Hubble’s law has been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong

Doppler effect for light has been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong
------------------------------------------------ by Bingcheng Zhao

Related knowledge: Hubble’s law is based on Doppler effect for light, because the recessional velocity of stars thus galaxies in Hubble’s law is determined with Doppler effect for light. In other words, Doppler effect for light is the mother of Hubble’s law (were if there no Doppler effect for light, there would be no Hubble’s law).

Core reminding!!! Fact 1: Hubble’s law is based on Doppler effect for light. Fact 2: Doppler effect for light has been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong (P. 722 ~ 732, 6.7, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz77.blogspot.com/ ). These two facts will be tangibly helpful to digesting and accepting another proven fact: Hubble’s law been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong ---- the central topic of Ch.6B (P. 735 ~ 751, Ch.6B, reference #2). <*> Related emphasis: though having provided sufficient evidences that prove Hubble’s law is indeed mechanistically and mathematically wrong, in order to convince that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong, you have to be able to explain why overwhelming majority of stars are measured as redshift nearby the Earth ---- Yes, I do (P. 749 ~ 751, 6.14, Ch.6B, reference #2).

[*Three acronyms: (1) PBRDEL = postulate-based relativistic Doppler effect for light (i.e., Doppler effect for light). (2) MRRBL principle = the principle of Mechanism-Revealed Redshift and Blueshift of Light (P. 714 ~ 722, 6.5 and 6.6, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz34.blogspot.com/ ). (3) EPBGR = Einstein’s postulate-based general relativity ---- note, Einstein’s general relativity is based on a series of assumptions and postulates (e.g., the postulate of equivalence principle), so its real name should be Einstein’s postulate-based general relativity].


Proving Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong (also the central topic of Ch.6B). Concisely, the proven fact that PBRDEL is mechanistically and mathematically wrong (P. 722 ~ 732, 6.7, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz77.blogspot.com/ ) is equivalent to another undeniable fact: Hubble’s law turns out (proven) to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong, because the so-called recessional velocity of stars thus galaxies in Hubble’s law is determined with PBRDEL.

First of all and most of all, the prerequisite of Hubble’s law is totally wrong. A fundamentally important implicit concept in Hubble’s law is that the scales of space (length) and time over the vast expanse of an entire galaxy are invariable, being a byproduct of EPBGR’s postulate of ‘invariant scales of length and time’. However, EPBGR’s this postulate has been proven to be mechanistically thus essentially wrong (P. 419 ~ 426, 4.5, Ch.4A, reference #1); by contrast, with the establishment and verification of Mechanism-Revealed Gravitational Theory (MRGT) (P. 445 ~ 514, Ch.4B, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz20.blogspot.com/ ), and with the establishment of Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory (P. 541 ~ 548, 5.5, Ch.5B, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz28.blogspot.com/, http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz29.blogspot.com/ ), it is clearer that this concept turns out to be undeniably wrong. Specifically, with MRGT revealing the mechanism and essence behind gravitational redshift and blueshift (P. 459 ~ 464, 4.12.1, Ch.4B, reference #1), it is clear that the principle that Hubble’s law represents the redshift (or blueshift) of an entire galaxy with a single star in it turns out to be undeniably wrong. Therefore, Hubble’s law is wrong in both concept and principle, i.e., the prerequisite of Hubble’s law is clearly wrong.

Second, even putting aside the proven fact that the prerequisite of Hubble’s law is clearly wrong, Hubble’s law is also mechanistically thus essentially wrong even merely from the perspective of mechanistically and mathematically wrong PBRDEL (P. 740 ~ 741, 6.10, Ch.6B, reference #2). Based on the newly discovered MRRBL principle (P. 720, 6.6.1 a), Ch.6A, reference #2), when a galaxy (via the star in it, of course) is measured as redshift nearby Earth, the measured redshift equally means two possibilities: the galaxy is receding from Earth; the galaxy is approaching Earth. However, Hubble’s law via its based PBRDEL interprets the measured redshift only as the galaxy is receding from Earth, which is same as Earth is receding from the galaxy within the paradigm of Hubble’s law.

