The Current Paradigm

The currently accepted paradigm in astrophysics suggests that the universe originated from a "big bang," likely from a singularity, and has been expanding ever since. This theory arose to explain observations of redshift in many galaxies, which scientists associated with the Doppler effect. They concluded that redshift indicates a galaxy is moving away from us, with greater redshift suggesting higher speed and, by extension, greater distance. This reasoning, while intuitive, has its flaws, and the assumption that redshift correlates to distance is worth scrutinizing.

The expanding universe theory boasts internal consistency and mathematical elegance, which is appealing to scientists. However, for any theory to function as a robust model of reality, it must also align with observable phenomena—an area where the expanding universe theory encounters difficulties.

Emerging Anomalies

Recent discoveries have added to the body of anomalous data challenging the established paradigm. A study revealed the existence of ancient galaxies that should not exist according to the current model. One co-author noted, "We anticipated only tiny, young galaxies at this point in time, but we've found galaxies as advanced as our own in what was previously thought to be the universe's infancy."

This finding is another indication that the prevailing belief in an expanding universe may be misguided. The observations from this study are just a hint of a growing wave of evidence that contradicts the existing paradigm. Despite the complexities of astrophysics, one prediction of the expanding universe theory can be easily validated through observation, allowing for a straightforward assessment of its validity.

The first video, "If the Universe is expanding, where is the centre?" delves into the questions surrounding the expanding universe theory and its implications on our understanding of cosmic structure.

The Paradigm's Predictions

Cosmologists assert that the universe is expanding. If this expansion has been ongoing for over 12 billion years, we should observe clear evidence of this phenomenon. The theory predicts that as space expands, matter within it becomes more sparsely distributed, with galaxies moving further apart over time.

Introductory astronomy courses often use the analogy of raisins in rising bread dough to illustrate this concept. As the dough expands, the raisins are pushed further apart, leading to a decrease in their density. The question remains: do we observe a similar phenomenon in the distribution of galaxies?

The Evidence: A Closer Look

A light-year serves as both a unit of distance and time. When astronomers refer to galaxies billions of light-years away, they are discussing how those galaxies appeared billions of years ago. For instance, a galaxy 8 billion light-years distant is seen as it was 8 billion years ago.

By examining the distribution of galaxies based on their distance from us, we find an even spread across various distances. For instance, when comparing large regions of space at 2 billion light-years and 8 billion light-years away, the density of galaxies remains relatively constant across these time frames.

If we return to the raisin analogy, if the density of raisins remained unchanged over time, we would conclude that the dough is not actually rising. This simple observation serves as a powerful argument against the expanding universe theory.

Reassessing the Evidence

To clarify, the expanding universe theory proposes that as space stretches, galaxies drift apart, leading to a lower density of galaxies over time. It predicts that we should find fewer galaxies at greater distances if the universe has been expanding. However, surveys consistently show no significant change in galaxy density across space or time.

While localized "clumping" of matter exists, the degree of clumping is uniform across distances. This means that the density of galaxies at 8 billion light-years is comparable to that at 2 billion light-years. Therefore, the observations indicate that the density of galaxies has not diminished over time, contradicting the expanding universe theory.

Time for New Thinking

I firmly believe the universe is billions of years old, but the hypothesis of an expanding universe is evidently flawed. So why do scientists persist in advocating for this theory? This phenomenon is often attributed to "group think"—a common issue across various fields of human endeavor. Once an idea gains traction, it can create a momentum that makes it difficult to dislodge, even in light of conflicting evidence.

Kuhn's insights highlight that science can be slow to adapt, often resistant to data that challenges established theories. Scientists, being human, are susceptible to biases that can cloud their judgment.

Astrophysicists must develop a new paradigm that addresses the observed redshifts in galaxies. The assumption that these can be explained through the lens of the expanding universe is increasingly incompatible with other observations. While I cannot predict what this new theory might entail, it is clear that the current model is inadequate, a realization that may be more evident to outside observers than to those entrenched in the field.

The second video, "What If the Universe Is Not Expanding?" explores alternative theories and the implications of potential shifts in our understanding of cosmology.