uwot wrote:
The Big Bang Theory is entirely consistent with gravitational red shift, the Wolf Effect and I think there's a few more known causes of red shift. Your hypothesis, in contrast, depends on none of the red shift being caused by Doppler.
That's because I am saying that only some may be Dopplers, however it's been shown that there are those that aren't Dopplers, in which the Big Bang theory is not consistent with those that aren't.
uwot wrote:
Not so. I simply don't think their conclusions are persuasive. In a universe of something like 400 billion galaxies, it would be surprising if there were not a few things to explain.
I believe that the Universe, though as massive as it is, may be a lot easier to understand. That is, if we were to of course get rid of the theories that obviously don't work (including that like the Big Bang), and perhaps look into the theories that may show more weight to truth, such as Plasma Cosmology for example.
uwot wrote:
Indeed, and in it he said: "This pattern of history seems so remarkable that some observers view it with pardonable reserve, and try to imagine alternative explanations for the law of red shifts. Up to the present, they have failed. Other ways are known by which red shifts might be produced, but all of them introduce additional effects that should be conspicuous and actually are not found. Red shifts represent Doppler effects, physical recession of the nebulae, or the action of some hitherto unrecognized principle in nature."
In other words, he believed that Doppler was responsible, but like a good scientist, he allowed that there might be some other explanation.
This is merely selective reading that you are committing, because first of all the paper says 'The Problem of the Expanding Universe', which means that he is obviously criticizing the Big Bang theory. Second, he proceeds on to say:
The investigations were designed to determine whether or not red shifts represent actual recessions. In principle, the problem can be solved ; a rapidly receding light source arrears fainter than a similar but stationary source at the same momentary distance. The explanation of this well-known effect is quite simple when a beam of light is pictured as a stream of discrete quanta. Rapid recession thins out the stream of quanta, hence fewer quanta reach the eye per second, and the intensity, or rate of impact, is necessarily reduced by a fraction that is merely the velocity of recession divided by the velocity of light – in other words, the red shift expressed as a faction of the normal wavelengths of the light in question. Recession at one-tenth the velocity of light reduces the apparent brightness by 10 per cent ; at one-quarter the velocity of light, by 25 per cent.
For velocities of a few miles of a few hundred miles per second, the dimming factor is negligible. But for the extremely distant nebulae, where the apparent recessions reach tens of thousands of miles per second, the effects are large enough to be readily observed and measured. Hence, if the distances of nebulae were known quite accurately we could measure their apparent faintness and tell at once whether or not they are receding at the rates indicated by the red shifts.
Unfortunately, the problem is not so simple. The only general criterion of great distances is the very apparent faintness of the nebulae which we wish to test. Therefore, the proposed test involves a vicious circle, and the dimming factor merely leads to an error in distance. However, a possible escape from the vicious circle is found in the following procedure. Since the intrinsic luminosities of nebulae are known, the apparent faintness furnishes two scales of distances, depending upon whether we assume the nebulae to be stationary or receding. If, then, we analyze our data, if we map the observable region, using first one scale and then the other, we may find that the wrong scale leads to contradictions or at least to grave difficulties. Such attempts have been made and one scale does lead to trouble. It is the scale which includes the dimming factors of recession, which assumes that the universe is expanding.
Another excerpt:
The project was carried out by the precise formulation of (a) the laws of red shifts, and (b) the large scale distribution of nebulae. The form of the law of red shifts is most readily derived from the study of the brightest nebulae in the great clusters. These nebulae, as a class, are the most luminous bodies in the universe, and their spectra can be recorded out to the maximum distances. Furthermore, the clusters are so similar that the apparent faintness of the five or ten brightest members furnish reliable relative distances. The observations now extend out to about 240 million light years where the red shift is about 13 per cent of the normal wavelengths of the incoming light. Since the corresponding velocity of recession is the same fraction of the velocity of light, the nebulae in the most distance cluster observed, if they are actually receding, will appear 13 per cent fainter than they would appear if they were stationary. The difference is small but, fortunately, the measures can be made with fair accuracy.
The results may be stated simply. If the nebulae are stationary, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear ; red shifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each unit of light path contributes the same amount of red shift.
On the other hand, if the nebulae are receding, and the dimming factors are applied, the scale of distances is altered, and the law of red shifts is no longer linear. The rate of expansion increases more and more rapidly with distance. The significance of this result becomes clear when the picture is reversed. Light that reaches us today left the distant nebulae far back in the dim past – hundreds of millions of years ago. When we say that the rate of expansion increases with distance, we are saying that long ago, the universe was expanding much faster than it is today ; that, for the last several million years at least, the rate of expansion has been slowing down. Therefore, the so-called “age of the universe,” the time interval since the expansion began, is much shorter than the 1800 million years suggested by a linear law of red shifts. If the measures are reliable, the interval would be less than 1000 million years – a fraction of the age of the earth and comparable with the history of life on the earth. The nature of the expansion is permissible and, in fact, specifies certain types of possible worlds. But the time scale is probably not acceptable. Either the measures are unreliable or red shifts do not represent expansion of the universe.
This quote here says that the expansion of the Universe would suggest that it expanded faster, which would contradict the idea of it being 1800 million years and also, the age of Earth and the age of Light.
Here is then the first paragraph of the Conclusion.
Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of red shifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts.
uwot wrote:
You have a really bad case of confirmation bias. The Big Bang is not predicated on any properties of quasars.
Technically it is, when you include the idea that quasars are Dopplers which implies that they equal distance.
uwot wrote:
Well, read it again and tell me which bit you don't understand.
You said that it was a 'stupid argument', and I wanted you to give me some reasons why it was so.
uwot wrote:
There is a universe, billions of light years across, the vast bulk of which, in every direction we look, shows red shift that is consistent with Doppler due to recession. It is full of mystery and surprises; none greater than the determination of some people to impose their will on it. The Big Bang theory is not debunked even if what you believe about quasars is true.
Alright, then perhaps give me some other evidences or proofs of the Big Bang and I will then look at it.
