Is the Voice of Reason
Rowland’s law [c = wf] replaces Hubble’s invalid ‘law’, corrects astrophysics’ biggest blunder (falsely presuming redshift to be a Doppler effect), and enables us to estimate how far visible light can travel before dropping out of sight.
The redshift blunder has been obstructing cosmology for over a century. In 1915, astronomer Vesto Slipher observed that light from spiral nebulae is redshifted and falsely assumed he was witnessing a light source rapidly moving away from the observer and somehow stretching the wavelength of light it emits.[1,2] Slipher did not understand the difference between light and sound, and mistakenly believed he was witnessing a Doppler effect.
False Assumption: Redshift and Doppler are two fundamentally different phenomena. Redshift applies to light. Doppler applies to sound, of which there is none in outer space.
In redshift there is an actual increase in wavelength. In Doppler there is only the illusion of a change in wavelength. Redshift is attenuation, whereas Doppler is distortion. To presume they are the same “Doppler-redshift” is rather like referring to a line in geometry as a straight-curve.
Light waves are transverse (i.e., oscillate perpendicular to their path) and do not require any medium through which to travel. Sound waves are longitudinal (i.e., vibrate parallel to their path) and can only propagate by compression and rarefaction of the medium through which they travel (e.g., air, water, solids).
If the source of a sound is moving towards you (e.g., an ambulance), identical length waves hit your ear more frequently, thus distorting the perceived sound to a higher frequency. As this sound source moves away from you, identical length waves hit your ear less frequently, thus distorting the perceived sound to a lower frequency. This is the Doppler effect.
No theory can be valid if it is based on false assumptions. Thus, all theories that depend on the Doppler-redshift misconception are invalid. These include big bang theory, expansion theory, Hubble’s law, dark matter theory, and dark energy theory.
Over extreme distances, light attenuates – meaning that its frequency slowly diminishes as its wavelength correspondingly increases. We observe this phenomenon as a redshift, i.e., the tendency of visible light to drop toward the red end of the spectrum. The farther away a galaxy is, the more its light is redshifted.
If a distant source emits light in the middle of the spectrum, it can be in the red end of the spectrum by the time we receive it. If, however, that source emits light in the blue end of the spectrum, it will have redshifted but could still be in the blue range by the time we receive it. There is no such thing as a “blueshift” whereby wavelengths shorten and frequency increases. All light is redshifted.
Because the surface temperature of our Sun is 5,0000C, it emits light in the yellow range of the spectrum. A star with a surface temperature of 12,0000C emits light in the blue end of the spectrum, and one with a surface temperature of 3,0000C emits light in the red end of the spectrum.
If Star X at a temperature of 7,0000C and Star Y at 12,0000C are the same distance from Earth, we could simultaneously be receiving light from X in the red end of the spectrum and light from Y in the blue end of the spectrum. The temptation may be to conclude that light from X is redshifted and light from Y is blue shifted, but that would be a mistake. It is only because light from Y started out a much higher frequency that it has not yet dropped into the red range of the spectrum.
Unless one knows the frequency of light emitted at source, there is no way to know how by how much it has been redshifted by the time it reaches the observer. If we know frequency at source, then redshift lets us know how far away that source is. There is nothing else that redshift can tell us.
Circular Reasoning: For over 100 years, astrophysicists have not paid attention to frequency at source. They falsely believe that what they are witnessing are galaxies in motion and mistakenly use redshift to indicate velocity of motion. This is the logical error of circular reasoning, i.e., including the conclusion in the assumption, then using the assumption to prove the foregone conclusion. They assume redshift indicates motion, then measure the degree of redshift to calculate a presumed rate of motion.
False Conclusion: Redshift does not measure motion. Galaxies are not moving away from each other.
Hubble’s law is the false presumption that galaxies are moving away from Earth at velocities proportional to their distance. This theory is considered the ultimate evidence supporting the hypothesis that the universe may be expanding.[3] Edwin Hubble misunderstood the nature of the redshift data upon which his hypothesis was based, made false assumptions that galaxies are moving away from each other, then manipulated data to justify his foregone conclusion. Hubble’s so called ‘law’ is invalid. Galaxies are not moving away from each other. The universe is not expanding.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble presented data from 24 star clusters he had studied as the foundation for Hubble’s law, which theory is considered the ultimate observational basis for expanding universe theory. From these 24 sets of data, Hubble selected five that demonstrated a perfect straight-line relationship between distance and velocity.[3]
Selection Bias: Hubble included only data from star clusters he believed were moving away from Earth and rejected data from star clusters he believed were heading towards Earth.
