- 3

- 1

- Summary
- In computing Hubble's constant, discords arise. But no serious doubt on Hubble's Law yet. What if Hubble's Law is a special of a different Law and Doppler's Redshift is not a major redeshift?

Since Hubble's Law has been around a long time, so, after almost 100 years, to challenge its validity looks like dumb and stupid. So let me be that

dumb guy, or maybe the bad boy that spoils the whole thing.

Here let me start with the Redshift in general. There are three Redshifts proposed till this date: 1. Doppler Redshift; 2. Cosmologic Redshift; 3. Gravitational Redshift.

1. Let's consider the Gravitational Redhsift. First of all, Grevitational Redshift is very small. Secondly, when photon leaves the gravitational field,

what is going to happen? Won't its frequency be restored back to before? If that's the case, when we observe light from stars and when photon reaches Earth, the greatest gravity it endures is the gravity of Earth which has negligible gravitational redshift. And won't the gravitational effect of the emitting star has stronger gravitation than Earth?

So, for most observations (stars not near black holes), gravitational redshift may be ignored.

2. As for Cosmologic Redshift, first of all, it is based on the assumption that Universe is expanding. But how do we know it is expanding (I mean by observational facts, not by theories like general relativity)? From Hubble's Law. Now if Hubble's Law is an incorrect interpretation of the observationnal redshift data, then the major evidencial support of Universe Expansion may be gone. I know this is a big claim and I may be blundered, but this is the whole point I am going to make later in this post.

Secondly, if Cosmologic Redshift indeed is a major contributor to the redshift values observed, won't the Cosmologic Redshift has a single value

for all stars (otherwise how can you have a Hubble's Law)? And won't the Cosmologic Redshift be istropical (same along different directions)?

But we observed redshifts of value from 5.2, all the way to 1809. How can a single Cosmologic Redshift explain this?

3. Now let's come to the Doppler's Redshift. This Redshift for a star moving along line of sight is given by

Z = Sqrt ((1 + v/c )/ (1- v/c)) - 1 , (1)

Now, with v = 0.1c, it gives only a redshift of Z = 0.1055, and for a star speed v = 0.6c,

it gives only a redshift of Z = 1. A speed of 0.6c is enormously fast for any star! Too fast to be reasonable.

According to this article:

https://www.newsweek.com/hypervelocity- ... tar-631870

The fastest speed of an observed star in our Milkway (out of Milkway it is difficult to record speed directly,

I guess) is 2x10^6 miles per hour, or 3.2x10^6 km/H, or 8.89x10^3 km/s, which is barely 0.0296c, where c is the light speed.

This would mean, for redshifts that are larger than 5, Doppler Redshift cannot be the major contributor of the redshift values

astronomers observed, otherwise the speed of the stars have to be >0.99999c. That's too fast to be true.

To my understanding, in deriving Hubble's Law, there are two assumptions:

(1) The redshift is mainly due to Doppler Redshift;

(2) the velocity of the star is small such that v = c Z.

Now, as we have shown above, for a v = 0.1c, the redshift value from Doppler Redshift is only 0.1055,

far less than most redshift values observed (from 5.2 to 1809). This would mean, Doppler Redshift cannot explain large redshift values. As such, Hubble's Law cannot be applied to large redshift values as well, in addition to the fact that it cannot be applied to fast moving stars (due to the non-relativisitic assumption v = cZ).

So I hope the discuss above are meaningful. If I missed anything, please correct me. I'll continue a little later. If the above discussions are nonsenses, then I may have goofed somewhere, then there is no need to continue to waste people's time.

dumb guy, or maybe the bad boy that spoils the whole thing.

Here let me start with the Redshift in general. There are three Redshifts proposed till this date: 1. Doppler Redshift; 2. Cosmologic Redshift; 3. Gravitational Redshift.

1. Let's consider the Gravitational Redhsift. First of all, Grevitational Redshift is very small. Secondly, when photon leaves the gravitational field,

what is going to happen? Won't its frequency be restored back to before? If that's the case, when we observe light from stars and when photon reaches Earth, the greatest gravity it endures is the gravity of Earth which has negligible gravitational redshift. And won't the gravitational effect of the emitting star has stronger gravitation than Earth?

So, for most observations (stars not near black holes), gravitational redshift may be ignored.

2. As for Cosmologic Redshift, first of all, it is based on the assumption that Universe is expanding. But how do we know it is expanding (I mean by observational facts, not by theories like general relativity)? From Hubble's Law. Now if Hubble's Law is an incorrect interpretation of the observationnal redshift data, then the major evidencial support of Universe Expansion may be gone. I know this is a big claim and I may be blundered, but this is the whole point I am going to make later in this post.

Secondly, if Cosmologic Redshift indeed is a major contributor to the redshift values observed, won't the Cosmologic Redshift has a single value

for all stars (otherwise how can you have a Hubble's Law)? And won't the Cosmologic Redshift be istropical (same along different directions)?

But we observed redshifts of value from 5.2, all the way to 1809. How can a single Cosmologic Redshift explain this?

3. Now let's come to the Doppler's Redshift. This Redshift for a star moving along line of sight is given by

Z = Sqrt ((1 + v/c )/ (1- v/c)) - 1 , (1)

Now, with v = 0.1c, it gives only a redshift of Z = 0.1055, and for a star speed v = 0.6c,

it gives only a redshift of Z = 1. A speed of 0.6c is enormously fast for any star! Too fast to be reasonable.

According to this article:

https://www.newsweek.com/hypervelocity- ... tar-631870

The fastest speed of an observed star in our Milkway (out of Milkway it is difficult to record speed directly,

I guess) is 2x10^6 miles per hour, or 3.2x10^6 km/H, or 8.89x10^3 km/s, which is barely 0.0296c, where c is the light speed.

This would mean, for redshifts that are larger than 5, Doppler Redshift cannot be the major contributor of the redshift values

astronomers observed, otherwise the speed of the stars have to be >0.99999c. That's too fast to be true.

To my understanding, in deriving Hubble's Law, there are two assumptions:

(1) The redshift is mainly due to Doppler Redshift;

(2) the velocity of the star is small such that v = c Z.

Now, as we have shown above, for a v = 0.1c, the redshift value from Doppler Redshift is only 0.1055,

far less than most redshift values observed (from 5.2 to 1809). This would mean, Doppler Redshift cannot explain large redshift values. As such, Hubble's Law cannot be applied to large redshift values as well, in addition to the fact that it cannot be applied to fast moving stars (due to the non-relativisitic assumption v = cZ).

So I hope the discuss above are meaningful. If I missed anything, please correct me. I'll continue a little later. If the above discussions are nonsenses, then I may have goofed somewhere, then there is no need to continue to waste people's time.

Last edited: