminosity.
6- To prove that all the galaxies began their travel while having the same density.
7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies.
8- To prove that the recent distance of any galaxy is purely a result of recession. In other words, to prove that any galaxy as a whole doesn’t experience any translational motion save the recessional one.
9- To prove that the rate of the expansion of any galaxy is time independent.
10- To prove that the galaxies of equal masses are still at the same distance.
11- To prove that there is no any other shift affecting the Doppler shift.
12- Showing that it could be applied to all the galaxies irrespective of their distance from the Earth.

Anyway, there are no evidence for proving any condition of the twelve. Therefore, Hubble's law is wrong

Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.

Please take condition #7:
"7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies."
Hubble's law considers thar all galaxies are red-shift showing. However, there are blueshift-showing galaxies. So, where is the law? ow such galaxies can show that the universe is expanding?

Attiyah,
you have already posted this in slightly longer form in the forum. My remarks there still stand (and speedfreak has said much the same thing in this thread). Here are my comments a second time:

You seem to have two mistaken ideas.

Hubbles Law is an observational statement. It does not claim that all galaxies have a particular behaviour. It states the majority of galaxies are receding and that there distance is propotional to their rate of recession. Each of your challenges involves a misinterpretation of what Hubble's Law says: you are arguing against a strawman.

Science does not prove anything, so your demand that any scientific law should prove something is meaningless and reveals a profound ignorance of the philosopy of science.

Please address these two points before indulging in the posting of further nonsense. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Attiyah,
you have already posted this in slightly longer form in the forum. My remarks there still stand (and speedfreak has said much the same thing in this thread). Here are my comments a second time:

You seem to have two mistaken ideas.

Hubbles Law is an observational statement. It does not claim that all galaxies have a particular behaviour. It states the majority of galaxies are receding and that there distance is propotional to their rate of recession. Each of your challenges involves a misinterpretation of what Hubble's Law says: you are arguing against a strawman.

Science does not prove anything, so your demand that any scientific law should prove something is meaningless and reveals a profound ignorance of the philosopy of science.

Please address these two points before indulging in the posting of further nonsense. Thank you.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Attiy...%27-29573t.php

Your link to more word salad fails completely to address either of my points. This is a discussion forum. Please start dicussing.

If Hubble's "law" is correct, that means there must be a lot more matter in the universe to cause the acceleration. We can't see or measure that matter so it must be dark mysterious matter. Hmm. Something is rotten in Denmark.

No, a lot more matter would slow the expansion through gravity, rather than accelerate it. The term you are looking for is dark energy, which seems to act like a cosmological constant.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Were Hubble's law right, it should, at least, satisfy the following twelve conditions:

1- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel at the same instant.
2- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding travel from at the same distance from the Earth.
3- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel while they were positioned stationary.
4- To prove that all the galaxies didn’t suffer any stopping whatever its cause.
5- To prove that all galaxies began their cosmological travel while having the same luminosity.
6- To prove that all the galaxies began their travel while having the same density.
7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies.
8- To prove that the recent distance of any galaxy is purely a result of recession. In other words, to prove that any galaxy as a whole doesn’t experience any translational motion save the recessional one.
9- To prove that the rate of the expansion of any galaxy is time independent.
10- To prove that the galaxies of equal masses are still at the same distance.
11- To prove that there is no any other shift affecting the Doppler shift.
12- Showing that it could be applied to all the galaxies irrespective of their distance from the Earth.

Anyway, there are no evidence for proving any condition of the twelve. Therefore, Hubble's law is wrong

Basically word salad, nonsense at best.
Why are you going on about galaxies traveling ? Most of the above mentioned effects are due to metric expansion of space, and have little or nothing to do with the movements of the galaxies themselves. I suppose that only goes to show how little you know about astronomy and cosmology.

Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

It's not, you just don't understand it.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.

Please take condition #7:
"7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies."
Hubble's law considers thar all galaxies are red-shift showing.

No, it doesn't. Hubble's Law only really kicks in for galaxies outside of our local group, this is because the galaxies in our local group are gravitationally bound to each other and this overrides any expansion of the universe. Outside of our local group, you might have a galaxy or two that happens to have a large peculiar velocity towards us that is greater than the Hubble recession velocity leaving you with a net blue-shift. The further the galaxies are away the larger chance of this happening becomes less and less as the recessional velocity increases.

However, there are blueshift-showing galaxies. So, where is the law? ow such galaxies can show that the universe is expanding?

The only way that that this could be evidence against Hubble expansion would be if the Number of blueshift galaxies did not fall off with distance. If we saw just as many blue shift galaxies far away as we did close by, then you would have an argument. How ever we don't, we only see Blue shift galaxies relatively close by and at further distances see none at all.

Google this guy. If this thread follows the same pattern as his others, we're headed for the trash bin at warp speed.

Originally Posted by tk421

Google this guy. If this thread follows the same pattern as his others, we're headed for the trash bin at warp speed.

Warp 9.5