**Debate 1
launched on November 26, 2016
Under editing, beginning from May 7, 2023, on.**

** INCONSISTENCIES OF THE UNIVERSE EXPANSION**

AND THEIR APPARENT RESOLUTION VIA THE

ZWICKY-SANTILLI ISO-COSMOLOGY

AND THEIR APPARENT RESOLUTION VIA THE

ZWICKY-SANTILLI ISO-COSMOLOGY

## In this website we identify a number of inconsistencies of

the universe expansion and show their resolution via the

tired light iso-cosmology.

**EDITORIAL NOTE**

This debate is intended to honor the memory of Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Fermi, de Broglie and other luminaries who died without accepting the expansion of the universe and comprises:

PART I: Inconsistencies of the universe expansion.

PART II: The Zwicky-Santilli iso-cosmology.

Part III: Role of antimatter galaxies for the universe stability.

This website is derived from the studies by numerous scholars with particular reference to the founder of iso-mathematics, iso-mechanics and iso-relativity, Sir R. M. Santilli (see the overviews [1] [2], Biographical notes, Awards, Full Curriculum), including his interviews that may serve as an introduction to the debates (see Refs. [6]-[16] for dissident views)

Prof. R. M. Santilli's 2013 Interview by ta French Agency in Martinique

Prof. R.M. Santilli 2015 American Freedom Radio

Prof. R.M. Santilli 2016 interview by Midnight in the Desert

This debate solely admits technical comments expressed in due scientific language without record of their origination. We discourage the submission of arrogant or offensive comments. The editorial rules of this Dialogue are those adopted by Wikipedia.

*The Editorial Team,
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Debates May 7, 2023*

**PART I:
INCONSISTENCIES OF THE UNIVERSE EXPANSION**

**I.1. The original Hubble
law.**

In 1927, the American astrophysicist Edwin Hubble [3] discovered that
the frequency of light reaching Earth from far away galaxies decreases
in a way essentially proportional to the distance, an effect known as
the *cosmological redshift,* resulting in the expression known as
the *original Hubble's law*

z =
λ_{ob}/λ_{or} - 1 = H d,
(I.1)

where: z is the cosmological redshift; λ_{ob} is
the wavelength of light measured on Earth; λ_{or} is the wavelength emitted by the galaxy; H is the original Hubble's constant with the dimension of inverse length; d is
the distance of the considered galaxy from Earth.

**I.2. The conjecture of the universe expansion via a modified Hubble's law.**

^{2},

**the "hypothetical and experimentally unverifiable" recession speed v of galaxies away from Earth was identified with the following modified Hubble's law**

v = H' d (I.2)

**which was selected in such a way to verify special relativity via the consequential applicability of its Doppler axiom**

z = Δλ/λ = [(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)]^{1/2} = H'd/v - 1 ≈ v/c. (I.3)

In fact, the recession velocity v *is not* derived from the "measured" cosmological redshift z as occurring for law (1). On the contrary, v is identified with an *ad hoc* modification of Hubble's law characterized by a new constant H' with the dimension of inverse time that, as such, cannot be related any longer to the cosmological redshift.

Hence, the physicists of the Manhattan project and their cosmological friends modified Hubble's law for the generally unspoken, but evident intent of controlling the entire universe via Einstein's special relativity against Einstein's will (for the reason indicated in Sect. I.3 below).

A serious contribution to this debate requires the admission that the cosmological redshift z is the "sole" quantity which is measured in cosmology. Since Eqs. (2) and (3) are pure, experimentally unverifiable conjectures. In particular, the plethora claims that "the recession speed v of galaxies is*measured*from the cosmological redshift z" should be admitted as being political particularly in view of the fact, shown in details in Part II, that the cosmological redshift z has a

*numerically exact representation*via Zwicky's Tired Light, that unlike the universe expansion, has been experimentally verified on Earth.

