Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

[David R. Brandt]

"We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined." By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

I think astronomy is the most useless science except for the study of the Solar System. I was once in an email discussion with a professional astronomer until I suggested there was no dark matter. Professional astronomers are tied to the purse strings and opinions of those who hold them. That system flourishes as long the science that results from that system is of no value to society.

Non-Doppler Redshift and Dark Matter in the Coma Cluster by Yi-Jia Zheng
National Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100012 China

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death By Paul Marmet

REDSHIFTS AND MORPHOLOGY OF GALAXIES IN THE COMA CLUSTER by Stephen A. Gregory
Steward Observatory Received 1974 November 7; revised 1975 January 3

A New Non-Doppler Redshift by Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6

[Deane Clark]

Well, according to Mr. Marmet, we also have to throw out quantum mechanics and relativity.

[David R. Brandt]

We threw out or will through out: the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, the earth is the center of the Universe, epicycles best model planetary retrograde, those 'nebula' (now known as other galaxies) are part of this star system, there is a planet (that we will call Vulcan) that is the cause of Mercury's orbit shift, a medium (that we will call ether) carries light through space, dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, Brian Green , etc.

Some of those who changed how we perceive 'what is out there' are Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein. A lot has been thrown out.

[Ron Schmit]

We threw out..., Brian Green

HA!!HA!! Oooo... Shots fired!!

[matt_2018]

David wrote: "I think astronomy is the most useless science except for the study of the Solar System."

Here's my volley, Ron:

It looks like your beef is with cosmology, not general astronomy. I would agree with you that cosmology has many wild and crazy ideas out there, but cosmology is not all there is outside of the solar system. I'm not a big fan of the wild-card, curve-fitting thing they call dark energy, for example.

Science is not decided by vote or consensus, just more and more investigation and evidence. Unfortunately, astronomy and cosmology are rampant with dogmatism (just like other fields like evolution and climatology, but I digress...). Science is supposed to be an opportunity to explore crazy ideas and see what stands the test of time (literally in these topics).

Matt

[Deane Clark]

I’ll just put this here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[matt_2018]

I am, in fact, a fan of Einstein's General Relativity. It has been very well established in things as basic as the drift of GPS satellite clocks. Without compensating for GR, GPS would not work at all.

This does not mean that GR is the whole story, but just as Newtonian physics held until GR superseded it, GR will probably hold until a super-set supersedes it. As such, we can't dispose of GR without a better explanation for what we experience and use in daily life.

I don't generally like to get into "hand-waving" arguments like this, but when it comes to physics, I feel like a defense of logic is important.

Matt