Confer above. ----Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology. (1937).

Cosmological Redshift Caused by Head-on Collisions with CMB Photons, not by Expansion of Space

Abstract

The Big Bang model was first proposed in 1931 by Georges Lemaitre. Lemaitre and Hubble discovered a linear correlation between distances to galaxies and their redshifts. The correlation between redshifts and distances arises in all expanding models of universe as the cosmological redshift is commonly attributed to stretching of wavelengths of photons propagating through the expanding space. Fritz Zwicky suggested that the cosmological redshift could be caused by the interaction of propagating light photons with certain inherent features of the cosmos to lose a fraction of their energy. However, Zwicky did not provide any physical mechanism to support his tired light hypothesis. In this paper, we have developed the mechanism of producing cosmological redshift through head-on collision between light and CMB photons. The process of repeated energy loss of visual photons through n head-on collisions with CMB photons, constitutes a primary mechanism for producing the Cosmological redshift z . While this process results in steady reduction in the energy of visual photons, it also results in continuous increase in the number of photons in the CMB. After a head-on collision with a CMB photon, the incoming light photon, with reduced energy, keeps moving on its original path without any deflection or scattering in any way. After propagation through very large distances in the intergalactic space, all light photons will tend to lose bulk of their energy and fall into the invisible region of the spectrum. Thus, this mechanism of producing cosmological redshift through gradual energy depletion, also explains the Olbers’s paradox.

Article Cosmological Redshift Caused by Head-On Collisions with CMB ...

Hubble's 1937 impression that the expansion of the "Heavens" (now called the Universe) puts us at the center of things was correct in one way, but wrong in every other way. The correct interpretation is that if the Universe is more or less uniformly expanding, then NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, it will APPEAR that you are the center of a Universe that is expanding away from you. Even for galaxies now far beyond the Cosmic Horizon, the APPEARANCE of things is that everything is going away from THEM, whereas the truth is that EVERYTHING IS GOING AWAY FROM EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ISN'T GRAVITATIONALLY BOUND TO IT. In our case, that means that everything beyond the Virgo Cluster [which we are an outlying part of, very slowly moving toward its center] will eventually be beyond our Cosmic Horizon, and no longer part of Our Observable Universe.

This has nothing to do with the Bible. That is not a scientific document, but instead is a collection of legends dating back at least 5000 years whose earliest part (the Old Testament) was set down in some kind of print only about half that long ago, and those legends have nothing to do with reality, but only the way people think about their surroundings. All cultures, all over the world, had or still have religions that put them at the center of the Universe, so the Bible is just one of hundreds of different ways of claiming that, and has no more claim to being the truth than any of the others. But although the way the Universe expands makes it LOOK like everything is expanding away from wherever YOU are, since that is true in EVERY part of the Universe, it is merely a fallacy caused by the fact that no matter where you are, you APPEAR to be at the center of things. In reality, there probably is NO center in the strictest meaning of the word, but even if there iS a "center", odds are billions of trillions of quadrillions (etc etc etc) to one that any actual center is NOT inside the part of the Universe that we can see.

What is interesting about Seligman's reply, is that it shows how far people are will to go, in order to back up their atheist beliefs. They are under a "trance," or "spell"-- and will perform all sorts of mental gynastics.

Imprimis, in the Bible (the received text) of 1611, ie. the King James Version which was distributed (from Great Britain) to the entire world-- clearly states long before Hubble's discovery that :

Isaiah XLII : 5

"Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heauens, and stretched them out, . . . "

Jeremiah X : 12

"Hee hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisedome, and hath stretched out the heauens by his discretion."

So, the heavens have been "stretched out."

Compare this with the statement by Hubble above.

Expansion from everywhere (everywhere being the centre,) and accelerating the farther out you get from the centre, is a logical and geometrical impossibility in 3-dimensional space.

The stars and galaxies are being stretched out from the Earth as the centre. They are being stretched out from .... us.

