A Critical Review of the Big Bang and Expanding Universe Model.
Part 1.
How it all started: the Origin of the 'Doppler redshift' model and why it was replaced by the 'cosmological redshift' model
It can be justly claimed that our knowledge of the universe is presently undergoing a paradigm shift. Today's advances in our understanding of the universe result from identifying, and correcting for, our errors of yesterday. This required us to go back to when we were first peering out across space trying to learn about our nearest galaxy neighbors. We need to go back to 1929 when Edwin Hubble the famous American astronomer, published his findings showing that there is a link, that is to say, a proportionality between the redshift of light from remote galaxies and their distance from us. Redshift is the stretching of a light wave towards the red end of the spectrum and one of its causes (but not the only one) is the Doppler effect, which is a stretching of the wave when the source of the light moves away from the observer.
The scientists of the day immediately interpreted Hubble's redshift (wrongly as it turned out) as the Doppler effect, attributing it to the universe expanding. The scientists' eagerness to make this leap of faith was due to the fact that the equations of general relativity, published by Einstein in 1915, required the universe to be either expanding or contracting. Scientists' knowledge of the Doppler effect encouraged them in the supposition that Hubble's redshift indicates the expansion of the universe.
During the following decade the realization gradually dawned that the redshift could not be due to the Doppler effect, as this would mean that the Earth has to be at the centre of the universe. It would also need to have been at the centre of an enormous explosion sending matter out from us equally in all directions. These features do not fit with observation.
Scientists by then had got used to the convenience of the redshift indicating an expanding universe. So instead of going back to the drawing board to see if they had gone wrong and whether the universe was really expanding or not, they merely cobbled together a speculative theory for light to be red shifted in an expanding universe. This concocted theory is called the cosmological redshift model. It differs from the Doppler model, in that the galaxies do not pass through space to achieve the speculative expansion. It allows the fabric of space itself to do the expanding and carry the galaxies outwards. Not only does the expanding space supposedly push the galaxies apart, it is also required to stretch the wavelength of light passing through it, thereby notionally creating the necessary redshift.
Part 2.
The Steady State versus the Big Bang.
If we allow ourselves to conjecture that the redshift might indicate the expansion of the universe, then there are two types of expansion to consider. There can be either the steady state model or alternatively a universe resulting from the big bang. We shall deal first with the idea of a Steady State universe.
The steady state theory was the idea that the Universe at all times looks the same to observers everywhere in it: so that in any epoch the universe with its red shifted light would look the same in all directions from any point. If as was thought to be the case, the universe is expanding with clusters of galaxies moving apart from one another, this would mean that new galaxies have to be created continuously to fill the gaps as old galaxies move apart.
The idea was originally put forward by Herman Bondi, Tommy Gold and Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. They formed the idea after watching a film called The Dead of Night. This took the form of a continuous loop of four linked ghost stories in which the end of the last story is the repeat beginning of the first story.
Hoyle tried to account for the continuous creation of matter. The initial idea was that matter would appear continuously in the form of new atoms of hydrogen throughout intergalactic space. This would be at the extremely low rate of one new atom in every 10 billion cubic metres every year. Hoyle envisaged matter creation as a localized energetic event going on in regions of intense gravitational field, such as in the nuclei of active galaxies and quasars.
The Steady State theory had the advantage of removing the need for a singularity and big bang. The singularity anomaly would be in the form of a unique start from nothing, yet having an infinite density. It was this implausible aspect of the Big Bang theory that originally recruited many supporters to the Steady State idea. However, the Steady State theory was eventually discredited because of a seeming lack of uniformity in the universe's structure in the past compared with that of the present. This was argued by reason of radio astronomers finding an apparent greater number of galaxies in the early stages of formation, which were remote from us both in distance and time.
The discovery of the microwave background radiation, which was not allowed for in the Steady State theory, was the fatal blow. The Big Bang theory was therefore assumed to be the only option.
Part 3.
The Two Big Bang Models that Depend on the Notion of Space Expanding.
There are two theoretical models which rely on spatial expansion to move the galaxy clusters outwards to expand the universe. They both involve the expansion of the fabric of space itself. One is where the rate of expansion of space is uniform and constant throughout time. The other is where the rate of expansion of the space varies over time, i.e. it is decelerating or accelerating. As the idea of an accelerating universe is currently in fashion with most scientists, I shall deal with it first, [but I do so subject to the caveat that I hold, that neither model is viable, as they do not comply with observation or the laws for the propagation of light,- dealt with more particularly in Parts 4 and 5].
This theory starts with the distinct disadvantage that gravity is required to have some unknown and mysterious influence on the expansion of the fabric of the space that lies between the galaxies. The scientists and text books that put forward this dubious argument, do so without explanation, they merely say that there is a slowing effect due to the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe, such as planets, stars and galaxies, with the possible addition of some unknown stuff called dark matter. They often quote the analogy of someone throwing a stone into the air: it gradually slows down under the pull of gravity before falling back to Earth. However, I submit, it can be said with some degree of certainty, this cannot be the case with the universe. If there were to be such an effect, (which I do not accept) it would have to be on the fabric of space itself and not merely on the matter in it. If it were not so, matter such as galaxies and galaxy clusters would have to skid over space-time. This would be due to the anomaly of space-time expanding at a faster rate than the matter in it. Such an anomaly becomes an irreconcilable 'stumbling block', when we remember that it is the independent action of the space expanding, that is required to not only move the galaxies apart but also to stretch the wavelength of light passing through it with a constant proportionality.
There is no scientific evidence to make us think that the notional fabric of space could be influenced by gravity. Nevertheless the dubious contention is still put forward that initially when the universe was young, the then strong gravitational influence slowed the rate of its expansion. This effect would be at its maximum at an early stage in the universe's development because all the galaxies would then be closer together, imparting a strong gravitational pull. The gravitational effect would supposedly reduce as the universe spreads out over time, allowing the rate of expansion gradually to increase. The school of thought that proffers this expanding universe idea asserts that the distance light has to travel to us from any distant point, is always further than if the expansion was uniform. They argue that this extra distance travelled by the light would make it dimmer than it would be if the universe was expanding uniformly. They maintain that this effect makes the light dimmer for a given amount of redshift than would be the case if the universe was expanding uniformly. Astronomers have in fact observed such an imbalance in the light from distant supernovae. Their observations have fuelled speculation that the universe could be not only expanding but accelerating. However, as we will see shortly it is doubtful that this is true.
I submit that the idea that the observed dimming indicates an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe, falls at the first hurdle. The reason being, it would be impossible to break the symmetry of the redshift and dimming of light by stretching the space through which it is passing. When we remember that we are not thinking in terms of the Doppler redshift but the stretching of space itself, it becomes apparent that the ratio of redshift to dimming are uninfluenced by time and acceleration. They are merely two ways of measuring the same increase in space and the rate of the increase doesn't matter. The change in the amount of redshift and dimming is relative to how much expansion there has been and not to the rate of the expansion. The coefficient of proportionality as between redshift and dimming cannot be broken by space stretching, for the wavelength of the light is notionally stretched at the same rate as the space it is passing through. Hence, if light is stretched by the expansion of space, it won't matter if it takes place quickly by accelerating or more slowly by expanding uniformly, it would always redshift and dim symmetrically.
