In standard BB theory, cosmological,
as opposed to Doppler, redshifts are the result of expanding empty space.
The idea that empty space, as part of a space-time metric can have the
properties we normally associate with material bodies, is unsatisfactory
to many of us. Additionally, we should doubt that the universe is expanding
because the geometry of galaxy distribution is what one would expect of
an infinite non expanding universe, i.e., we don't observe galaxy clusters
being closer to other galaxy clusters in the distant (deep-time) universe.
Yet, in addition to Doppler shifts, there are also cosmological redshifts.
These cosmological redshifts need an explanation (other than the hypothesized
and unsatisfactory expanding space idea). A physics professor from France
contacted me informing me of some papers he has published that suggest
a mechanism that may account for cosmological redshifts. These papers are
quite technical and mathematical. The author and I wish to hear from professional
astrophysicists on this.
A
Doppler-like strong light-matter interaction
The
difficult discrimination of Impulse Stimulated Raman Scattering redshift
against Doppler redshift
By J. Moret-Bailly
Not infrequently, it is claimed by
Big Bang supporters that various light elements can only be accounted for
by processes during the first moments of the hypothesized Big Bang event.
This paper advances the position that a BB event was not necessary, and
that stars can account for these light elements. (This paper may
load behind your current browser page. If you don't see it after clicking
the link, shrink your front page.)
The
Origin Of Helium And The Other Light Elements
By G. Burbidge and F. Hoyle
An essay I highly recommend on the
subject of the unproved and ad hoc nature of much of the new physics.
Modern cosmologies marriage with the new physics should be cause for concern
for Big Bang advocates.
The
new physics--Physical or mathematical science?
By Robert L. Oldershaw
The
Big Bang This is a chapter from the book
Reason in Revolt. To purchase it click
here.
Be sure to read the sections An Empty Abstraction and Thoughts
in a Vacuum. This is very good writing from two Marxist theoreticians.
Glenn Borchardt,
director of the Progressive Science Institute is starting to make his book
The
Scientific Worldview available online
. Much of his book is valuable in showing why the Big Bang paradigm
is nonsense. There is much food for thought in his book. Take a look at
his site and then encourage him to finish bringing online his entire book.
Glenn is one of the people who co-signed a letter
to Skeptical Inquirer with me.
Update:
Glenn has published his book, now renamed The Ten Assumptions
of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview. It is available at http://www.scientificphilosophy.com
I'm now hosting
on my site a very important paper by Paul Marmet that explains how
the cosmological Doppler effect can easily be accounted for by the new
discoveries of molecular hydrogen throughout the universe. We now have
the alternative explanation for cosmological redshifts that doesn't involve
creationist nonscientific assumptions. Click
here
COSMOLOGISTSSTRETCHTOEXPLAINBIRTHOFGALAXIES
Click
here
"...in most
models the result is more or less predetermined by the assumptions initially
put in."
"All it means
[is] that they've put in a prescription that more or less guarantees that
they need to get out this particular answer."
Charles
Steidel
--Astronomer
at the California Institute of Technology
Here's
a fun tongue-in-cheek essay:
What
Big Bang? by Alexander T. Shulgin
Was
There a Big Bang? I Honestly Don't Know (2000)
by Richard Carrier
This is another very well done essay
showing why we should be skeptical of received Big Bang wisdom. Richard
Carrier makes several references to the emotionality many Big Banger's
have for their paradigm. I have also discovered this phenomenon, but unlike
Richard's paper, my web pages provide an explanation for Big Bang fervor
as that being due to our religious/cultural tradition of a creator who
started it all.
Richard Carrier has replaced his
article. He says he has been convinced by some Big Bang supporters that
there is some good new evidence in support of the Big Bang model. Look
here in the near future for my rebuttal to this supposedly good new evidence.
(This message update June 18, 2004. I have been busy with other subjects
that I am more interested in at the present time and I hope to be able
to get to this planned rebuttal soon.)
"Are you sure that the anisotropies
in the microwave background radiation are really cosmological rather than
purely Galactic in origin?"
[Authors desired title. Actual title
may be "A conspicuous increase of Galactic contamination over CMBR anisotropies
at large angular scales"] See this link for the abstract and paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9903460
Accepted for publication in Astronomy
and Astrophysics 30.3.1999.
By Martin Lopez Corredoira
[I have what I believe may be referred
to as an offprint of the abstract and the full 15 page paper. This paper
is more oriented to the professional astronomer/cosmologist than is most
of the other papers I recommend to my visitors, nevertheless, this paper
is quite noteworthy. Particularly interesting comments like the following
make the paper worth a read for the non-professional]:
"One remarkable feature of
MBRAs that rouses suspicion about their relationship to our Galaxy is the
coincidence of the typical angular size of their structures with the typical
angular size of nearby clouds. These structures have an appearance very
similar to the clouds observed in other frequencies."
Reviewed
and recommended (non-cosmological) links
by Vincent Sauvé
To
main page
To
introduction page
skeptica@pacbell.net
