There Is No Hubble Constant

Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and ΛCDM observations, while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe.
For 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.

The ESO H0 Conference was held June 22—26, 2020 and you can watch it on YouTube. The objective of this conference is to discuss the wide range of measurements of expansion in the universe, embodied in a number that science currently calls the Hubble Constant H0, and the discordance with the ΛCDM model (sigh).

The program: In the first session, Adam Riess gives a good overview of where H0 science is stuck today. I’ll link each day’s session below.

Here are my comments:

1. The approach is incorrect. Trying desperately to find concordance with ΛCDM, a one time inflationary big bang and a constant expansion rate model, is incredibly unscientific.

2. These scientists are not facing facts. They do whatever is possible to try to find a path towards concordance. Yet they feel so constrained by their existing model that they have no degrees of freedom. They are locked into an intellectual dungeon of their own creation.

Future historians — if you happen to stumble upon this post — please ensure that there is ample coverage of how the bias of concordance and conformance can be a HUGE problem in science. And physics will be the primary example of the most embarrassing largesse imaginable. I’d tend to let the cosmologists off the hook and definitely the astro*community as everyone was led astray by the “physicists”.

To make real progress, the narrative must be reset. A picture is worth 1000 words. If you reframe from a one-time inflationary big bang narrative into a set of parallel intermittent galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs then you will resolve H0 tension and so much more!

We must brainstorm on the idea that perhaps NATARAJAN and REES got it wrong when they decided to shoehorn galaxy-center supermassive black holes SMBH into LCDM including the one time inflationary Big Bang. Listen to the podcast of Natarajan on Strogatz : The Joy of X : Priya Natarajan.

Natarajan states it directly. These scientists did not consider that their newly discovered object, the SMBH, at the galaxy center, a sink for a massive amount of matter-energy, could instead be a physical implementation of the previously conceived inflationary Big Bang. If you consider AGN or SMBH the physical implementation of the inflationary big bang then it is a parallel, intermittent, galaxy-local phenomenon.

The answer is so very simple. Galaxy local processes supplant the idea of a one time inflationary big bang. The SMBH in the active galactic nuclei can occasionally mini-bang and disgorge what it has ingested in jets with a pure Planck plasma form. This plasma then reacts and one of the products is spacetime particles which inflate to make the ‘quantum vacuum’ the ‘aether’ or what I have called ‘spacetime æther.’

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 22, 2020 : v1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s