In this video presentation I describe the history of the development of the standard big bang cosmology and how it is understood in terms of its philosophical underpinnings. The Cosmological Principle is explained as the major and essential assumption upon which it all depends. Due to this it has been required to invent unknown stuff, expansion of space, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, CMB radiation as afterglow of Big Bang, and Inflation. None of these are experimental observed in the lab. Yet all of these are needed else the standard ΛCDM model utterly fails. Though we hear for the first time those speaking of discarding the standard model, they have built themselves a modern-day tower of Babel, an edifice of a structure that must be supported at all costs, especially since in 2011 the Nobel Prize was awarded for the accelerating universe driven by the unknown stuff of science fiction—Dark Energy.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble published his observations of the redshift and distances of nearby galaxies. Hubble observed in the light from most of those galaxies that the spectral lines were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum as compared to a local laboratory source of the same atomic gas species. From this he interpreted that it was a Doppler effect (ie. due to the motion of the source), where the galaxies were receding from us, the observer. Thus the idea of the expanding universe was founded.
But one other important idea came from those same observations. He observed roughly the same redshift in light from the galaxies as a function of distance in every direction he looked. This became known as the Hubble law, which is the basis for the standard cosmology today–the big bang model. But the fact that this was in every direction and that the proportionality between the redshift and distance was the same in every direction meant that it looked to him like we, that is, our galaxy, was at the centre of the Universe. This is because the galaxies were moving away in a spherically symmetric way, putting us at the centre. This view of the Universe then would look something like the image in the figure on the right.
On the website “Genesis Science Research” (www.Setterfield.org) an article is written by Mr Randy Speir that is apparently a challenge to my cosmology. Normally I don’t respond to frivolous claims as I think this is but it does remain out there, unchallenged, and so here is my response, with my comments interspersed between the author’s original comments. The original is in black text and mine in red.
printed here by permission of Randy Speir, author
21 June 2012
Letter to the Editor, Journal of Creation
Pierre Jerlstrom, Editor
Since John Hartnett published his young universe model in 2007 in Starlight, Time and the New Physics, he has met with little challenge, at least publically. Yet, upon investigation, the construction of his model demonstrates striking weaknesses, one of which may be dire. About four difficulties are discussed below. While his math may seem robust, it is only as good as the structure it builds. Surprisingly, it is something so elementary in nature which may undermine his efforts and ultimately bring the model down. Since, in the discussion of his ideas, he was deliberately silent about the beginning, his response to this challenge should evoke a full disclosure of the mechanics of the model from the very outset of creation. On that explanation will hang the fate of his ideas.
JH: It is very difficult to understand what he is talking about here. I certainly do not understand what the weaknesses are, especially the one that is “dire.” I am not deliberately silent about the beginning (of Creation, I assume he means). It is outlined in my book to which he refers. If he refers to Days 1-3, it is true there is not a lot of detail in the book, but the book really only deals with one proposition: How do we see starlight from sources billions of light-years away in a 6000 year old universe? My mechanism solves this problem by rapid expansion of the fabric of space on Day 4 of Creation week and as such the details are all focussed on that one day.
The observational evidence1 that the late Halton Arp and others have accumulated, documented and described provides a starkly different story about the location and distribution of galaxies and quasi-galactic objects (including quasars) in the universe from that which is promoted by big-bang cosmologists and the popular press.
Instead of the notion that all matter originated in the initial big bang Arp promoted the idea that new matter formed in a series of little bangs with quasars (or QSOs = quasi-stellar objects) being ejected from the hearts of active galaxies, which in turn eject more quasars which eventually evolve into galaxies over millions of years of cosmic time.
Halton Arp passed away on Saturday morning 28th December 2013 in Munich, Germany. He will be sorely missed by many but not so much by others because of his challenges to the ruling big bang paradigm.
With Geoffrey Burbidge and others, Professor Halton Arp was a thorn in the side of those who held to the standard story line of the big bang. In many papers and several books1 he promoted the idea that quasars are born from the nucleus of active galaxies—parent galaxies.