The following table summarizes the estimates from which Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are receding from the Milky Way at a velocity proportional to their distance.
| Star Cluster | Distance (EH) (light-years) | Presumed Velocity (km/s) | Ratio (Velocity/Distance) |
| Virgo | 78 | 1,200 | 15.4 |
| Ursa Major | 1,000 | 15,000 | 15.0 |
| Corona Borealis | 1,400 | 22,000 | 15.7 |
| Bootes | 2,500 | 39,000 | 15.6 |
| Hydra | 3,960 | 61,000 | 15.4 |
The results in the above Ratio column are the five points that Hubble posted on a graph to create a straight-line relationship between the distance of a galaxy and how fast it is allegedly moving away.
Something is seriously wrong with Hubble’s estimates of distance. If we substitute modern estimates of distance in the Distance-Modern column below, a very different picture emerges.[4]
| Brightest Star | Distance-Modern (ly) | Distance-Hubble (ly) | Error Factor |
| Spica (Virgo) | 262 | 78 | (-3.4x) |
| Alioth
(Ursa Major) |
81 | 1,000 | 12x |
| Alphecca
(Corona Borealis) |
75 | 1,400 | 19x |
| Arcturus (Bootes) | 37 | 2,500 | 68x |
| Alphard (Hydra) | 180 | 3,960 | 22x |
Edwin Hubble thus estimated Spica to be 3.4 times closer than it really is, and the other star clusters to be from 12 to 68 times further away than they really are. If Hubble had used realistic estimates of distance, there would have been no straight line on his graph, only random points indicating a zero correlation between distance and presumed velocity. Clearly, Hubble manipulated data to produce the results he wanted.[4]
False Assumption: Hubble falsely assumed that redshift frequencies indicate velocities of motion.
Circular Reasoning: Hubble included his conclusion about increasing velocities in his assumption, then used this assumption to prove his foregone conclusion.
Mathematical Irrelevance: Hubble used fictitious measurements of distance that have no relation to reality.
In 1930, Richard Tolman devised a surface brightness test to determine whether the universe is static or expanding. Tolman’s test compares the surface brightness of galaxies to their degree of redshift (measured as z).
In a static universe, the light received from an object drops in proportion to the square of its distance, and the apparent area of the object also drops in proportion to the square of its distance. Thus, the surface brightness (light received per unit area) is constant, independent of distance. In an expanding universe, the surface brightness would decrease with the fourth power of (1 + z).
For 95 years, mainstream astrophysicists have never checked the validity of their assumptions by means of the Tolman test. They accept on blind faith the Slipher error of mistaking redshift for Doppler.
In 2014, Eric Lerner and a team of astrophysicists applied the Tolman test by measuring the surface brightness (per unit area) of over 1,000 near and far galaxies. If galaxies had been moving away from each other, they would appear fainter the further away they get, i.e., their surface brightness would diminish. Lerner’s team, however, found that in every case surface brightness remains constant regardless of distance. If any far distant galaxy had been in motion away from us, its surface brightness would be much less than that of nearby galaxies, a phenomenon that has never been observed.[5] Thus, there is zero evidence that galaxies are moving apart and overwhelming evidence that they are not.
Rowland’s Law (a) replaces Hubble’s invalid ‘law’; (b) corrects astrophysics’ greatest blunder, that of falsely presuming redshift to be a Doppler effect; and (c) enables us to estimate how far visible light can travel before dropping out of sight.
Rowland’s Law states that over extreme distances, light attenuates according to this equation:[1]
c = wf
c = speed of light; w = wavelength; f = frequency
What c = wf tells us is that as the frequency of light drops over extreme distances, its wavelength correspondingly increases.
The farther light travels, the greater the degree to which its frequency slowly diminishes. We observe this phenomenon as a redshift, i.e, the tendency of visible light to drop toward the red end of the spectrum.
fO = fS (1-r )D
fO = frequency at observer; fS = frequency at source; r = redshift; D = distance (expressed in units of one billion light-years}.
As light travels extreme distances through space, its frequency slowly diminishes (attenuates). We observe this phenomenon as a redshift, the tendency of visible light to drop toward the red end of the spectrum. When redshift is properly understood, it can tell us how far light travels before it drops beneath the visible spectrum.
Over extreme distances, light attenuates according to this equation (Rowland’s Law):
c = wf
c = speed of light; w = wavelength; and f = frequency.[1]
What c = wf tells us is that as the frequency of light drops over extreme distances, its wavelength correspondingly increases.[6] For over a century, astrophysicists have paid more attention to wavelength than to frequency of redshifted light.
