As the turn of the next century approaches, we again find an established science in trouble trying to explain the behavior of the natural world. This time the problem is in cosmology, the study of the structure and "evolution" of the universe as revealed by its largest physical systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A growing body of observations suggests that one of the most fundamental assumptions of cosmology is wrong.

Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum.

Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift." Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift vs. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

Since its discovery nearly 65 years ago, the cosmological redshift has endured as one of the most persuasive 'proofs' that our universe is expanding. The steps leading to its discovery are well known. Soon after Christian Doppler discovered that motion produces frequency shifts in 1842, astronomers began an aggressive spectroscopic program to measure the velocities of stars and planets using their Doppler shifts. This continued through the first few decades of the 20th century 'culminating' in the work by Vesto Slipher, Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason on the so-called spiral nebulae -- distinctly non- stellar objects that also seemed to display star-like Doppler shifts. So long as velocities of only a few hundred kilometers per second were measured, no one questioned that the frequency shifts for the spiral nebulae indicated relative motion just as they had for stars and planets.

But, during the 1920's and 30's spiral nebulae with Doppler shifts of over 34,000 kilometers per second were discovered. In a letter by Hubble to the Dutch cosmologist Willem De Sitter in 1931, he stated his concerns about these velocities by saying "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority." Dispite this cautionary note, the fact of the matter was that the redshifts measured for the distant galaxies LOOKED like Doppler shifts. The terms 'recession velocity' and 'expansion velocity' were quickly brought into service by astronomers at the telescope, and by popularizers, to describe the physical basis for the redshift.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Tifft and Cocke begin their article with this sentence. Wisely, they followed with the tale of how vehemently the quantization of the atom was resisted earlier in this century. They were wise because without such a reminder to be open-minded, many astronomers would automatically toss their article in the wastebasket! In fact, when Tifft's first paper on redshift quantization appeared in the Astrophysical Journal, the Editor felt constrained to add a note to the effect that the referees:

"Neither could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."

Even today, after much more evidence for redshift quantization has accumulated, scientific resistance to the idea is extreme. We shall now see what all this fuss is about.
Tifft first became suspicious that the redshifts of galaxies might be quantized; that is, take on discrete values; when he found that galaxies in the same clusters possessed redshifts that were related to the shapes of the galaxies. The obvious inference was that the redshifts were at least partly dependent upon the galaxy itself rather than entirely upon the galaxy's speed of recession (or distance) from the earth. Then, he found more suggestions of quantization. The redshifts of pairs of galaxies differed by quantized amounts (see figure). More evidence exists for galactic quantization, but this should give the reader a feeling for the conceptual disaster waiting on the wings of astronomy.

Can galaxies, like atoms and mole cules, posses quantized states? And do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES; and then all of astronomy and our entire view of the universe and its history would have to be reformulated.

A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values. The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps. Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump. The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky. Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft. In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it. The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results. Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific American and a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence."

The Lehto-Ti t redshift quantization model is used to predict the redshift distribution for certain classes of quasars, and for galaxies in the neighborhood of z = 0:5. In the Lehto-Ti t model the redshift is presumed to arise from time dependent decay from an origin at the Planck scale; the decay process is a form of period doubling. Looking back in time reveals earlier stages of the process where redshifts should correspond to redictable fractions of the speed of light. Quasar redshift peaks are shown to correspond to the earliest simple fractions of c as predicted by the model. The sharp peaks present in deep eld galaxy redshifts surveys are then shown to correspond to later stages in such a decay process. Highly discordant redshift associations are expected to occur and shown to be present in the deep eld surveys. Peaks in redshift distributions appear to represent the spectrum of possible states at various stage of the decay process rather than physical structures.

Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars. In this paper we discuss and relate three lines of such evidence including evidence for characteristic peaks in the redshift distribution of quasars,
the issue of associations between objects with widely discordant redshifts, and redshift quantization associated with normal galaxies.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613

Evidence is presented for redshift quantization and variability as detected in global studies done in the rest frame of the cosmic background radiations. Quantization is strong and consistent with predictions derived from concepts associated with multidimensional time. Nine different families of periods are possible but certain ones are more likely to occur...

snip

Introduction: The objective of this paper is to present current evidence for global redshift quantization and to examine some of its properties. By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;

the redshift is not a continuous variable as expected from the standard doppler interpretation..."

Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame , W. G. Tifft, in Modern Mathematical Models of Time and Their Applications to Physics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997 (1.2M).

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow. We find Hubble constants of Ho = 60.0 and 57.5 km s-1 Mpc-1 for the Sc and Sb galaxies respectively. For the SnIa galaxies we find Ho = 58. These values are considerably lower than the value of Ho=72 reported by the Hubble Key Project, but are good in agreement with the value Ho = 60 found for intermediate redshifts using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. Evidence is also presented that suggests that the presence of unaccounted for intrinsic redshifts may have led us incorrectly to the conclusion that a "great attractor" is needed to explain the velocity data. The 91 galaxies examined here also offer new, independent confirmations of the importance of the redshift increment zf = 0.62.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf

Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.

Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with a periodic separation of ¡­ 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by spectroscopic or similar selection effects. Possible nterpretations are briefly discussed.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf

We investigate some of Tifft's recent statistical analyses of periodicities in extragalactic redshift samples. The values of the periodicities are refinements of those predicted by Lehto. The redshifts have been corrected for the apparent motion of the solar system relative to the cosmic background radiation and have been filtered by applying criteria such as 21 cm profile width and redshift. In all cases except one, our Monte-Carlo simulations show general agreement with Tifft's results. However, we find that one of his analyses is weakened by applying an inappropriate Bernoulli-trials statistic. We apply a new, more straightforward statistic that shows high statistical significance for some of the periodicities. We conclude that although some of Tifft's procedures seem to be open to some criticism, the periodicities are present at a level that is statistically significant.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/1996/00000244/F0020001/00140080;jsessionid=18j6qmjjr6bp.victoria

In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.

This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.

What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense."

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances
Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

In 1924 Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the small hazy patches of light we see in the sky are "enormous islands of billions of stars." Examination with large telescopes revealed that the fainter and smaller a galaxy appeared, the higher, in general, was its redshift. 'Redshift' describes the characteristic lines in the spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium and other elements which appear at longer (redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. The simple explanation attributes this effect to the recession velocity of the emitting source - like the falling pitch of a receding train whistle, the Doppler effect. It was therefore concluded that the fainter and smaller the galaxy, the more distant it is, and the faster it is moving away from us. This velocity interpretation of the redshift - the apparent brightness relation - forms the standard interpretation of the Hubble Law. Einstein wrote equations at about this time that attempted to describe the behaviour of the entire universe, the totality of existence. His equations pointed to its probable instability. Gravitation was either strong enough to be in the process of contracting the universe, or too weak to prevent its expansion. Extrapolating these velocities back to the origin of time gave rise to the concept of the universe being created in a primeval explosion - the Big Bang cosmology. According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recesson velocity. At the very least, it seemed that some modification had to be made to the theory, but some influential specialists reacted very strongly to these anomalous observations. It was said they "violated the known laws of physics" and must therefore be wrong; that is to say, a useful hypothesis had been enshrined in dogma. Arp states that the dogmatists attitude was akin to saying 'At this moment in history we know all the important aspects of nature we shall ever know.' The first challenge to the conventional theory came with the advent of radio astronomy and the discovery of quasars (quasi-stellar objects). It was no longer possible to view galaxies just as relatively quiescent aggregates of stars, gas and dust, all swirling in ordered rotation. Some are ripped asunder by huge explosions while others have nuclei that vary strongly in brightness and intermittently eject quantities of matter into space. The first quasar was discovered by Allan Sandage and Thomas Matthews, an optical and a radio astronomer working in collaboration, in 1963. Then, to great surprise, Martin Schmidt found that the initially puzzling lines were those of familiar elements but shifted far to the right. Why, when the highest redshifted galaxies had a maximum redshift of 20 to 40 percent of the velocity of light, did these stellar-looking objects suddenly appear with redshifts of 80 to 90 percent? It was conjectured that some other mechanism was responsible. For example, redshifting could be caused by a very strong gravitational field. However, such explanations were quickly discarded; it was decided that quasars were the most luminous objects in the universe and that they were seen at such great distances that the expansion of the universe was giving them the largest possible recession velocity. Difficulties in this explanation were encountered almost immediately. Firstly, how could an object be so luminous? So much energy had never been encountered in previously observed galaxies. In some quasars the calculated density of charged particles was so high that there would be a problem of actually getting the photons, by which we see them, out of their interior. Very accurate positional measurements by radio telescopes (using very long baseline interferometry) revealed the astounding fact that some quasars appeared to be expanding at up to ten times the speed of light. This was in complete violation of the accepted laws of Einsteinian physics, in particular, that the speed of light is a physical constant that cannot be exceeded. Rather than regard these quasars as being at lesser distances so as to give them quite modest expansion velocities, conventional theorists attempted to incorporate the redshift effect into their existing beliefs. They attempted to explain these anomalies as an illusion caused by very exceptional conditions, such as ejection of matter towards the observer at nearly the speed of light. They ignored the direct evidence that these quasars were interacting with galaxies which were at a known and much nearer distance to us.

