ive already read all the stuff i need from both sides. your debate will just repeat what has been read by me. I know there are specific cases that question Big Bang.

You should also realize that any theory that goes against the Big Bang, is aslo a theory.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call bullshit. If you knew the case against the big bang, you wouldn't believe it's correct.

As far as I'm concerned the big bang is still a hypothesis with ad hoc patches to it to keep it alive.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 16 2012 10:08pm

post it.

Proof that the CMB isn't heat left over from the BB:

One of the problems with CMB theory is that IF it is the
most distant thing we can see, (a remnant of the Big Bang)
then we should observe the silhouettes of galaxy clusters and
other major cosmic structures imposed on this image, which
we do not:
Lieu R, Mittaz JPD, Zhang S-N. The sunyaev-zel'dovich effect in a
sample of 31 clusters: a comparison between the x-ray predicted
and wmap observed cosmic microwave background temperature
decrement. Astrophys J 2006; 648: 176-99.


Radio astronomy data now reveals that what astronomers
call CMB radiation from the far edge of the visible universe,
is actually likely to be electromagnetic noise occurring in our
own cosmic neighborhood. Electric currents flowing in
plasma naturally generate radio noise right across the spectrum,
so the CMB could well be a type of local 'radio fog'

Where plasma double layers form in space 'radio noise'
increases, thereby giving the appearance of a relative 'hot
spot' which astronomers have tended to interpret in exotic
ways, such as pulsars, mysterious x-ray sources, neutron
stars, quasars, etc. but which are in fact quite understandable
by considering the effects of plasma interaction. Electromagnetic
hot spots 'strangely' match the pattern of measured
temperature hot spots in the most detailed mappings of the
CMB:
Lerner EJ. Radio Absorption by the intergalactic medium. Astrophys
J 1990; 361: 63-8.

Verschuur GL. High galactic latitude interstellar neutral hydrogen
structure and associated (wmap) high-frequency continuum emission.
Astrophys J 2007; 671(1): 447-57.

In 2000 Verschuur, with leading plasma physicist Anthony
Peratt, used the concept of critical ionization velocity
(CIV), first introduced by Alfvén, to explain neutral hydrogen
(HI) emission from gas in the local interstellar environment.
“An effective means for producing CIV in interstellar
space involves the relatively little known plasma phenomenon
in space called the Marklund convection mechanism”
[29].
The authors conclude, “a striking coincidence has been
discovered between radiotelescope measurements of HI
emission linewidths in the vicinity of interstellar neutral hydrogen
filaments at high galactic latitudes and the critical
ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in
interstellar space, thereby revealing nature’s signature of
CIV” [30].
When the higher resolution WMAP results were published, Verschuur’s predicted offsets of the WMAP hotspots from the EEFs were supported. He modestly concluded, “...it may be difficult to rule out the possibility that some if not all
of the small-scale structure usually attributed to the cosmic microwave background may have a galactic origin”
[29] Marklund, GT. Plasma Convection in Force-Free Magnetic Fields
as a Mechanism for Chemical Separation in Cosmical Plasmas. Nature
1979; 277: 370.
[30] Peratt AL. Verschuur GL. Observation of the CIV Effect in Interstellar
Clouds: a Speculation on the Physical Mechanism for their
Existence. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2000; 28: 2122-7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If quasars are local the will not show the time dilation predicted for an expanding universe. Hawkins performed such a test in 2001. The quasars did not exhibit the time dilation predicted for an expanding universe model:
The timescale of quasar variability is widely expected to show the effects of time dilation. In
this paper we analyse the Fourier power spectra of a large sample of quasar light curves to look
for such an effect. We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift
as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held
consensus in the scientific community.
TIME DILATION AND QUASAR VARIABILITY
M. R. S. Hawkins

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshift:
The Tully-Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in
normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1)
Several clusters of galaxies are examined in which late type spirals have significant
excess redshifts relative to early type spirals in the same clusters, (2) Galaxies of
morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative
to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s-1 Mpc-1, (3) individual
galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a
smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be
explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies
identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological
(intrinsic) redshifts.
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
David G. Russell
Owego Free Academy, Owego, NY 13827 USA
The issue of periodicity in quasi-stellar object (QSO) data sets is re-examined in the light of the failure to detect a periodicity in the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey, and of a recent clam that edge effects might have generated a spurious periodicity of 0.089 in log_10 (1+z) in earlier data sets. A new methodology is described by which the contribution of which edge affects may be assessed. It is shown that they have not induced a spurious periodicity in the earlier data sets. Several possible factors are discussed which may tend to mask the periodicity in the 2dF Survey. Thus the earlier evidene for the periodicity in QSO redshifts is unaffected, although new constraints on astrophysical models may be imposed.

The detection of periodiity in QSO data
W.M. Napier and G. Burbidge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, 243 redshifts of objects fainter than 25.5 mag. were observed. Remarkably, two of them turned out to be very high redshift at z = 4.800 and z = 4.882. Even more remarkably these two fell only 3 and 1.5 arcsec on either side of an emisssion line galaxy of z = .733. (The ESO Messenger No. 118, p.49 and Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591.) The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.



But if we compute once more the probability of the author’s redshifts falling this close to a given galaxy, alignment, similarity of redshifts etc. one gets 3.5 chances in 10 million of being accidental! This is hardly "a posteriori" since my Catalogue of Discordant Redshifts (Apeiron 2003) lists many similar pairs with even less probability of being chance. Then in the same Messenger issue on p.36 there is a GRB/Supernova of z = .691 connected to a host galaxy of z = .472. They hasten to inform us that the latter is a "foreground galaxy" but as the picture below shows, there is a continuous luminous connection between the two (Masetti et al. 2003, A&A 405, 465..)

They do not reference the paper Geoffrey Burbidge published titled "The Sources of Gamma-Ray Bursts and their Connections with QSO’s and Active Galaxies" (ApJ 2003, 585, 112.)

Since, as usual, none of the above authors reference the voluminous evidence that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies, there is very little chance of conventional astronomy correcting a huge error in their fundamental assumptions. The consequences for astronomy, and science in general, are discouraging to contemplate.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 16 2012 10:36pm

You did exactly what I said... posting special scenarios.
Some of those don't even prove the Big Bang wrong.

You are trying to ignore all the facts that promote Big Bang and using these situational studies to prove a bigger picture wrong.

Awesome argument against peer reviewed studies. You definitely proved me wrong.

Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about 'special scenarios' and how they 'don't prove the big bang wrong'. If there is ONE observation that goes against the big bang, then the entire big bang is wrong and either needs to be fixed ad hoc post hoc, or discarded.

Wonder if one observation will ever go against the Big Bang. Unlikely.

Observations already have. There's this one good study that shows that quasars have relatively too large proper motions for them to be so far away. The angular distance covered by them means that they're local. Mix that in with H. Arp's MANY proofs of intrinsic redshift, and the lack of time dilation, and you prove the big bang wrong very easily.

I would have to ask my old astronomy teacher what that all means. I know red shift means it is moving away and blue shift means it is coming.

I spend my time working on Earthly concerns

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 16 2012 11:02pm

with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.

The first instance of observing the host galaxies around quasars was announced in 1983 by Gehren as published in the Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Liege International Astrophysical Colloquium. p. 489-493.