# Thread: 'event horizon'-caused redshift says: goodbye, Hubble's Law

1. Hubble's Law
Introduction:

What is Hubble's Law?
Scientists consider that the dominant motion in the universe is the smooth expansion known as Hubble's Law.
It can be stated as:

Recessional Velocity of the galaxy= Hubble's constant times distance to the galaxy

V = Ho D
Where:
V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec
H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc
D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc

In other terms, Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation (direct proportionality) between the distance to a galaxy from the Earth and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift.

Please do not forget for any moment that the recessional velocity of the galaxy is measured by the Doppler red shift of the spectral lines of the intended galaxy.
So far, we can simply conclude that unless the measured redshift is completely due to the intended galaxy itself, Hubble's law couldn't be right. Said another way, Hubble's law can turn out to be right if and only if the observed redshift attributed to the intended galaxy is in complete due to the relative motion between the Earth and the intended galaxy itself. Therefore, Hubble's law will turn out to be wrong if the redshift attributed to the intended galaxy is not caused completely by such a relative motion. Expressed in other words, Hubble's law becomes wrong immediately if it is proven that any significant ratio of the redshift of the intended galaxy is due to another agent other than the relative motion.
Really, you still remember that in order to apply Hubble's law (V = Ho D), scientists must measure the redshift of the galaxy so as to determine its recessional velocity with respect to the Earth.
In short, to demonstrate that Hubbe's law is wrong all that we need is to prove that a significant ratio of its redshift is acquired from other sources other than the relative motion. Please let us see that this is the factual situation.

???????

The 'event horizon'-caused redshift must drive scientists to say: goodbye, Hubble's law!

For our purpose which is to show that Hubble's law is not right, it suffices to deal with two probabilities:
(First) The intended galaxy might be in the upper layer of overlapping layers of galaxies which might permit the passage of light when the relative positions of their stars are arranged such that they let a path for the passage of the light from the uppermost galaxy all the way to the outside of the lowermost one. In such a case the light from the same intended galaxy is probably liable to enter an 'event horizon' of one of black holes whether these holes belong to the galaxies themselves or are dispersed among them. Such a light becomes sucked in and will not reach the Earth for ever. But when the light from the intended galaxy passes close to an 'event horizon' of one of the black holes, it inevitably suffers a great amount of the redshift. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.

(Second) The intended galaxy might be at the farthest end of a 'space pipe' such that there are many black holes around the pipe in a manner such the light from the uppermost galaxy might pass close to one or more of the "event horizons' belonging to these black holes whether they belong to the galaxies or are dispersed among them. In such a case the light becomes subjected to be strongly redshfited. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.
Well, such probabilities are real and greatly strong such that they are certainly found in the universe.

So far, as long as the galactic light is subject to an extremely strong probability to pass close to, at least, one of the 'event horizons' spread in its path toward the Earth, it must be immensely redshifted. Taking for granted that the relative motion between the Earth and the galaxy is due to both of the Earth's motions and the galaxy's motions, say its recession from the Earth, the redshift due to such a relative motion cannot at all be competitive to the 'event horizon'-caused redshift the light of the same galaxy might suffer while in its path toward the Earth.

Anyway, unless three redshifts are excluded, Hubble's law cannot be right, at all. These three redshifts are:
1- The gravitational redshift caused by the galaxy itself, especially if it is so massive, or densely compact.
2- The gravitational redshift caused by the gravitational lensing.
3- The 'event horizon'-caused redshift.
However, it is worthwhile mentioning again that whatever the galaxy's redshift due to the relative motion between the Earth and this galaxy itself, it couldn't at all compete with its horizon'-caused redshift.
At last, the 'event horizon'-caused redshift must drive scientists to say: goodbye, Hubble's law!

2.

3. Attiyah, you're creating a lot of new threads- can you please engage a bit more with the threads you've started before creating any more new ones?

4. Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
But when the light from the intended galaxy passes close to an 'event horizon' of one of the black holes, it inevitably suffers a great amount of the redshift. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.
Incorrect. Gravitational redshift only occurs between the source and the detector - any intervening objects have no effect on redshift, as the light is blueshifted on its way into the gravitational well of the mass in question by exactly the same amount as it is redshifted on the way out.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
(Second) The intended galaxy might be at the farthest end of a 'space pipe' such that there are many black holes around the pipe in a manner such the light from the uppermost galaxy might pass close to one or more of the "event horizons' belonging to these black holes whether they belong to the galaxies or are dispersed among them. In such a case the light becomes subjected to be strongly redshfited. As well as, the passage of the light through such overlapping layers of galaxies, especially if they are massive ones, will expose it to a series of gravitational lensing which adds a significant deal of redshift.
Well, such probabilities are real and greatly strong such that they are certainly found in the universe.
Again, light is not redshifted as it passes an area of high gravity, so your second point is as incorrect as the first.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
3- The 'event horizon'-caused redshift.
There is no such thing. Why are you making all this nonsense up? Why do you feel the need to argue against Hubble's Law when it is completely obvious to everyone who understands Hubble's Law that you do not?

I mean, there is no problem in not understanding something as long as you make an attempt to learn, so why not try to learn the real physics before you start arguing against it based on your own lack of education in the subject?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement