Big bang theory.

The Big Bang theory has received far more than it's share of attention by debaters both within and without science. This attention is not just by the usual lounge chair experts; much of it is from people with a strong religious interest and there appear to be significant numbers of them that are both for and against the theory. One thing good scientists learn is to not be too attached to a theory. If those with a theological interest only knew how tenuous the theory is they might spend less time debating the pro's and con's so animatedly. Even theories that become scientific law may be found wanting for such a minor infraction as not accounting for the perihelion of the planet mercury. The big bang theory is found wanting for a large number of much more significant reasons. (see significant reasons below) There are a growing number of scientists who are extremely concerned that the peer review system has become nothing more than a conformity check. This does not stand well for the progress of science, indeed many scientists who make discoveries that do not support the current paradigm, and this applies not just to cosmology and astronomy but most of the sciences and related fields of inquiry; even archaeology does not escape untarnished. A little history. The Doppler effect. In 1842 Christian Doppler offered the first known physical explanation for changes in the apparent pitches of sounds and frequency of the sound waves heard as a sound source speeds passed an observer. A train whistle as it goes past, sounds like it changes in pitch, but it does not. The Doppler effect is now in routine use in police radar guns. Shortly after, in 1848, French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau described the first Doppler redshift for light; he pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the "DopplerFizeau effect" A shorter descriptor, now mostly used is Redshift. That we can measure the speed of stellar objects moving away from an observer by determining the extent of redshift is unchallenged. In 1871 the speed of the receding edge of the sun was determined using redshift observed in Fraunhofer lines and since then countless confirming observations have been made. A little over a hundred years ago the view of most if not all astronomers was that our milky way galaxy was the entire universe and that it was a static universe. In 1915 Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity, which is a theory of gravity. Einstein found that his equations did not allow for a static universe unless he inserted a certain constant in the mathematics which became know as the cosmological constant. Shortly after the Russian revolution in 1922 behind the iron curtain, Aleksandr Friedmann (1888 1925) found solutions to Einstein's equations which allowed the universe to either expand, contract or be static. In 1927 Belgian priest/scientist Georges Lemaitre also discovered these solutions, possibly independently and choosing to promote the expansion rather than the static universe put forward his "Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" theory which Fred Hoyle disparagingly called the big bang. This is the name that has stuck. To present his case Lemaitre went to London; a luxury Friedmann could not afford given the post revolution hostility between his country and Britain. In 1929 Hubble made possibly the most important astronomical discovery of the twentieth century, that the shift in the spectra of the faint spiral nebulae, as galaxies were called then, (they were finding it a bit hard to come to terms with the idea of galaxies other than our own populated the universe) are proportional to their apparent brightness. The most obvious interpretation of this was that the more distant and therefore fainter the galaxy, and the greater the redshift ergo the faster they are moving away from us. Not only did the universe appear to be expanding but it's expansion was accelerating. By the 1930s the front page of the New York times stated that we live in an expanding

universe though for almost the next forty years the scientific community remained undecided between the static or the expanding universe, including Hubble himself until he died in 1953. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognised principle of nature."[25] from wikipedia. Sandage, Allan (1989), "Edwin Hubble 18891953"
This is not the first time that the media has swayed public opinion ahead of scientific consensus.

Einstein, convinced by Hubble's data, reluctantly accepted that the evidence for an expanding universe was persuasive. Hubble's Law was created from the observation that, the fainter the galaxy, the greater the redshift ergo the faster they are moving away from us. It is the writers opinion that the status of law should have been revoked when in the 1960's Quasi Stellar Objects or Quasars were discovered which thoroughly defy Hubble's Law and brought with them such anomalous results that the law should have been de-merited to a theory. Significant Reasons. To make it clear. Hubble created a graph of brightness vs redshift for galaxies. The result was a nice straight line with the data respectably close to the line. By the nineteen sixties when it was discovered that there were now a large number of objects out there that were not respectably close to the line; and what were these objects anyway? They certainly did not seem to be galaxies, and yet the only thing we should be able to see at those distances are galaxies. Imagine you put a one candela Light Emitting Diode on a helium balloon with altimeter and allow it to ascend in the darkness until the light is no longer visible and call this altitude or distance from the observer X. If this experiment is repeated with the balloon carrying a billion one candela L.E.Ds, (average galaxy has way over a billion stars in it) they will, after ascension be clearly visible at altitude/distance X. Same with galaxies. So we called these peculiar objects, that according to their redshift distances, must be spectacularly bright, Quasi Stellar Objects, because they appeared to be star like and yet have more calculated luminance than two trillion stars all together. So what are these defiant little rebels we call Quasars? Before we consider quasars, it would be good to just remind ourselves of a fact of nature. Stars become fainter with increasing distance because their energy is spread out over a larger and larger surface. A star's apparent brightness (its flux) decreases with the square of the distance. Imagine a Quasar Q that we see near a normal galaxy which we will call G, both have a similar brightness and would be assumed to be the same distance from the observer, as they have the same brightness. However, Q's much greater redshift, puts Q very much further away. Since Q is much further away but has similar brightness to G, it must have a different means of creating it's brightness than G. G is a galaxy with perhaps two billion stars. The only way to make it brighter is to have more stars, or some other extra ordinary means of creating brightness. In fact Quasars, if we take them to be at the distance the redshift suggests, must have a luminosity 2 trillion times that of our sun; or to put it an another way, if you took all of the stars of one hundred milky way galaxies and crammed them all together, then you may have sufficient luminosity. To add to this though, quasars are small. By comparison, our galaxy is 100,000 light-years across whilst quasars are typically less than one light-year across and often not much larger than our solar system; so getting all those stars from one hundred galaxies to fit into that rather small space is just not on. To continue to accept that quasars are at the distance suggested by their redshift, it is necessary to contrive a whole new mechanism, such as super massive black holes. This speculative contrivance is completely un-testable and verges on the metaphysical. Theoreticians, astronomers and cosmologists may not have been reluctant to take on the challenge of creating a new theory to

account for the different redshifts of quasars but having witnessed the treatment of one of their colleagues they may now be very reluctant. Apparently there is a turgid resistance to fostering research in any area that may threaten or undermine the big bang theory. What happened to astronomer Halton Arp is a case in point. The caltech head of the telescope allocation committee disallowed Arp telescope time for pusuing his interest in peculiar galaxies, particularly those with apparent association with quasars which forced Arp to resign. Arp is seen as a hero by some and references are made of a twentieth century Galileo. This from some of his supporters:
Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope. From

electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm The anomalies of quasars are these: If they are as far away their redshift predicts, then they are extremely remarkable objects. To quote wikipedia, They tend to inhabit the very centres of active, young galaxies, and are among the most luminous, powerful, and energetic objects known in the universe, emitting up to a thousand times the energy output of the Milky Way. The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output of average galaxies, equivalent to 2 trillion (21012) suns. This mainstream view remains contentious. Imagine one small light source putting out as much light as two thousand times all the stars in our galaxy. This much light cannot come from any sources we know of. To explain this, it has been necessary to speculate mathematically and create a model around a super massive black hole, a thing which to date no astronomer admits to having seen anywhere in the observable universe. These speculations are untestable and border on the metaphysical. In conformity with mainstream science wikipedia suggests that the red shift controversy is over. Halton Arp made interesting observations of quasars in the 1960's which for those with eyes that see, make it clear that some other factor accounts for the unusually high redshift of quasars. Halton's discovery has since been resoundingly confirmed by Martin Corredoira and Carlos Gutierrez (2002) in observations of galaxy NGC7603. The symbol for redshift is 'z'. Corredoira and Gutierrez's measurements are truly startling.

It is perfectly clear that at least two quasars, object 2 and 3, are indisputably associated with NGC7603. The stream of luminous matter linking NGC7603 to its companion Object 1, is plain for all to see and clearly indicates that NGC7603 and it's companion are approximately the same distance from us, yet if we use Hubble's Law and the redshift 'z' of 0.029, to determine the distance of the of the companion, the calculation tells us that object 1 is much further away from us than NGC7603. To compound matters, Hubble's law calculations for distance away from us puts QS Objects 2 and 3 at extreme distances from both us and NGC7603. Big Bang priests, um, I mean scientists assure us that objects 2 and 3 are no where near NGC7603 and are way off in the distance behind it and that the apparent matching of luminosity is just a fluke of nature, as is the fact that they 'appear' to be in the stream of matter between host and companion.

