Paul LaViolette is the first to definitively disprove the expanding universe hypothesis by comparing its performance against the tired-light alternative using multiple sets of cosmological test data.
Like other astrophysicists, Paul LaViolette once took the big bang theory on faith to be an accepted established fact. However, in 1978 he came to a juncture in which he had to know for sure whether the expanding universe hypothesis was really correct, or not. During the previous five years, he had been developing a unified field theory called subquantum kinetics whose aim was to explain the formation of material subatomic particles and by 1978 he had made an advance in this theory which indicated that for the theory to be correct photons would necessarily have to lose energy as they traveled through intergalactic space, with this lost energy actually disappearing in a real sense from being present in the observable material universe. In effect, his theory predicted the existence of a nonconservative “tired-light” cosmological redshift. This launched his investigation into astronomy, whereupon he discovered that about 80 years ago, at the time Hubble published his famous 1929 paper on the galaxy redshifts, some astronomers had been proposing a similar type of energy loss phenomenon as an interpretation of the galaxy redshift phenomenon. In fact, the German physicist Walther von Nernst had proposed the existence of such an effect over a decade before the expanding universe concept was advanced. So in 1978 LaViolette set out to establish whether observational data favored the tired-light model.
Studying the published literature he discovered that, for the most part, previous studies compared the expanding universe hypothesis and its velocity-redshift interpretation against just one set of cosmological test data. The resulting discrepancy between the expansion prediction and the observational data trend was routinely eliminated either by adjusting the assumptions of the expansion model (e.g., introducing ad hoc assumptions about the amount of mass density or hidden mass that might be present in the universe) or by introducing “evolutionary corrections” into the model (e.g., ad hoc assumptions about the way galaxy luminosity or galaxy cluster size might evolve with time). In other words cosmologists routinely forced their theoretical prediction to fit the data. Most scientists would consider this a despicable practice, but somehow it was allowed in the field of cosmology since the ruling majority considered the big bang theory already to be an established fact. Usually these studies did not plot the alternative to the big bang cosmology, such as the tired-light model, being already convinced that the expanding universe model was the only reasonable choice. In a few cases the tired-light model was included for comparison, but this comparison was made on only one cosmological test; i.e., with one set of observational data. There were no studies that compared the competing cosmologies on a variety of different tests.
To be sure of his conclusions, LaViolette wanted to test this tired-light prediction utilizing many different kinds of cosmology tests, not just one. He used four different types of cosmological tests in his comparison. Indeed, if a cosmology were truly correct, it should be found to fit well to a variety of different cosmology tests without individually tailoring the cosmology to fit each set of test data. If, on the other hand, one wished resort to introducing evolutionary corrections or model assumptions into a given cosmology to improve its fit on one cosmological test, then these same model adjustments should be consistently applied to the model to judge its fit on the other cosmological tests as well. More often than not, evolutionary corrections introduced in the hope of improving the expanding universe cosmology’s fit on one test ended up worsening its fit on another. So LaViolette felt that the best approach was to entirely avoid making evolutionary corrections and instead compare the “no-evolution” version of each competing cosmology against each of various data sets. The cosmology that consistently came closer to the data trends would be the winner. Such a cosmology testing technique had never been tried before. In his investigation, LaViolette found that the stationary universe tired-light model consistently fit the data better than the big bang expanding universe model.
Next Page: Paul LaViolette is the first to definitively disprove the expanding universe hypothesis, continued
Starburst relies on donations and bequests from the general public, charitable institutions, and the business community. Every contribution helps.