**I.3. Geometric inconsistency of the universe expansion.**

Prof. Santilli [18-44] has proved that the central conjecture (2) implies relative speeds between pairs of galaxies that have different values for different observers, with consequential catastrophic geometric inconsistency of conjecture of the universe expansion that persists under the second conjecture of the expansion of space itself, the third conjecture of the big bang the fourth conjecture of the hypothetical dark matter, etc.

This geometric inconsistency is clearly established by Prof. Santilli's diagram* Figure I.1
where: Galaxies G _{1} and G_{2} are at double distance from Earth E. Therefore, according to conjecture (2), G_{2} should have double the speed of G_{1} with respect to E. However, the vertical line intersecting half way the distance between G_{1} and G_{2} identifies an infinite number of observers O_{1}, O_{2}, O_{3}, ... for which G_{1} and G_{2} are at the same distance, thus having the same speed with consequential catastrophic dismissal of conjecture (2) and consequently, the conjecture on the universe expansion. The inconsistency remains fully valid under the second conjecture on the expansion of space itself (introduced in the hope of resolving the inconsistencies of the first conjecture) because the expansion of space itself cannot alter the geometry of the above figure, namely, under all possible expansions or contraction of space itself the two galaxies G_{1} and G_{2} remain at double distance from Earth but they remain at the same distance for the infinite number of observers O_{1}, O_{2}, O_{3}, ... by therefore maintaining the catastrophic inconsistency of assumption (1) established by the geometry of Fig. I.1. *

To illustrate the persistence of the inconsistency of assumption (2) under the second assumption on the expansion of space itself, one can use a rubber balloon filled with a gas. Clear evidence establishes that the increase of the ballon pressure increases all distances but maintains the inconsistency that galaxy G_{2} has double the recession speed of G_{1} for an observer on Earth, while G_{1} and G_{2} have the same recession speed for all observers O_{1}, O_{2}, O_{3}, ...

**I.4. Return to the
Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe.**

As it is well known to serious historians, Albert Einstein, Edwin
Hubble, Fred Hoyle, Fritz Zwicky, Enrico Fermi, Louis de Broglie and
other famous scientists died without accepting the conjecture of the
expansion of the universe. A historical search by Prof. Santilli in the U.S.A. and in Europe has revealed that their rejection was motivated by the fact that, from Hubble's law, the recession speed v according to conjecture (2) must be the same
for all galaxies at the same distance d from Earth "in all radial
directions from Earth." Hence, **the crucial conjecture (2) necessarily implies the
return to the
Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe.**. It is unfortunate for science and mankind that the crucial feature for Hubble's law occurring "in all radial directions from Earth" was ignored by mainstream cosmologists while being known by Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky and the other luminaries of the early 20th century.
It is possible to prove that Earth at the center of the universe persists for all additional cosmological conjectures, such as that
of the expansion of space itself.

*Figure I.2:*

We reproduce a known picture showing the funnel-shaped geometry of the expanding universe in which the symmetry axis represents the value of the speed while the sectional plane represents the distance of the galaxies from Earth, and the funnel geometry represents the third conjecture on the acceleration of the expansion (which has been introduced hoping to resolve the inconsistencies of the preceding two conjectures). It is clear that, for conjecture (2) to be valid, Earth must be at the tip of the funnel, that is, at the center of the universe, yet this evident geometric consequence of conjecture (2) is not admitted by mainstream cosmologists.

We reproduce a known picture showing the funnel-shaped geometry of the expanding universe in which the symmetry axis represents the value of the speed while the sectional plane represents the distance of the galaxies from Earth, and the funnel geometry represents the third conjecture on the acceleration of the expansion (which has been introduced hoping to resolve the inconsistencies of the preceding two conjectures). It is clear that, for conjecture (2) to be valid, Earth must be at the tip of the funnel, that is, at the center of the universe, yet this evident geometric consequence of conjecture (2) is not admitted by mainstream cosmologists.

