# Thread: There is no "Hubble's Law", and there is also no "Lemaitre's Law".

1. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8

## There is no "Hubble's Law", and there is also no "Lemaitre's Law".

In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law". 2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,842

## Streccchhh Originally Posted by Ed Dellian In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
You are assuming that d=vt, and that the distant galaxies are all movong at the same speed. They are not. The space (d) between us and them is consstantly inreasing as the universe expands. Thus their apparent speed (v) increases with distance. 3. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
As it is an observational law, and you don't dispute the observations, I don't see how you can deny its existence.

One could argue the interpretation. And, for a long time, people did. IT was all the other evidence, in particular the CMB, that lead to the alternatives being dropped.

So, in your model (it is not clear to me what your model is: all galaxies have the same velocity?) what is the cause of the CMB?

Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time.
No, that is not what it implies. 4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,842

## Heh? Originally Posted by Ed Dellian In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
I think you are quoting Max Tegmark out of context. Could you please be a little more specific? 5. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8

## Read Max Tegmark on "Hubble's law! Originally Posted by John Mendenhall I think you are quoting Max Tegmark out of context. Could you please be a little more specific?
I'm absolutely n o t quoting Tegmark "out of context". Here is what he writes. Unfortunately I own only the German edition of his 2014 book "Our Mathematical Universe". So I have to translate from the German. Chapter 3 paragraph "Our universe is really expanding"; Quote: "If a galaxy is moving from us, we can suspect that it was much closer to us in the past. How long ago? If you observe a car, moving away after a bank robbery, you can calculate the time when it left the bank, by dividing its distance through its velocity. If you do this calculation for a galaxy that moves away, Hubble's law gives uns the answer d/v = 1/H, which is valid for all galaxies. Modern measurement yields the answer 1/H = 14 billions of years." Note that the outcome results from applying the equation v = d/t only in both cases: t = d/v; no "Hubble's law" or "Hubble's constant" is applied, since H = 1/t, and the required time is t = 1/H! 6. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8
The only thing ever "observed" is "redshift". Everything else ("velocity" and "motion" of galaxies) is interpretation. Therefore, Hubble's alleged law is n o t an "observational law" as you seem to believe. It is true, however, that many science writers loosely are asserting that "in 1929 Hubble observed that the galaxies move away from us". Cf. Stephen Hawking (1988), A Brief History of Time. But this has never been true; it is just written to make the uninitiated believe in it. - I propose no "model". I only point to the fact that the simple application of the equation v = d/t yields everything that can be obtained by applying the "Hubble law", because H is 1/t, and concequently the equation v = d/t = d x 1/t is equal to v = d x H. That is all. Hubble's law does not contain or teach anything beyond the equation v = d/t. It is simply the equation v = d/t = d x 1/t using a different symbol H instead of 1/t. 7. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8
No. That is not my subject. Instead, I am showing that Hubble's asserted law v = Hd contains no information of anything beyond the equation v = d x 1/t because 1/t is just H, so we have v = dH again. That is all. 8. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
772 Originally Posted by Ed Dellian In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
As Strange has already noted, the "Hubble law" is observational, relating observed redshifts and estimates of distance.

The interpretation of the observed redshifts as "velocities" is just that, an interpretation. And as such it must be done within a theoretical framework.

(As must the estimates of distance of course, which is one reason why such enormous efforts - by a great many independent astronomers - have been made to develop consistent estimates).

Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
If the theoretical framework for interpreting the observed redshifts is General Relativity, then those redshifts are not "velocities" (well, a small component of them likely are, up to ~400 km/s perhaps, and that component can be either positive or negative).

Perhaps you would reconsider re-writing your ATM idea, so that it explicitly incorporates the role of interpretation? I would also suggest that you do not need anything Max Tegmark wrote; your ATM idea should stand on its own two feet (so to speak). 9. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian I'm absolutely n o t quoting Tegmark "out of context". Here is what he writes. Unfortunately I own only the German edition of his 2014 book "Our Mathematical Universe". So I have to translate from the German. Chapter 3 paragraph "Our universe is really expanding"; Quote: "If a galaxy is moving from us, we can suspect that it was much closer to us in the past. How long ago? If you observe a car, moving away after a bank robbery, you can calculate the time when it left the bank, by dividing its distance through its velocity. If you do this calculation for a galaxy that moves away, Hubble's law gives uns the answer d/v = 1/H, which is valid for all galaxies. Modern measurement yields the answer 1/H = 14 billions of years." Note that the outcome results from applying the equation v = d/t only in both cases: t = d/v; no "Hubble's law" or "Hubble's constant" is applied, since H = 1/t, and the required time is t = 1/H!
But Hubble's law defines the observed relationship between d and v that results in t being the same for all galaxies.

