Cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their
theory, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:

"Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."
https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not
that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.
forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

Expanding space with non-expanding patches is nonsense of course, but let us combine it with another nonsense - light stretched by expansion:

"The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-webb-to-explore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day

"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_
redshift.shtml

How can stretching of light occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? The scenario is more than preposterous: Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light
enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it? Unfortunately, even the most obvious idiocy can be universally accepted and even worshiped:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of
experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For,
after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Why do cosmologists apply expansion solutions only to voids where there is no gravitational attraction? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to spaces where objects attract one another gravitationally, observations would immediately disprove the
expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And
the theory, if it assumes that intragalactic expansion does occur, will have to predict distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have decided to apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Nothing new. Theoretical physics has
been a dishonest ideology since 1905:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity
theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are
disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then
able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier.
Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting
their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the
Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)