Hubble continued his research and came to a certain model of the expanding universe, which resulted in the Hubble’s law. To explain it, we first recall that, according to the Big Bang model, the further the galaxy is from the epicenter of the explosion, the faster it moves. According to the Hubble’s law, the rate of galaxies movement away from the terrestrial observer should be equal to the distance to the epicenter of the explosion, multiplied by a number called the Hubble constant. Using this law, astronomers calculate the distance to galaxies, based on the magnitude of the redshift, the origin of which is not completely clear to anyone. In general, astronomers decided to measure the Universe very simply. Find the velocity of galaxy, which depends on the redshift. Multiply the velocity by the redshift and divide the product by the Hubble constant. You will get the distance to any galaxy. In the same way, modern astronomers with the help of the Hubble constant calculate the size of the universe. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant has the meaning of the characteristic time of the expansion of the Universe at the current moment. This is where the feet of the Universe are growing. Hubble never believed in an expanding universe although one can find a great many websites making this statement.  

As Fred Hoyle says "the startling conclusion that the galaxies are moving away from us. And what is more, the greater the distance of a galaxy the faster it is receding."

This is in 3-dimensional space. So we are talking of concentric spheres, or balloons which are being blown up-- the outer spheres being blown up at a faster rate than the inner spheres.

The idea that everywhere is a centre of this expansion, is a nonsense. It is geometrically impossible.

Analogies are given of dots on an expanding rubber sheet--- but how can these dots be accelerating away at a greater rate the farther you are from -any- one dot? This is logically impossible. So the analogy is a false one.

It is said "to give you a rough idea" of how it works, supposedly, in General Relativity. In other words it cannot be imagined in 3-dimension space, simply because it is impossible to imagine in 3-dimensions space ; it can never occur.

What is happening here, is, in order to confuse and confound the obvious-- a geometric impossibility is proposed, and then a theory which no one understands, (because it is itself logically impossible) is adverted to, to convince the reader of this impossibility.

This new discovery appears to contradict the "Big Bang" conjecture.

February 23, 2023

JWST Discovers Enormous Distant Galaxies That Should Not Exist https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jwst-discovers-enormous-distant-galaxies-that-should-not-exist/

Dear colleagues,

The recent JWST discovery of massive, mature galaxies only 500–800 million years after the Big Bang is a direct challenge to the standard ΛCDM cosmology. These galaxies should not exist so soon after the universe’s formation because:

1. They are too large – Standard models predict that early galaxies should be much smaller and in their infancy.

2. They contain old stars – Meaning that stellar evolution must have started far earlier than previously assumed.

3. They are too massive – Some of these galaxies rival the Milky Way in mass, while the universe was only 3% of its current age.

This discovery raises fundamental questions about our understanding of cosmic evolution. Instead of assuming that galaxies somehow formed faster than our models allow, we must consider the possibility that our perception of time in the early universe is incorrect.

How Pure Time Theory (PTT) Resolves This Mystery

In Pure Time Theory (PTT), the problem is not in galaxy formation itself, but in our interpretation of cosmic time and distances.

1. An Illusion of Distance and Age Due to Temporal Distortions

PTT proposes that time is not uniform across cosmic history. Instead, it evolves dynamically, which means that our current methods for dating cosmic objects may be biased.

In standard cosmology, we estimate the distances of galaxies using redshift, assuming that the universe expands at a uniform rate.

In PTT, redshift can also result from variations in the temporal metric. This means that what we see as distant, ancient galaxies might actually be much closer and younger than we think.

➡ The galaxies observed by JWST may not be as old as they appear, but rather the result of a time-distorted observation.

2. Cosmic Density and Its Effect on Relaxation Time

In PTT, the cosmic relaxation time () determines how time flows in different regions of the universe. This is given by:

T_{relax,obs} = T_{relax,ref} \times \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{obs}}{\rho_{crit}} \right)^{\frac{1}{\beta}}

Where:

T_relax,obs is the observed relaxation time.