Also, note that treating the redshifts as being due to velocity creates problems. For example, we can observe galaxies that have a recessional speed greater than the speed of light. This makes the "car" analogy unrealistic. 10. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8
No, Hubble's so-called law does not "define an observed relationship between d and v", as you believe. The only thing "observed" is "redshift"; everything else is interpretation. Next objection: The time t resulting of d/v is n o t "the same for all galaxies", as you believe. It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time. For the galaxies observed by Hubble it is still about 2 billions of years today! Note, by the way, that the t resulting from d/v according to mathematics cannot be a constant : namely, since v is an invariant, and d is a variable, the quotient v/d must also be a variable. No way out! 11. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian No, Hubble's so-called law does not "define an observed relationship between d and v", as you believe. The only thing "observed" is "redshift"; everything else is interpretation. Next objection: The time t resulting of d/v is n o t "the same for all galaxies", as you believe. It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time. For the galaxies observed by Hubble it is still about 2 billions of years today! Note, by the way, that the t resulting from d/v according to mathematics cannot be a constant : namely, since v is an invariant, and d is a variable, the quotient v/d must also be a variable. No way out!
My bold. Can you refer us to some reliable published data?

It is my understanding that in the 1920s the distances to the relatively nearby galaxies were greatly underestimated for a variety of reasons. Improved observations since then have cleared that up.

Are you asserting that the redshift is the same for all galaxies, regardless of distance? Your printed words here certainly give that impression. Things such as saying v is an invariant. 12. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8
Please stick to my argument. It has nothing to do with "General Relativity", but only with the alleged "Hubble's law" v = Hd, which is basic mechanics: Velocity, distance, and H = 1/time, in interdependence. Since H = 1/t, the equation v = Hd is identical with the equation v = d/t. That is all. 13. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian No, Ed. You post the words, you choose to have your idea challenged here, and you are required to answer pertinent questions. If you don't want something questioned, don't bring it up. You've read our ATM rules, right? Also, please indicate in your post which post you are responding to, either by using the quote function or some other way. Just so we don't get confusion over what is an answer to which question. 14. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8
No, I'm not assuming that the objects are all moving at the same speed. I'm just showing that the quotient d/v = t for an object moving with velocity v gives the time it took this object to cover the distance d with velocity v. Now, since the alleged "Hubble's law" v = dH does nothing else but calculate the d/v of objects moving with velocity v it cannot yield any other result but the time t it took the object to cover the distance d with velocity v. The equation generating this result is just v = d/t, even when the factor 1/t is symbolized by H. 15. Newbie
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
8 Originally Posted by slang No, Ed. You post the words, you choose to have your idea challenged here, and you are required to answer pertinent questions. If you don't want something questioned, don't bring it up. You've read our ATM rules, right? Also, please indicate in your post which post you are responding to, either by using the quote function or some other way. Just so we don't get confusion over what is an answer to which question.
Thank you. Being new here, I was a bit confused about which function to use when responding. Now I think I've got it. I will use the "quote function" from nopw on to make clear what I'm responding to. 16. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
772 Originally Posted by Ed Dellian Please stick to my argument. It has nothing to do with "General Relativity", but only with the alleged "Hubble's law" v = Hd, which is basic mechanics: Velocity, distance, and H = 1/time, in interdependence. Since H = 1/t, the equation v = Hd is identical with the equation v = d/t. That is all.
"basic mechanics" works in a universe where what I might call "Newtonian physics" rules.

In the universe we live in, Newtonian physics is a good approximation in many respects, but does not work well for trying to understand the large scale structure (etc) of the universe. For this, General Relativity has been shown to be consistent with all relevant observations (and experiments).

Also, please do not conflate "v" or "velocity" with what the Hubble law actually is about; and that is, once again, an association between observed redshifts and estimated distances. 17. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian Thank you. Being new here, I was a bit confused about which function to use when responding. Now I think I've got it. I will use the "quote function" from nopw on to make clear what I'm responding to.
Thank you but please do take some time to familiarize yourself with our rules, as suggested by slangs rhetorical question. Responding to moderation within the thread...whether to argue with or otherwise comment upon the moderation...is against those rules, unless youve been specifically asked to respond. 18. It is my understanding that it is well documented that Hubble and Lemaitre knew about redshift measurements that increased along with the estimated distances to the respective galaxies, in a manner that was at least approximately linear. Ed Dellian, a direct question. Are you of the opinion that this documentation is wrong, and that they did not observe any such thing? 19. Originally Posted by Ed Dellian In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
Well, your first sentence is either misleading, or just wrong, in a couple respects. AFAIK, the redshifts were interpreted as "recession velocities," not "escape velocities." This interpretation has since changed, but that's another topic.