When considering these problems it will help if you avoid the use of analogies. There is nothing here on Earth that is similar to light passing through expanding space. It is fatal to rely on them, for their use has misled scientists in the past. For example, some have mistakenly convinced themselves on the question of the dimming of light from distant galaxies by using the analogy of a boy throwing a snowball at the retreating back of another boy on a bicycle. Such an analogy leads to the true but misleading conclusion that the faster the boy pedals to get away, the further the snowball must travel to hit the boy's back with diminished force. However, a photon of light doesn't act like a snowball and the boy's back isn't like a receding galaxy that is being pushed by the expansion of space. On the contrary, the boy and his bike are moving through space. If the snowball were to act like a photon, general relativity would require it to always have the same closing speed with the boy's back no matter how fast he pedalled his bike away. Reverting back from snowballs to photons, we can now see that it doesn't matter how fast a galaxy is being accelerated by space. Such acceleration will not of itself cause an increase in the travel time of the light. Such dimming as there is will be proportionate to the stretching of space, which is proportionate to the stretching of the photon's wavelength.
As we have seen there are several unexplained difficulties with this model. Not least among the difficulties is that it infringes the law of cause and effect. It is common ground, that a cause must always occur before the phenomenon or effect it causes. The problem here is that the rate of the expansion of the universe by the expansion of space, is a direct and immediate effect, while the controlling gravitational cause is indirect and subsequent. This is because according to general relativity shifts in gravitational effect are not transmitted instantaneously, they travel at the finite speed of light. Thus this model leaves us with the impossible situation of the slowing down cause coming after the slowing down effect. Consequently, for relativists, as the light from those early 'close-together' galaxies are only now reaching us, gravity from them, travelling at the same speed as their light, can only now be affecting this part of the universe and could not have slowed it down billions of years ago when the universe was young.
The second model in which the expansion of the universe is uniform over time means it cannot experience any difficulty with gravity. It however, shares several defects in common with the previous model, (see Parts 4 and 5). In particular, as mentioned above, it has been shown by astronomers who have made a study of the redshift of distant supernovae that at large distances there is a measurable imbalance in the light. There is too much dimming for the amount of redshift. Consequently, the coefficient of proportionality of redshift to distance does not in fact exist. A variation as between the dimming and the redshift proportional to distance is present. This phenomenon must consequently be caused by some influence other than the expansion of space. (The actual reason for the redshift and dimming will be given in Part 6). It is therefore the case that each model for the expansion of the universe has crucial defects that brings them down. Naturally, when one major flaw is found in a concept more can be expected to follow. The discovery of one flaw frequently leads on to reveal a veritable cascade of others. So before upsetting the cosmological apple cart by submitting an alternative none expanding theory, which has been proved by experiment and observation, we will examine some of the other shortcomings common to all the expansion models.
Part 4.
Some Misconceptions about Big Bang Universes.
On the assumption for the sake of argument that the universe is expanding, a simple arithmetical error over the age of the universe illustrates the confusion that has persisted in distinguishing between the different models. The method of calculating the supposed age of the universe was first devised by Hubble using the Doppler redshift model. He considered that if he turned his constant H0 upside-down, so that he had the fraction,- distance-to-a-galaxy over its-recessional-velocity, it would give him the time taken for the galaxy to have reached its present position since the big bang. He arrived at the values for the distance, from the amount of dimming of the galaxy's light and the recessional velocity, from the amount of redshift or stretching of the wavelength of the light. Due to the fact that his distance measurements were too short, the result he got was somewhat embarrassing, as he obtained a figure of just under two billion years, which was less than the known age of the Earth. Since that time, scientists have been improving the technique of distance measurement to the galaxies. Considerable success has been achieved in this regard so much so that distance measurements to the galaxies have been improved and increased by almost seven-fold. The calculation now yields a figure of 13.7 billion years.
The only problem with all this is that during the period in which the scientists have been improving their measurement of distance, the Doppler model has been jettisoned and replaced by the cosmological redshift model. This substitution changes the nature of the expansion, from one in which the galaxies travel through space, to one in which the space between the galaxies does the expanding. Consequently the redshift can no longer be taken as indicating a constant cruising velocity slightly slowing down under gravity. It now indicates the final velocity reached after having started from zero. So if cosmologists wish to continue to interpret the redshift as representing recessional velocity, then it necessitates halving the speed, to provide the mean average, thereby doubling the notional travel time. So the age of the universe using this dubious calculation should be an uncomfortable and ill-fitting 28 billion years.