T_relax,ref is a reference relaxation time.

rho_obs is the observed density of the universe in a given region.

rho_crit is the critical density where large-scale temporal distortions become significant.

β is a scaling parameter.

Why This Matters for JWST’s Discovery

If the early universe had a different relaxation time, time could have flowed at a different rate in high-density regions.

This means that what we interpret as “mature” galaxies may have simply experienced a faster evolutionary timeline due to localized time distortions.

Stars could appear older than they truly are because their nuclear evolution followed a different time scale than what our models assume.

➡ The problem is not that galaxies formed too quickly, but that our measurements assume a uniform time flow where none exists.

3. A Shift in Our Understanding of Cosmic Expansion

If PTT is correct, this would mean:

1. The standard interpretation of redshift is incomplete – Redshift is not just a measure of spatial expansion but also a reflection of time variations.

2. Early galaxies are not as ancient as we assume – JWST is not seeing a "young universe" but a temporally distorted region of space-time.

3. The apparent acceleration of the universe is an illusion – It arises due to variations in time perception rather than an unknown force like dark energy.

PTT and the Future of Cosmology

🔹 If JWST continues to find even more large, mature galaxies at high redshift, it will further support the idea that our current timeline of the universe is flawed.

🔹 Standard ΛCDM cosmology will struggle to incorporate these findings without adding new hypothetical mechanisms.

🔹 PTT naturally explains these observations by treating time as a fundamental, dynamic structure rather than a passive background.

Final Thought

If time itself is evolving, then our entire interpretation of cosmic history must change.

JWST may not just be revealing galaxies that shouldn’t exist—it may be exposing the fundamental flaws in how we understand time and the universe itself.

I invite all researchers to consider the implications of a dynamic temporal framework in light of these discoveries. We welcome discussion and critical engagement with the ideas presented in Pure Time Theory (PTT).

Looking forward to your insights.

Best regards,

Essam Allou

On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of Simultaneity.”

Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...

Essam Allou

Dear Professor Allou,

Thank you for your very clear exposition of the problem at hand, and the failure of the existing theory.

is an interesting idea, but I would have thought it might be difficult to determine if this is actually the case? -- experimentally I mean.

Gary Stephens

Thank you for your thoughtful question. While testing non-uniform time experimentally is indeed challenging, PTT makes several clear predictions. For instance, it suggests that variations in local cosmic density should affect the observed redshift and even be reflected in high-precision measurements. Such as atomic clock comparisons, pulsar timing, and gravitational wave signals.

Our recent paper details these testable predictions and discusses potential experimental setups to measure the relaxation time variations. I invite you to review the article for a comprehensive analysis of these points.

Best regards, Essam Allou

My bad. I discovered H. Minkowski's proof (of distant simultaneity) is more general than I have previously recognised. Revised MS. incoming shortly.

My bad. As I said, I hadn't realised the generality of H. Minkowski's proof---- that we have distant simultaneity everywhere ie. an Absolute character to space and time.

Also included is a clearer exposition of how this relates to the Michelson-Morley experiment.

And an additional bit of text by Minkowski.

Please find revised MS. here :

Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...

It is difficult to ascertain, whether H. Minkowski's "Principle of Relativity" was written after "Raum und Zeit," or cotemporaneously.

If it was written after, then it could be Minkowski realised his mistake, and proved it in this subsequent publication, but unfortunately, passed-away very soon after, and so he couldn't make his views more widely known.

The result is the colossal errors of Special and General Relativity, moving clocks run slow &c.

Due to the recent historical digging-up or uncovering, anyone maintaining that the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is valid, will have to refute H Minkowski's mathematical proof, utilizing the Lorentz relations, that we have distant simultaneity everywhere.

ie. According to H. Minkowski, we have an Absolute character to space and time.

Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...

--- Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981.

The more intelligent a Man is the less likely he is to need something higher to explain his questions.

Aleš Jurman

Thanks for your comment.

Are you sure about that?--- What about Newton? was he not very intelligent ?

Preprint Use of the classical speed (c - v) in the Wiki Figure purpor...