The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-bust-up-auid-2253

https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-big-bang-never-happened-a-conclusive-argument-14111.html

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/

https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

Web telescope

Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

 

[exchemist]

Nice Gish gallop. A cursory glance at the first half dozen links shows that none of them comes from a reputable scientific source. You’ve been trawling through a junkyard, I’m afraid.

That’s a risk when one doesn’t know what one is talking about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/

https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

Web telescope

Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

Of course ignore the actual proof, aka cosmic background radiation of the big bang that has been mapped as well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, 2019 was a sad year when they finally cancelled the show, but worry not. It's still in syndication until at least 2028.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10338699

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18625061-800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen/

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/category/cosmology/mond/

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/

https://physicsworld.com/a/are-giant-galaxy-clusters-defying-standard-cosmology/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

Web telescope

Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

You need to learn how to properly support your arguments. Finding a bunch of garbage sources that you do not even use yourself is not how it is done. Once again, refuting one refutes them all.

 

[Soandso]

It's weird to think that the big bang theory was originally treated with suspicion by the scientific community because it was often times championed by guys looking like this

Whereas nowadays the only ones who seem opposed to it tend to be certain religious fundamentalists. How the turn tables

 

[exchemist]

It's weird to think that the big bang theory was originally treated with suspicion by the scientific community because it was often times championed by guys looking like this

Whereas nowadays the only ones who seem opposed to it tend to be certain religious fundamentalists. How the turn tables

Lemaître, I presume?

 

[Soandso]

Lemaître, I presume?

Oh whoops! Yup

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Jimmy]

I don’t blindly believe what science feeds me as many do unfortunately. There’s so much more to life than that.

 

[Jimmy]

I don’t need all those links to know it’s dead. The only thing I need is my brain.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You need to learn how to properly support your arguments. Finding a bunch of garbage sources that you do not even use yourself is not how it is done. Once again, refuting one refutes them all.

Just the first article cast doubt of the redshift.
I like what is says near the end of the article.

“Do quasars present a compelling case that some additional cause of cosmological redshift,
other than velocity, is prevalent in the Universe? Does the implied presence of relatively high-redshift
galaxies in clusters with lower redshift objects not support this contention? Do redshift-defined large
scale structures impinge upon the notion of an expanding, isotropic Universe?”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241504364_Anomalous_Redshift_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance

Why?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay @SavedByTheLord, I know I'll regret asking, but please share with us your evidence based theory on the origin of the cosmos.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Okay @SavedByTheLord, I know I'll regret asking, but please share with us your evidence based theory on the origin of the cosmos.

God, the Almighty, created all things about 6000 years ago.

 

[SalixIncendium]

God, the Almighty, created all things about 6000 years ago.

You missed the part where I said "evidence based."

 

[Rival]

God, the Almighty, created all things about 6000 years ago.

19th c. theologians disagree with you. The first professor of geology,

William Buckland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He was an old earth Creationist because of this. The geological facts simply cannot be ignored.

'Buckland followed the Gap Theory in interpreting the biblical account of Genesis as two widely separated episodes of creation. It had emerged as a way to reconcile the scriptural account with discoveries in geology suggesting the earth was very old. '

 

[SavedByTheLord]

19th c. theologians disagree with you. The first professor of geology,

William Buckland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He was an old earth Creationist because of this. The geological facts simply cannot be ignored.

'Buckland followed the Gap Theory in interpreting the biblical account of Genesis as two widely separated episodes of creation. It had emerged as a way to reconcile the scriptural account with discoveries in geology suggesting the earth was very old. '

Maybe they were just deceived. I heard that they may have been sell outs.

Read the Bible and they are shown to be wrong.

Can I get your opinion on this one.

Are giant galaxy clusters defying standard cosmology? – Physics World

 

[Rival]

Maybe they were just deceived. I heard that they may have been sell outs.

This is not a refutation this is a cop-out.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This is not a refutation this is a cop-out.

No cop out. It was irrelevant.

 

[Rival]

No cop out. It was irrelevant.

Were the Church Fathers sell outs? Were Clement, Origen, and Augustine, three men who did not believe in a literal creation, also beholden to someone?

I'm asking you honestly, as a former creationist, because this issue is not that straightforward. Many early Christians did not believe Genesis was literal, and identified it with the genre of myth, comparing it to the Greek and Roman mythical equivalents.

Here is what they have to say

Clement of Alexandria writes:

“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? [...] That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen:

“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis., 2:9).

“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 5:2).

What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis

Fundamentalists claim that—until recently— the only acceptable view of Genesis was that the earth was created in six days, but this was not always the case.

www.catholic.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just the first article cast doubt of the redshift.
I like what is says near the end of the article.

“Do quasars present a compelling case that some additional cause of cosmological redshift,
other than velocity, is prevalent in the Universe? Does the implied presence of relatively high-redshift
galaxies in clusters with lower redshift objects not support this contention? Do redshift-defined large
scale structures impinge upon the notion of an expanding, isotropic Universe?”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241504364_Anomalous_Redshift_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance

Why?

I am not an expert in that area at all. But I can tell you why your article is probably false. It is not peer reviewed. In the sciences if someone truly believes what they wrote, and if it has any valid evidence and the methodology was correct the person will attempt to publish in a peer reviewed journal. That seems to be just his interpretation of work that is out there. If no other scientists confirm his work then it is probably garbage. There are a lot of wanna be scientists out there. This person appears to be one of them.

Also, you do not understand this work at all. That means that you cannot form an argument using it. All you can do is to say "Hey! Look at what this crank is saying!!"

And when you make an argument like that all it takes to refute it is a:

So what?


There you go, Challenge accepted and refuted. If you want more detail you could politely ask @Polymath257 when he shows up here next. He does have the education to understand that and probably refute it if needed.

It appears that your author does not have too many people that agree with him:

Hilton Ratcliffe

Hilton Ratcliffe is a South African astrophysicist and mathematician. He holds a number of unorthodox views which are at odds with current mainstream science, though he claims reception of his work has been largely positive.[1]

rationalwiki.org