The reference to the above calculation as dubious and ill-fitting, is perhaps too generous and insufficiently critical. A more robust approach would be to say, there are ample grounds to support the view that both the above calculations are simply wrong, as neither the Doppler nor the cosmic redshift models indicate an expansion of the universe. It has already been pointed out, that the Doppler redshift has been long since abandoned for fundamental reasons, such as the Earth not being at the centre of the universe. However, its abandonment, does not leave it open to transfer the Doppler calculations of the redshift 'lock stock and barrel' over to the cosmological model. This has been an enticing trap that many cosmologists have fallen into, including, as we have already noted, Hubble himself. In other words, calculations specific to the cosmological redshift do not support the observed coefficient of proportionality that is Hubble's constant. It is now common ground that the redshift we see is not Doppler redshift but, if it was, it could, with a little imagination, support the correct proportion of redshift to distance. Yet, when it comes to the notional stretching of the wavelength of light by the stretching of space, the amount of redshift we calculate will always be in conflict with observation. The difference with Doppler redshift, is that the motion of the source of the light and its consequent stretching is relative to you. It has therefore, to be accurate, since what you see is what you get. In this sense, it is always possible for you to imagine, rightly or wrongly, a form of motion that fits the Doppler redshift. On the other hand, with the cosmological model, the stretching of the light wave is an objective physical happening, that requires measurement and calculation. Such a stretching effect would give a redshift quantitatively different to the one we see and not commensurate with Hubble's constant.
This point can be readily demonstrated with some convenient made up figures, (even if in practice they are overly large). Consider two remote galaxies A and B, in line with Earth. Let galaxy A be twice the distance of galaxy B from us. Now let a pulse of light with a wavelength of say, 1 cm, be emitted towards us from galaxy A. By the time it passes galaxy B, it will be stretched to say 2 cm, so will have a redshift of 1. Precisely as the pulse from galaxy A passes galaxy B, let a pulse be emitted also from galaxy B with the same wavelength of 1 cm, as galaxy A initially had. The two pulses of light will now travel side by side undergoing the same stretching effects, until they reach us here on Earth. (For the purpose of this illustration we will ignore the increase in travel time due to the universe having expanded, as it serves only to enhance our results). On arrival the wavelength of the light from galaxy B will be stretched, to double, to 2 cm. giving a redshift of 1, the same as the pulse from galaxy A did on the first half of its journey. The light from galaxy A, will on the second half of its journey again stretch to double its wavelength, that is to say, from 2 cm to 4 cm. This gives a redshift of 3.
Let us now consider the proportion of redshift to distance travelled by the pulses of light. The distance to us from galaxy A is twice that from galaxy B, but counter-intuitively, the redshift of the light from galaxy A would be too large, being more than twice as much as that of galaxy B. It would have a factor of 3, not 2, and would not comply with Hubble's law. The error would progressively increase with distance. For example in the above illustration, every time the distance increases by a factor of one, the redshift calculation doesn't likewise go 1,2,3,4, as it should but 1,3,7,15.
[Perhaps we should pause here, to make an additional but crucial point. Because as we have seen in this model, the wavelengths are all red shifting at rates that are proportional to their respective lengths, the incongruous result would occur that the different colours, with different wavelengths, comprised in white light, would change and separate out. Furthermore in relativistic terms, the respective frequencies of the colours should be reducing, to compensate for the stretching, in order to keep the speed of light at 'c'. However, the converse would be the case. If space-time is expanding causing all matter to separate out, then as a consequence, time would have to be contracting. According to special relativity contracted time makes clocks tick quicker. This would result in the frequency of light becoming quicker not slower as required. This inherent contradiction shows the expanding space model to be fundamentally flawed, requiring light to behave in a non-relativistic way. The combination of such basic flaws in this model would have the implausible result that the different wavelengths would stretch by different amounts, while also proportionally increasing in frequency. This would give rise to the non-relativistic situation in which, the different colours of the light would each be travelling at a different speed and all faster than 'c'].
