Did Hubble can it wrong?

[Surgenator]

I am using the equation correctly.

Read it again: The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, later on in the same paragraph, "When the photon is emitted at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the redshift will be infinitely large. When the photon is emitted at an infinitely large distance, there is no redshift." The author is specifically talking about a black hole.

How can you miss "Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s." I bolded for you. You also missed the "not defined" part in your bolded region. How can the equation give a value of the redshift if it is not defined for R^* < r_s? Reading comprehension FAIL.

Oh, I can do the math. I don't want to waste my time doing so when I can't point out that your claim is wrong through a thought experiments.

So far you have shown that you can't read your own link properly, and you still can't do the math. My derivations is over 10 steps, and they are elementary. You have no excuses. You want to see the kind of math I'm capable of. See my other blogs.

So far you have shown that you can't read what is clearly being bolded for you.

Also, you are forgetting the most fundamental rule of scientific proofs, your model predictions have to match the observations. Your model fails this on some basic observations. You can add any simple or fancy math you want. If you can't match the observations, your model is wrong.

In equation 5, you did binomial expansion that works only if d1/R is much less than one. Later, your trying to apply your solution to cases where d1/R will no longer be much less than one. It will be much greater than one. Your binomial approximation is longer justified.

The wavelength shift of your 3 emitters would be the same when they're light years away.

You're speculating without proof. Show me with hard equations derived from fundamental principles, not just spurting an unfounded opinion.

Observations are not unfounded opinions. Hard equations are not proofs. Your doing too much theory not enough experiment.

Your forgetting about the mass of the object. Gravitational potential = GM/r.

I haven't forgotten. The equations shows that it depends only on the mass of the source, which is

10) d = H Δv,

where H = (cR2source)/ (GMsource)

I'm sure the masses galaxies that were determined via virial theorem and confirmed via graviational lensing agree with your Msource. Oh wait, they don't.