*Figure I.3:*

In this figure we show the picture of a sculpture in the hall of the Vinoy Renaissance Hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida, illustrating the expansion of the universe according to conjecture (2), thus showing Earth at the center of the universe and galaxies moving away in "all radial directions from Earth."

In this figure we show the picture of a sculpture in the hall of the Vinoy Renaissance Hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida, illustrating the expansion of the universe according to conjecture (2), thus showing Earth at the center of the universe and galaxies moving away in "all radial directions from Earth."

*EDITORIAL NOTE: We solicit disproves of the content of the preceding sections.*

**COMMENTS**

*Thank you EPR Editors, thank you. From Sects. I.1, I.2 and I.3, I now understand why Edwin Hubble rejected the expansion of the universe to his death, because it was based in an unphysical modification of his law he could not possibly accept! Ftsr56a.*

Editorial Note: Ftsr56a, we appreciate your thanks. In our view, the century old manipulation of scientific knowledge to impose the control of the universe by special relativity, and its continuance for so long under large public funds while discrediting inconsistency proofs, constitute a dark shadow in the history of American Science.

*It is absolutely astonishing to see that fanatics of the universe expansion have managed to brain wash thousands of physicists for one century against Einstein's will, as correctly noted by Prof. Santilli. This brainwashing has been done by avoiding the mention in one century (!) of the radial character of the recession speed. Since this radial character is evident and well known by experts, do we have here a one-century-long-conspiracy-agenda? What are the consequences for science and mankind? Chft37ot*

Yes Chft37ot, you are right. Prof. Santilli has proved the rejection of the expansion of the universe by Einstein, Hoyle, Hubble, Zwicky, Fermi, et al., with advanced mathematical, theoretical and experimental research published in refereed journals. Mainstream cosmologists have systematically discredited Prof. Santilli's results, rather than disproving them in papers also published in refereed journals. ZeusSon

*I cannot understand how qualified physics professors (including Nobel laureates....) could ignore for decades the return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe, since it is so evident from the radial character of the Hubble law. Are we dealing with physicists who are either ignorant, or corrupt? Ls92gf*

* We never say that the earth is at the center of our Universe, but at the center of the observable universe. Nobody know the size of the universe. Sww55qq *

Sww55qq, the difference between "earth at the center of our Universe or at the center of the observable universe" is purely political. I suggest you should keep a distance from the scientific ring that brainwashed generations of physicists to accept this incredible sequential chain of hyperbolic cosmological conjectures while abusing billions of dollars of taxpayer money the world over. Sqq55qq

* Fundamental physics is frustrating physicists. Whether politicians and taxpayers will be up for this remains to be seen. That fundamental physics has got as far as it has is, essentially, a legacy of its delivery to political leaders of the mid-20th century of the atom and hydrogen bombs. The consequence of this was that physicists were able to ask for expensive toys-for who knew what else they might come up with. That legacy has now been spent, though, and any privilege physics once had has evaporated. This risks leaving in permanent limbo not only the GUTs and their brethren, but also the skeptical idea of Dr. Hossenfelder that the Standard Model really is all there is. And that would surely be the most depressing result of all. Bds23ui*

Thank you Bds23ui for supporting the 1981 "return to sanity" voiced by Sir Karl Popper [89] in support of Sir R. M. Santilli's research. It is astonishing to see that such a call has been ignored for half a century and continues to be ignored by mainstream cosmologists and their governmental friends. DemocritusSon

*I fail to see why (2) puts the earth at the center of the universe. Remember v is a relative speed with respect to the observer. In our case earth. But observers on any galaxy, say the Tadpole galaxy in the dragon, would make the same observation, and (2) would apply to them too. Few12po*

Hello Few12po thank you for your view and for the respectful language. Unfortunately it appears you have been brainwashed by mainstream academia. In fact, you have provided an additional proof of the geometric inconsistency of Fig. I.1 because it also applies to the Tadpole galaxy in the dragon. DemocritusSon