To conclude on the problem of the redshift calculation. When properly analysed we find that the calculation for the notional increase in redshift, using the cosmological model, is an accelerating, compound calculation unsupported by observation. The Hubble constant, which expresses 'actuality', cannot be simulated by the cosmological model. The weakness of the cosmological model can be understood when one remembers that it was cobbled together to be a substitute for the Doppler model. It was devised in an attempt to comply with the initial assumption that the Hubble constant resulted from an expanding universe. The scientists of the day attempted to contrive a model, whereby the distance to a galaxy is proportional to the notional amount space has stretched over a given interval of time. That interval of time being the travel time of the light from the galaxy. It must be remembered the co-efficient of proportionality, that is Hubble's constant, requires a doubling of the distance to the galaxy to double the redshift and treble the distance to treble the redshift. They were unsuccessful in this regard. Applying the cosmological picture of the expansion, we find the relative distances between galaxies enlarge in proportion to one another, (this is called scalar expansion). So the relative proportionality, as between galaxy distances, never changes. In other words, if the relative proportion of the distances between a series of galaxies is 1,2,3 then, if the actual distances double, the relative proportionality remains unaltered at 1,2,3. On the other hand, the redshift, or stretching effect on light, is meant to be a direct measure of the expansion and is not proportional to anything. It would reflect the compounding nature of the expansion. It is not constrained to match the simple distances in their fixed proportions but, measuring the compounding effect of the expansion itself, must progressively exceed them. Hence the model is in error, as it is incapable of giving rise to a redshift that accords with observation. Furthermore, we can see from the above example, the redshift is calculated with a notionally compound growth, with the minimum half interval rest. This model produces a further inconsistency, in that it provides multiple higher values if calculated with more frequent rests. There is the further problem with the model that the rate of stretching of the light wave is accelerating, which leads to the impossible result that eventually the speed of the stretching will be faster than the relativistic fixed speed 'c' for the light.
By logical deduction, it is an unavoidable conclusion, that neither the Doppler nor the cosmological models can be used to indicate recessional velocity or even that the universe is expanding. Neither model complies with our current knowledge of the redshift derived from observation.
There is another, quite separate, arithmetical error to be taken into account, that goes to the very core of the notion that the universe is expanding. As we have seen, to find the age of the universe Hubble used the reciprocal of his constant H0 that is to say, the constant turned upside-down giving 1/H0. This formula has been used by scientists ever since, despite the fact that it is patently wrong. The reciprocal of a constant is also a constant and so can never give the age of anything. A constant is the very opposite of ageing. The figure of 13.7 billion obtained in the Doppler model, or as we have seen above, twice that amount for the cosmological model, has always been the resultant figure and always will be. This is subject only to the slight variation in the ratio of dimming of the light to its redshift, which can, for our purposes, be considered small enough to ignore.
The inability of the Doppler and cosmological redshift models to account for the passage of time can be readily explained. In both models the redshift is interpreted as indicating that the galaxies are moving away from us at a rate that increases relative to the distance they are from us. This is a quasi form of acceleration but it is not true acceleration. The reason is that true acceleration is expressed as, rate of change of velocity relative to time whereas in this instance we only have change of velocity relative to distance.
Normally, when different objects are travelling at different speeds but are undergoing the same rate of acceleration, they will have taken different times to get up to their respective speeds. However, in this case all the galaxies have attained their different speeds in the same time, that is to say, from the big bang to the present. Their different speeds are relative to their distances from the observer. Consequently, a time factor cannot be gleaned from the redshift.