Third, even under the circumstance that Hubble’s law happens to make the qualitatively correct conclusion as redshift when light source is receding from observer, Hubble’s law is still mathematically (quantitatively) wrong too, in several crucially important aspects (P. 741 ~ 744, 6.11, Ch.6B, reference #2). Most of all, when the value of redshift factor Z is in its most frequently observed range (e.g., 0 < Z < 0.5), based on the newly discovered MRRBL principle, the correct relation between redshift factor Z and the recessional velocity v of stars (thus galaxies) is curvilinear, whereas this relation virtually becomes linear in Hubble’s law via its based PBRDEL (P. 742, 6.11.1, Ch.6B, reference #2). Consequently, the so-called Hubble constant is actually not a constant at all; Hubble’s law considerably underestimates the recessional velocity of stars (thus galaxies) from the values of observed redshift factor.

In addition, some important clues indicating that Hubble’s law cannot be mechanistically thus essentially correct are provided and analyzed, including: (i) the very structure of Hubble’s law actually determines the undeniable fact, which is that the observational evidence and theoretical basis of Hubble’s law are factually separated thus essentially disconnected from each other (P. 744 ~ 745, 6.12.1, Ch.6B, reference #2). (ii) Some original data were groundlessly ejected when Hubble’s law was initially established (P. 745 ~ 746, 6.12.2, Ch.6B, reference #2). (iii) Hubble’s law is frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted (P. 746 ~ 747, 6.12.3, Ch.6B, reference #2).


The key to understanding of the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong: (1) knowing the proven fact that PBRDEL is mechanistically and mathematically wrong (P. 722 ~ 732, 6.7, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz77.blogspot.com/ ), simply because Hubble’s law is based on PBRDEL. In other words, all the evidences pointing to PBRDEL is mechanistically and mathematically wrong are equally valid in proving Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong. (2) Knowing the greatest equation in the history of science, which is the famous mass-energy equation (E = mc^2 or E0 = mc^2), because the physical law (i.e., the law of object’s mass doing work, P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz1.blogspot.com/ ), which reveals the mechanism behind the greatest equation in science (P. 114 ~ 118, 1.6, Ch.1B, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz2.blogspot.com/ ), is also the ultimate foundation that proves why Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong. In other words, after knowing why mass has energy, you will easily understand the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong. (3) Being the extrapolation from Doppler effect for sound waves occurring only in material medium, Hubble’s law does not and cannot reflect the essentially unique nature of light ---- light can travel in entirely vacuum space via its quantum nature. (4) Once knowing the mechanism thus essence behind redshift and blueshift of light via the newly discovered MRRBL principle (P. 714 ~ 722, 6.5 and 6.6, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz34.blogspot.com/ ), you will easily understand the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong, simply because Hubble’s law is unable to know the very mechanism thus essence. (5) MRRBL principle reveals and quantifies the cause of redshift or blueshift of light is the change in the scales of length and time respectively due to the motion of light source or observer, whereas Hubble’s law does not and cannot reflect the cause of both redshift and blueshift of light.

Available clues can be helpful to digesting and accepting the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong. Clue 1: the factual evaporation of gravitational redshift over the vastness of the Milky Way galaxy and the Universe in Hubble’s law will substantially help you digest and accept the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong. Clue 2: the actual evaporation of gravitational redshift over the vastness of the Milky Way galaxy and the Universe in Hubble’s law will constantly remind you that Hubble’s law cannot be mechanistically and mathematically correct. Clue3: the long-standing fundamentally important problem of dark energy, since actually becoming permanently incapable solved problem within the paradigm of Hubble’s law and its based modern astronomy, will always remind you that Hubble’s law cannot be mechanistically and mathematically correct. Related reminding: the problem of dark energy has been completely solved, with the newly established and verified mechanism-revealed physics (P. 783 ~ 786, 7.6, Ch.7B, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz35.blogspot.com/ ).