Einstein's first universe was a static one. Then, in 1934, convinced by Hubble's data on redshift, Einstein accepted that the data supported the expanding universe hypothesis. This suggested two possibilities. The big bang or a cyclic universe. Of the two theories there is no doubt that those who can't resist a little conflation of science and religion would favour the big bang theory for obvious reasons. Perhaps it is not surprising that Lemaitre, father of the big bang hypothesis was also known as father in the catholic church. Lematre described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" and Fred Hoyle disparagingly gave it the name big bang. Hannes Alfvn said he heard Lematre say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo #creation out of nothing. No doubt those trying to accumulate scientific evidence to support the bible, 'In the beginning there was nothing... and then there was light' may be dismayed if the big bang theory looses mass support but this would only be by neglecting the fact that the absence of the big bang, does not deny what is in the bible. It simply has nothing to do with the bible. This is science.

There are other religious folk who don't want to support the big bang because it contradicts Genesis. Religion and Science are not competing ideas. There is no reason why one's view of God cannot be described by a new set of words which more accurately reflect a view. God is for people, what they need him to be. The bible that we have today has come to us from people of a different age. We are unable to even read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for the English language has changed so much in fi

Rather surprisingly competing theories, died or were abandonded on much less grounds than those used to support the big bang theory... viz a viz dark matter and dark energy. Something that is discussed little is notion of aether. There is another kind of momentum in science. Big bang and string theory scientists alike are devoted to and get funding for following the idea that there is only one possible explanation for redshift. The interpretation of redshift is the founding premise for a large number of jobs in physics, astronomy and cosmology. The moment one considers other possible explanations for redshift then the very foundations are shaken. Twentieth Century media was addicted to sensationalism, no less so in it's coverage of science and this can no doubt explain the common conflation of science and religion. String theory can accommodate a big bang like theory though a cyclic model has more favour amongst string theorists. There are two ways to view the bible. Literal and non-literal. The absence of the big bang should affect neither party. The big bang is a scientific theory. Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the big bang, says that this theory of origins differs greatly in detail from the biblical version. He then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University: What one cannot say is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation supports the Big Bang model, or second, that the Big Bang model supports the doctrine of creation (1983, 17-20). Perhaps, in a world where one assumes that Scientists seek, for want of a better word, truth, it is surprising to learn that certain ideas are not just ignored but actively discouraged. At some time in the not too distant future we will look upon the big bang theory as we now look upon the earth centric view of the universe; simply unsupportable with better theories to explain the observed universe. I have no stake in this fight. The outcome does not affect me. What does affect me is that science and the scientific method is being vigorously and intentionally corrupted and it would seem to be coming from within. Such noted astronomers as Vera Rubin (cosmology prize winner)

unused The Big Bang 1. Scientists don't know that there was a beginning of the universe. 2. Scientists don't know that if there was a beginning to the universe that it happened in the form of a big bang; there are still well supported contending theories for a possible

beginning. The cyclic universe. 3. Conflating Science and Religion is not unlike trying to mate a horse with an SUV. Science Were Arp's views to gain widespread acceptance, it would be very difficult for mainstream scientists to take the big bang theory seriously. be an as star like objects often with huge redshifts. Hubble's Law for these objects infers that they are moving away from us at tremendous speed and it was assumed that since they had the highest speed away from us that they would also be the most distant but this has proved to be not so. sureferred to as a companion galaxy has a has a stream of matter reaching a nearby much smaller galaxy of z 0.057, while two other objects in the stream of matter between these two, have redshifts of 0.243 and 0.391. Mainstream science, in denial, states that objects that appear to be near NGC7603 with redshifts as measured must be thousands or millions of light-years further away, behind NGC7603 which in this image is very very highly improbable. Most people seeing the image will acknowledge that there is clearly a bridge of matter between two galaxies. , with some unknown source of illumination, for their brightness In science one should not get too comfortable with theories. They are even Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive! 4. seeks to explain from observation the nature of the universe.

Created, Static and Cyclic are the three contenders. Since scientists know that there