For these models we are unable to say that distance is equal to velocity multiplied by time for each galaxy. We can only say that distance is equal to velocity. So we are left with the constant, distance denoted by dimming over distance denoted by velocity. Such a truism does not give a clue as to the passage of time. We do not at the present moment have a method of discovering from the light we see from the galaxies, the age of the universe since the notional big bang or even of determining that the universe is actually expanding.
We can state the problem mathematically very simply, so don't be frightened off. We start with the expression, v=dH0 where v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy and d is distance and H0 is Hubble's constant. If we divide both sides of the equation by H0 we get d=v/H0. Then if (as in the past) d is (mistakenly in this instance) expressed as vt, we erroneously derive the well known (but wrong) equation t=1/H0. In this instance t is taken to be the time since the big bang, i.e. the age of the universe, whereas it is actually a constant, the direct opposite of time and ageing. It can be seen that the quasi accelerating expansion having a recessional speed relative to distance and not to time, just doesn't work to give an age.
There is a further misconception of such monumental importance for all expansion models that it merits separate treatment.
Part 5.
The Impossibility of Seeing an Expanding Universe.
Scientists are fond of using analogies for the expansion of space in the universe, such as the stretching of elastic bands or rubber balloons with marks on them that move apart as the rubber stretches. They thought that these analogies illustrated the expansion of the universe. However, these analogies are simply wrong and would be so even if it were possible to stretch space and light. They only model the physical distribution of matter in an expanding universe. They do not show how the light travels through the universe, so that we can see clear images of the distant galaxies. Compared with the cosmic distances in the universe, the elastic band and balloon are so small that the light from all parts of them can be regarded as reaching one's eye at the same instant. Using such flawed analogies for the universe means that light would need to travel at an infinitely fast speed. However, it is common ground in all cosmological theories that light travels at a constant finite closing speed relative to the observer seeing it. This is an essential rule for all theories, as it is required to enable us to see clear images as we do. I call it 'the clear image rule' as without it all the light rays from different sources would be jumbled up at our eyes.
When the 'clear image rule' is taken into account, the question to be addressed is if the universe is expanding like an inflating balloon would we see things the way we do? The answer has to be an unequivocal 'no'. The distance, speed and distribution of the galaxies in the cosmological model appear current, while the light conveying the images has a travel time in accordance with the distance it has travelled (the look back time). The consequence of this is that expanding universe models are self contradicting. They are simply not sustainable when the postulate of special relativity that the closing speed of light is a constant, ('the clear image rule') is applied.
If the universe was expanding the night sky would look entirely different to us. There is a difference between what we see and what we would see if the universe was really expanding. This turns on the fact that because of the 'clear image rule', in such models, it is not possible to see ancient light from distant galaxies as we do.
It must be remembered that in expansion models, the further back in time the images of the galaxies were generated, the closer the galaxies were to us and each other. So if when the light set out, the galaxy was only a million light years away from us, the light would take a million years to reach us regardless of any expansion. We cannot now see images from that light, several billion years after it has come and gone. Therefore, seeing distant galaxies with light that for us has the same fixed closing speed as locally produced light (the clear image rule) brings home the impossibility of big bangs and expanding universes. Such models create the impossible situation that the required travel time for light between galaxies in the past would always have been less than our present day look back time.
The implausibility of this can be readily illustrated if you consider the extreme position where the look back time is 13.5 billion years, almost to the notional big bang itself. At that time all the galaxies were supposedly very close together, so the travel time of the light between any two points would be very short. When quantifying this short travel time for light the 'clear image rule' renders the speed of expansion of the universe irrelevant. The essential counter intuitive point, one needs to grasp, is that once light has started out it is not possible to delay its arrival by moving away from it. So in this extreme position, light originating from a time close to the big bang would have only taken a short time to reach us from even the remotest protogalaxies. In other words the light from those protogalaxies should have come and gone say 13.4 billion years ago and not be visible now, as naturally we cannot see the same light twice.