And "the idea to correlate the redshifts... with the distances" was not "to obtain a quotient v/d," as you claim. It was to notice that the redshifts are proportional to the distances. IOW, v ~ d. The greater the distance, the greater the apparent recessional velocity. Sticking v over d does nothing to clarify the meaning of this remarkable correlation. 20. Originally Posted by Cougar Well, your first sentence is either misleading, or just wrong, in a couple respects. AFAIK, the redshifts were interpreted as "recession velocities," not "escape velocities." This interpretation has since changed, but that's another topic.

And "the idea to correlate the redshifts... with the distances" was not "to obtain a quotient v/d," as you claim. It was to notice that the redshifts are proportional to the distances. IOW, v ~ d. The greater the distance, the greater the apparent recessional velocity. Sticking v over d does nothing to clarify the meaning of this remarkable correlation.
Indeed, that is why the units of the Hubble constant are so "strange": (km / sec) / Mpc, and there is a reason why this is not just reduced to 1/sec 21. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
150 Originally Posted by Ed Dellian In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
No, these aren't "escape velocities". The redshift of galaxies is simply the speed at which they are moving away from us, it is not the escape velocity of anything. (what would these galaxies be escaping exactly?)

Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time.
Sounds good here.

Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not.
Of course it DOES, but you aren't giving any context to it. For instance, lets say there are 2 cars and the velocities are such that they are pointed directly towards each other. That teaches us that they are going to get into an accident, and calculating the speeds will teach us how bad or minor that accident will be. That is certainly information "beyond" just the number of it's velocity. Or if they are pointing directly away from each other it will tell us when they last interacted, again more information. Or what if the direction of the velocity was changing over time? Well now you can learn that the object is going in a circle, and perhaps it is orbiting something. Again, information beyond just it's velocity. There are many things that you can learn beyond just it's velocity once you put it in context, which is what Hubbles Law does.

Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not.
Yes it easily does. Galaxies that are moving away from each other where in the same spot 13.7 billion years ago, thus the age of the universe. Though you are correct that it won't tell us the starting point, because there is NO starting point for the expansion of the universe. But that is a separate topic, so staying on this topic yes it will teach us many things, including the age of the universe.

Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
Do you have a source for this? I was not aware that recent observations have disproved Hubbles Law in the manner you are claiming. 22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,419 Originally Posted by Ed Dellian .... As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
As already mentioned, Hubble's Law is a relationship between D (the proper distance to a galaxy) and redshift (the measured redshift of the light from the galaxy). Hubble's law and exists. Stating that it does not exist is similar to stating that a policeman using a radar gun to measure the speed of cars is not measuring the speeds of the cars.

Hubble's law was measured and is measured today using redshift of the light a galaxy emits. That redshift is caused by the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is a shift of light caused by the velocity of the source. Thus the redshift gives the velocity of the galaxy. The best explanation for Hubble's law is an expanding universe. There were others explanations but they have been discarded because they cannot explain other observations, e.g. the CMB, the increase in neutral hydrogen as we look further away and earlier, time dilation of supernova light curves, etc.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

ETA: A tiny point, Ed Dellian, is that Hubble's law is actually v = H0D. The 0 subscript and capital D are important. H0 is Hubble's constant as measured here on Earth today. D is the proper distance to a galaxy that we measure now but changes with time.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-25 at 02:00 AM. 23. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,419 Originally Posted by Ed Dellian It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time
The data Hubble originally used was for relatively few and close galaxies. He got one value for the Hubble constant. 90 years later we have data on millions of galaxies out to vast distances. The same analysis with more data gives a more accurate value.
In addition we improved the measurement of distances to galaxies, D. Two major flaws with the original distance estimates were found in the 1950's. We found that there were 2 types of Cepheid variable stars so the distances had to be doubled. Using "brightest stars" in more remote galaxies to estimate distance misidentified bright gas or clusters as stars. That reduced the Hubble constant down to ~75. See Cosmic age problem.

The Hubble constant is calculated from galaxies as the slope of the line for galaxies with measured redshift and distance from close ones to the furthest ones we have observed.

See the Observed values of the Hubble constant table. This starts with estimates with no errors listed starting with 635 in 1927 from Georges Lemaitre.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-25 at 02:30 AM. 24. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
21 Originally Posted by Strange ... we can observe galaxies that have a recessional speed greater than the speed of light. This makes the "car" analogy unrealistic.
I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science.  25. Originally Posted by MikusF318 I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science. MikusF318

First, welcome to CQ.

Thanks, 26. Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Posts
21 Originally Posted by Swift MikusF318

First, welcome to CQ.

Thanks,
Understood. Won't happen again. Thank you for the welcome. 27. Originally Posted by MikusF318 I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science.  