For example, it's not difficult to look at the picture of the x-ray filaments in Markarian 205, featured also on the book cover, and to grasp the deep implications of that image. For if a low-redshift Seyfert galaxy is physically connected to and interacting with two high-redshift quasars, one on either side, then redshift can be neither a distance nor a velocity indicator. And that single picture then disproves the Big Bang and most of mainstream cosmology in its present form.

Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, µ =kz0.026+ 0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-µ galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.
Keywords: surface brightness, cosmology, non-expanding universe,

We present the history of estimates of the temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume and Eddington on the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight belonging to our Milky Way galaxy. Then we discuss works relating to cosmic radiation, concentrating on Regener and Nernst. We also discuss Finlay-Freundlich's and Max Born's important research on this topic. Finally, we present the work of Gamow and collaborators. We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang.
PACS: 98.70.Vc Background radiations
98.80.-k Cosmology
98.80Bp Origin and formation of the Universe
Key Words: Cosmic background radiation, temperature of intergalactic space, blackblody radiation
1.
2. Introduction
3. In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) utilizing a horn reflector antenna built to study radio astronomy (Penzias and Wilson 1965). They found a temperature of 3.5± 1.0 K observing background radiation at 7.3 cm wavelength. This was soon interpreted as a relic of the hot Big Bang with a blackbody spectrum (Dicke et al. 1965). The finding was considered a proof of the standard cosmological model of the Universe based on the expansion on the Universe (the Big Bang), which had predicted this temperature with the works of Gamow and collaborators.
In this paper we show that other models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had predicted this temperature prior to Gamow. Moreover, we show that Gamow's own predictions were worse than these previous ones.

http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

Tommy Mandel

All observed characteristics of quasars are customarily interpreted using the standard Big Bang model and the assumption that their redshifts are primarily due to the expansion of the universe. These same characteristics can also be interpreted using alternative models in which quasar redshifts are not cosmological. In the table below, the quality of these two interpretations is compared. We see that, although both interpretations are possible, Occam's Razor cuts sharply in favor of the nearby quasar interpretation. The consequences of continuing to ignore this in journal articles, at meetings, in grant awards, in experiment and instrument design, in telescope allocation, in textbooks, and in the classroom, are to inhibit meaningful progress in the field on many fronts. This is true regardless of which hypothesis is more nearly correct, since ignoring useful, viable hypotheses or discordant data teaches unscientific behavior.