The mechanistically thus essentially profound implications of Hubble’s law turns out to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong. (1) Any so-called verifications or tests of Hubble’s law cannot be mechanistically thus essentially valid; consequently, any so-called interpretations of the redshift and blueshift of light with Hubble’s law cannot be mechanistically thus essentially correct, because this sort of interpretations turns out to be merely the consequence of mechanistically thus essentially mistakenly interpreting experimental results; simply because any so-called verifications or tests of PBRDEL cannot be mechanistically thus essentially valid, and any so-called interpretations of the redshift and blueshift of light with PBRDEL cannot be mechanistically thus essentially correct (P. 732 ~ 733, 6.8.1, Ch.6A, reference #2). (2) The so-called best observational evidence for ‘expanding Universe’ and ‘accelerating Universe’ turns out to be mechanistically thus essentially invalid (P. 747 ~ 749, 6.13, Ch.6B, reference #2). (3) The so-called observational evidence for cosmological redshift mechanistically thus essentially collapses, because the redshift resulting from Hubble’s law is called cosmological redshift (P. 748, 6.13.1, Ch.6B, reference #2).

The catastrophic consequences of not accepting the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong: (1) modern astronomy and cosmology will continue to be built upon the mechanistically and mathematically wrong foundation and paradigm of Hubble’s law. (2) It is impossible to establish mechanistically thus essentially correct concept of time and space in the universe. (3) It is impossible to solve the fundamentally important problem of dark energy. Related information: the problem of dark energy has been completely solved, with the newly established and verified mechanism-revealed physics (P. 783 ~ 786, 7.6, Ch.7B, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz35.blogspot.com/ ).

Nine pieces of related information: (1) Doppler effect for light has been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong (P. 722 ~ 732, 6.7, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz77.blogspot.com/ ). (2) Discovering the principle of Mechanism-Revealed Redshift and Blueshift of Light (P. 714 ~ 722, 6.5 and 6.6, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz34.blogspot.com/ ). (3) Establishing and Verifying Mechanism-Revealed Gravitational Theory (in brief) (P. 445 ~ 514, Ch.4B, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz20.blogspot.com/ ). (4) Establishing Mechanism-Revealed Scales Relativity Theory (P. 133 ~ 147, Ch.1C, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz3.blogspot.com/ ). (5) Revealing the mechanism behind mass-energy equation (P. 114 ~ 118, 1.6, Ch.1B, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz2.blogspot.com/ ). (6) Special relativity has been proven to be mechanistically thus essentially wrong (P. 149 ~ 178, Ch.1D, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz73.blogspot.com/ ). (7) The law of object’s mass doing work (P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz1.blogspot.com/ ). (8) The problem of dark energy has been completely solved, with the newly established and verified mechanism-revealed physics (P. 783 ~ 786, 7.6, Ch.7B, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz35.blogspot.com/ ). (9) Mechanism-Revealed Physics, Bingcheng Zhao (http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz71.blogspot.com/ ).

By comparison: after establishing and verifying the principle of Mechanism-Revealed Redshift and Blueshift of Light (P. 714 ~ 722, 6.5 and 6.6, Ch.6A, reference #2; http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bcz34.blogspot.com/ ) that reveals and quantifies the true cause of redshift or blueshift of light is the change in the scales of length and time respectively due to the motion of light source or observer, there is no reason or excuse not to accept the proven fact that Hubble’s law is mechanistically and mathematically wrong, simply because Hubble’s law does not and cannot reflect the true cause of both redshift and blueshift of light, let alone Hubble’s law has been proven to be mechanistically and mathematically wrong.


Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9.
Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3.

Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao,
The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics”
1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163 USA.
Email: bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com