The result of a big bang at some remote point in time, with all matter starting out packed close together would be that most of that universe could not now be seen. Thankfully in reality, we can see galaxies at great distances and we can settle for the expansion model simply being wrong. We can be reassured that the vast distances over which our telescopes enable us to see remote galaxies are the actual distances that the galaxies had when the light from them set out. The galaxies were never closer to us. The fact that we can see the wonders of the heavens in accord with the laws of physics that govern the propagation of light, rule out the romance of a big bang, multiverses, wormholes and other exotica which have featured in science-fiction. We give them up willingly not doubting that the eventual truth about the formation of the universe will be even more fascinating.
Part 6.
An Explanation of Cosmic Redshift for a Static Universe.
I trust by this time I have convinced you that the current theories involving big bangs and expanding universes cannot be relied on. So it is now incumbent on me to proffer a reliable alternative. Of course where theories are concerned, reliability is a rare and valued commodity. So it's an immense help when one can point to a series of well proven and oft repeated observational experiments to establish the claims relied on in the theory.
The series of experiments I rely on were carried out by Irwin Shapiro of the Lincoln Laboratories MIT, from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s and on numerous occasions have been verified by independent scientific groups.
The nature of the experiment was to send a radar pulse on a close grazing trajectory past the Sun and on the other side, bounce it back again off Venus. The time taken for the round trip of the radar pulse could then be accurately measured. The phenomenon predicted by general relativity that Shapiro was looking for was a slight delay in the reception of the returning pulse, due to the gravitational effect of the Sun.
The experiment had become possible by the development of a powerful radar transmitter at the Haystack radar facility at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts. Shapiro's experiment was extremely successful, recording a time delay on the round trip to Venus of 250 microseconds. The experiment was repeated over a number of years, variously using reflectors on the Mariner and Viking rockets and also with reflectors placed on Mars. The 'time delay of light' is now a well established fact (see Clifford M. Will's book "Was Einstein Right?").
However, two incidental but equally incontrovertible facts that resulted from the 'time delay' experiments have been sidelined in all the excitement. This I submit is unfortunate for they are of monumental importance to cosmology, as they give the correct explanation for the cosmological redshift. The first is- when light passes a massive heavenly body it is acted upon gravitationally and bent, and is red shifted (as established in general relativity's principle of equivalence). The second is- that the effect is cumulative.
We therefore have the case that the more light is bent to and fro as it passes through a gravitational field, the more it becomes red shifted. So given only that the universe is uniform on the large scale, it must be the case that the further light travels through the universe the more it will appear red shifted to us and this will be the same at any point in the universe. This is exactly what Hubble found in 1929 and can now be seen to be a gravitational effect and have nothing to do with an expanding universe.
Much has been made in the past with regard to the microwave background radiation being used as evidence of the universe expanding from a big bang. It is said that it is the remnants of the heat from the big bang after the universe has expanded and cooled down. On the other hand, I submit that before one is justified in theorizing over hypothetical big bangs, one has to rationalize the situation using where possible received and proven physics. In this instance we know that light is red shifted when it is pulled to and fro as it crosses space, so we must explain what occurs using practical physics.
With this in mind, we need to apply the well established law that energy cannot be destroyed but it can be dissipated. So when light from a distant galaxy is pulled a little off course by the gravitational influence of a second galaxy, we know that the light must lose energy to that second galaxy. We also know that light being a quantum wave can only lose energy in quantum packets, which are called photons. These lost photons consequently do two things. They fill space, forming the microwave background radiation and they cause the galaxy's light to become weaker by their loss. Both these hard nosed facts have been observed but have been misinterpreted as being the echo of the big bang and an acceleration in the expansion of the universe. The reappraisal and evaluation of these facts forms an important part of the present paradigm shift in cosmology and quantum physics, known generally under the heading of the Tempo field theory.
For further reading on the above, including the authors ideas on a universe that is static on the large scale, see 'Time - The Hidden Dimensions Of The Missing Physics', available for review and purchase together with extensive free summaries on www.tempofieldtheory.co.uk
