I came into this thinking I was involved in a scientific discussion. Is it possible that this is actually a theological discussion?
What ever gave you that impression? lol Let's stick with scientific empirical evidence shall we?
Now upon Hubble being assigned to the Mt. Wilson Observatory in 1919 he soon discovered empirical evidence that he himself found to be "...a horror."
Why should empirical evidence be a horror unless it goes against preconceived ideas?
When part of your car breaks, you don't destroy your car and build another one from scratch. And when new information comes in, you don't abandon your carefully-constructed and tested models without a pretty strong reason.
Yes, but your error is in thinking "the car" is fully constructed and tested! It's not.....it always had flaws from the start
And the issue with cosmology is totally different from the car because with the car it "broke down" because of "engineering" flaws in operation. Cosmology's model breaks down as a result of an ongoing series of discoveries of physics evidence that falsifies the model.
With the car I see your analogy however, but when the fixes involves a series of "bootstraps" as opposed to the model is flat out false, the model does begin to look seriously ugly as a result.
Here:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/
"Look at the facts," says Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. "The basic big bang model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways." The temperature of today's universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. "Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new - inflation, dark matter and dark energy," Scarpa says. For Scarpa and his fellow dissidents, the tinkering has reached an unacceptable level. All for the sake of saving the notion that the universe flickered into being as a hot, dense state. "This isn't science," says Eric Lerner who is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, and one of the conference organisers. "Big bang predictions are consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event." So much so, that today's "standard model" of cosmology has become an ugly mishmash comprising the basic big bang theory, inflation and a generous helping of dark matter and dark energy. The trouble, says Lerner, who headed the list of more than 30 signatories, is that cosmology is bankrolled by just a few sources, and the committees that control those purse strings are dominated by supporters of the big bang.
con't
"According to the accepted view, when we observe ultra-distant galaxies we should see them in their youth. But there is a problem. "We don't see young galaxies," says Lerner. "We see old ones. They have pretty much the same range of stars as present-day galaxies." And that is bad news for the big bang. So if there was no big bang, where did the cosmic microwave background come from? Rather than coming from the big bang, Lerner believes that the cosmic background radiation is really starlight that has been absorbed and re-radiated. It is an old idea that was widely promoted by the late cosmologist and well-known big bang sceptic Fred Hoyle. Lerner's idea is similar, though he thinks that threads of electrically charged gas called plasma are responsible. "All astronomers know that 99.99 per cent of matter in the universe is in the form of plasma, which is controlled by electromagnetic forces," he says. "Yet all astronomers insist on believing that gravity is the only important force in the universe. It is like oceanographers ignoring hydrodynamics." In Scarpa's case, the mysterious dark matter is at fault. Dark matter has become an essential ingredient in cosmology's standard model. That's because the big bang on its own fails to describe how galaxies could have congealed from the matter forged shortly after the birth of the universe. Cosmologists fix this problem by adding to their brew a vast amount of invisible dark matter which provides the extra tug needed to speed up galaxy formation."
Now here's notable
João Magueijo of Imperial College London in the same link above (though he himself has recently succumb to the committees that control those purse strings"
"People made these assumptions because, without them, it was impossible to simplify Einstein's equations enough to solve them for the universe," says Magueijo. And if those assumptions are wrong, it could be curtains for the standard model of cosmology. That may not be a bad thing, according to Magueijo. "The standard model is ugly and embarrassing," he says. "I hope it will soon come to breaking point."
Now back to Hubble, ....what scientific empirical evidence did he actually discover that he found "a horror"?
Now bear in mind that "Hubble's Bubble" and Einstein's Relativity is the reigning paradigm.
Here's where we see one of the first fruits of "corrupt science"...
Hubble looks in his new most advanced telescope and finds that he the observer....is in the center of universe!
This is precisely what he finds to be a horror! lol
He even admits this after he becomes famous in his 1929 book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology"
Here he is after he discovers the evidence:
Hubble:
"…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position Here of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."
"The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59):
Notice he admits the idea cannot be disproved? ....and yet goes on to disregarding the "possibility"? ....and then admits that empirical evidence of this nature is "unwelcome"?
What's wild is he goes on and admits that this "MUST BE AVOIDED at all costs.."
Furthermore....why should empirical evidence be "a horror"? Isn't empirical evidence just that? Empirical Evidence?
He admits implementing "Spatial Curvature" to get away from the horror as he has no other ESCAPE.
Tell me this is not "corrupt science" and a preference for a preferred cosmological model.
This is just one of many very significant examples of such corruption perpetrated on the masses as "credible science"
It is interesting to note, and to Hubble's credit somewhat....that Hubble, the observer, even up to his final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else. In his seminal book Realm of the Nebulae Hubble wrote:
"On the other hand, if the interpretation as velocity shifts is abandoned, we find in the redshifts a hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown."
He had 1 of 2 ways to interpret Redshift....he chose velocity of recession.
Hence ....the "Boot Strap" plagued lambdaCDM (Cold Dark Matter) Standard Model Big Bang
This is seriously just the tip of the iceberg
Funny....today ....it's "Follow the science" ........with incredibly strict restrictions on treatments.