The farther light travels, the greater the degree to which its frequency slowly diminishes as its wavelength correspondingly increases. We observe this phenomenon as a redshift, (i.e., the tendency of light to drop toward the red end of the spectrum). The farther away a galaxy is, the greater the degree of its redshift.
If a distant source emits light in the middle of the spectrum, it can be in the red end of the spectrum by the time we receive it. If, however, that source emits light in the blue end of the spectrum, it will have redshifted but could still be in the blue end of the spectrum when we receive it. There is no such thing as an alleged ‘blueshift’ whereby wavelengths shorten and frequency increases. All light redshifts. Light cannot behave in any other way.
Because the surface temperature of the Sun is 5,0000C, it emits light in the yellow range of the spectrum. A star with a surface temperature of 12,0000C emits light in the blue range of the spectrum, and one with a surface temperature of 3,0000C emits light in the red range of the spectrum.
If Star X at a temperature of 7,0000C and Star Y at a temperature of 12,0000C are the same distance from Earth, we could simultaneously be receiving light from X in the red range of the spectrum and light from Y in the blue range of the spectrum. One may be tempted to conclude that light from X is redshifted and light from Y is ‘blueshifted’, but that would be a mistake. It is only because light from Y started out at a much higher frequency that it has not yet dropped into the red range of the spectrum.
Redshift is a function of two variables only: (a) frequency at source, and (b) distance travelled. If we know the frequency at source, the lower frequency at our point of observation can tell us how far said light has travelled. This is all that redshift can tell us. Nothing more.
Galaxy GN-z11 enables us to estimate rate of attenuation over its distance of 13.39 billion light-years. Light from GN-z11 is dull red, and its frequency is documented by NASA as being in the low red range of the spectrum.[7,8]
The frequency of visible light ranges from a high of 800 THz to a low of 400 THz. We know two things from NASA: (a) Light from GN-z11 is low red at our point of observation, and (b) GN-z11 is 13.39 billion light-years away. What we do not know is the frequency of that light at its source.
Suppose that GN-z11’s frequency at source (fs) is 590 THZ (mid spectrum) and its frequency received is 410 THz (low red). This would mean that over 13 billion light-years the frequency from GNz-11 has dropped by 180 THz. This is equivalent to frequency dropping every billion light-years to 0.9811 of the frequency of the previous billion light-years.[9]
We can thus express redshift attenuation by the following equation in which distance (D) is in incremental units of one billion light-years:
fo = fs (0.9811)D
When its frequency drops below 400 THz, light is no longer visible. It continues at the speed of light but as electromagnetic energy that cannot be seen. This would happen for GN-z11 at 15 billion light-years.
Suppose that GN-z11’s frequency at source (fs) is 790 THZ (high blue) and its frequency received is 410 THz (low red). This would mean that over 13 billion light-years the frequency from GNz-11 has dropped by 380 THz. This is equivalent to frequency dropping every billion light-years to 0.9508 of the frequency of the previous billion light-years.[9]
We can thus express redshift attenuation by the following equation in which distance (D) is in incremental units of one billion light-years:
fo = fs (0.9508)D
When its frequency drops below 400 THz, light is no longer visible. It continues at the speed of light but as electromagnetic energy that cannot be seen. This would happen for GN-z11 at 14 billion light-years.
From the above calculations we can draw two conclusions: (a) The extreme distances that light travels is more significant to its rate of attenuation than is its frequency at source; and (b) The maximum distance that visible light can travel before dropping out of sight is likely to be 15 billion light-years.
The Hubble space telescope creates for us a spherical horizon with a radius of 13.4 billion light-years. We have no way of knowing what lies beyond this horizon. The above analysis suggests that between 13.4 and 15 billion light-years there may be one or more galaxies in the low red frequency range (410 THz). However, beyond 15 billion light-years no galaxies can be seen because the frequency of light they emit has dropped below the visible spectrum creating the illusion that we are looking out at empty space.
It is a convenience of nature that there should be a maximum distance that visible light can travel. Were this not so, the night sky would be ablaze with a patchwork blanket of light rendering us incapable of distinguishing one celestial body from another. We would never be able to understand the cosmos or our place in it.
Rowland’s Law [c = wf] is the statement that light attenuates over extreme distances. This simple equation corrects astrophysics’ biggest blunder (falsely presuming redshift to be a Doppler effect); and enables us to estimate how far visible light can travel before dropping out of sight, which is most probably about 15 billion light-years.
