Three Names That Confirmed E = mc²
As Science
A Look Behind The Curtain
Part One
The First Name
Edwin Hubble is a name that carries enormous reverence in science, and for good reason. Born in 1889, he transformed our understanding of the cosmos by demonstrating that the universe extended far beyond the Milky Way, and that galaxies were not just nebulous clouds, but entire independent systems of stars. This discovery alone changed astronomy forever.
But it was his 1929 publication that earned him the most lasting recognition, what became known as Hubble’s Law: a direct relationship between the redshift of galaxies and their distance from Earth.
v = H × d
Velocity equals the Hubble constant multiplied by distance.
This equation is now taught as settled science. It underpins nearly every model of cosmic expansion and the age of the universe. It gave rise to the modern framework of the expanding universe and is referenced continuously in cosmology. But few understand what Hubble was actually doing or what he was assuming.
Foundation Beneath Hubble’s Work
To grasp Hubble’s law, one must start with the redshift.
Redshift is the phenomenon where light from distant galaxies shifts toward the red end of the spectrum. The shift is interpreted as recession, much like the Doppler effect for sound. The assumption is that if the wavelength stretches, the source must be moving away.
But here is the key: Hubble did not discover recession, he observed redshift. The interpretation of redshift as velocity came from theory, not from the telescope.
And what theory? One rooted in the constant speed of light.
At the time, and continuing to this day in most models, the speed of light is assumed to be continuous and unbroken since the origin of the universe, from the very first moment of the Big Bang. This assumption is never questioned in classical cosmology.
A Law Built on Light Speed
The belief that light travels at a fixed speed, known as “c,” is a foundational pillar of modern physics. Special relativity (Einstein, 1905) and general relativity (Einstein, 1915) both build their frameworks on the constancy of c.
Hubble’s law, and indeed the entire model of cosmic expansion it supports, is built on this foundation.
But there is another equation, developed in contrast to this foundation:
The Lilborn Equation, expressed as E = mℓ.
Where Einstein’s model depends on the speed of light squared, the Lilborn Equation replaces that constant with ℓ, representing immediate interaction rather than transit speed.
This shift is not merely symbolic, it is ontological. While E = mc² relies on motion and delay, E = mℓ proposes that energy is revealed at the exact site of mass and interaction, with no travel, no propagation and no need for c.
This distinction reframes all of Hubble’s supporting assumptions. If light is not traveling, then redshift is not velocity, and Hubble’s equation is not a law, it is a misinterpretation of interaction. The entire framework begins to dissolve.
What Hubble was Told
and What He Proved
It is important to understand: Edwin Hubble was a disciplined scientist, not a dogmatist.
He did not set out to confirm a theory. He measured galaxies. He recorded redshift. He plotted data. The straight-line correlation he found was real.
But the meaning of that correlation was given to him by the framework he inherited:
– That light travels
– That redshift equals velocity
– That space must be expanding
These ideas were already circulating in the 1920s, particularly after Einstein’s general relativity began to reshape cosmic thinking. Hubble’s data became the anchor, the visual symbol of those ideas.
He did not invent them. He confirmed them, under their rules.
And central to those rules was the belief that the speed of light governed all cosmic behavior from the beginning. Redshift, velocity and distance were calculated within this fixed-speed model, as if the same constant applied equally from the first second of time to now.
What History Rarely Admits
Edwin Hubble was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1953, the year he died. At the time, the Nobel Committee did not recognize astronomy as a physics category, so he was ineligible.
Ironically, just one year later, in 1954, they changed the rule.
Had the timing been different, he almost certainly would have received it. The name “Hubble” would have stood atop physics as well as astronomy.
But perhaps the greater irony is this:
The law that bears his name was entirely built on assumptions that would be invalidated by inflation theory in 1980.
And yet, the law remains in textbooks.
Edwin Hubble
A Man, Not a Myth
This is not a critique of Hubble as a person. He measured honestly, published conservatively and earned respect. What followed was not his doing but the mythology that settled around his name.
Hubble’s Law is not a mistake. It is a historical photograph of where cosmology stood in 1929.
But to continue to build on it, knowing that the speed-of-light model it assumes has been bypassed, is not science, it is branding.
And the fracture began here.
Next: Georges Lemaître.
Produced by The Lilborn Equation Team:
Michael Lilborn-Williams
Daniel Thomas Rouse
Thomas Jackson Barnard
Audrey Williams