INTERPRETATION IN STANDARD MODEL	OBSERVATIONAL FACT	INTERPRETATION IN GENERIC MODEL
Only the center of the galaxy-like mass which produces the energy is visible.	(1) Quasars have little or no visible angular extent.	Quasars really have stellar dimensions, occasionally surrounded by nebulosity.
Most quasar light comes from a small source of solar system dimensions, even in quasars as big as giant galaxies.	(2) Quasars have rapid light variations.	Light variations are not unusual in high-mass stellar-sized objects.
Such jets must be the largest contiguous structures in the universe.	(3) Even high-redshift quasars have long jets.	Such jets result from ordinary mass ejections, and are unremarkable in size.
Apparent faster-than-light motions must be relativistically beamed toward us.	(4) Features in quasar jets are observed to move outward.	Small mass transfers are occurring at ordinary velocities.
An evolutionary effect, since early, distant, high-redshift quasars are more energetic.	(5) The angular size of visible nebulas surrounding some quasars does not diminish, and may even increase, with increasing redshift.	Higher mass quasars, which have higher redshifts, have larger associated nebulas.
Unknown energy mechanism produces equivalent of thousands of supernovas per year, enabling them to be bright at great distances.	(6) Some high-redshift quasars are relatively bright.	Not surprising, since redshift does not indicate distance, but perhaps mass. Some of these objects are nearby.
An evolutionary effect caused by quasars being primarily a feature of the early stages of the universe. No predictable relation between quasar numbers and space volume exists.	(7) Quasars do not exhibit the type of brightness-number relationship found for galaxies. The distribution is flat out to nearly redshift z = 2, then drops sharply.	Since redshift is not a distance indicator, no brightness-number relationship is expected. Objects with z > 2 have shorter lifetimes, e.g., because of their higher mass.
Most quasars died out long ago. Quasars formed and died during a limited period of evolution of the universe.	(8) Small redshift and large redshift quasars are found infrequently.	High redshift objects emit limited visible light. Low redshift objects are undistinguished and difficult to find.
Most X-rays come from nearby or very far away, but generally not from intermediate distances.	9) Discrete X-ray sources are found in our own galaxy and in some quasars and related objects.	Only nearby sources can give off detectable X-rays. Most galaxies are too far away to see their X-rays sources.
These X-rays must be relativistically directed These X-rays must be relativistically directed toward us in a narrow, short-lived beam. toward us in a narrow, short-lived beam.	(10) An X-ray flare from a quasar with z = 0.14 was observed to increase its brightness by 67% in just three minutes.	There is nothing unusual about such an X-ray flare in a high-mass star. No beaming is required.
Theoretical problem getting photons out from interior when density gets too high.	(11) The calculated charged particle density is a function of inferred distance.	No special problems arise.
Statistical coincidence and optical illusions.	(12) Some low redshift galaxies have associated quasars. Some of those appear to be connected to the galaxies.	Those galaxies are the parent of the associated quasars.
Statistical coincidence and gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters. High-redshift associations cannot be real.	(13) Quasars, even at high redshifts, are frequently accompanied by faint galaxies at small separations.	Association with parent galaxies plus gravitational lens effects, with foreground quasars lensing background galaxies.
An observational selection effect which will disappear when catalogs are more complete.	(14) The magnitudes and angular separations of quasar-galaxy pairs are correlated with the galaxy redshift.	This is the predicted quasar-parent galaxy relationship.
An evolutionary effect, not fully understood.	(15) Where distant clusters of galaxies are observed, quasars are generally not found in them.	Quasars of distant galaxies are too faint to be visible.
The significance of galaxy voids is still being studied. Clustering is an evolutionary effect, not yet strong during the main quasar era.	(16) Quasars with redshifts greater than 1.5 show no tendency toward galaxy-like clustering or voids.	Such quasars are nearby, and should therefore not display clustering. Redshift is not a distance indicator, so no voids should be evident.
Selection effect of concentrating searches in these regions.	(17) Quasars do show strong, large-scale clustering around nearby galaxy groups, such as the Virgo and Sculptor clusters and M87.	The nearby galaxies and clusters are parent bodies for those quasars.
Caused by intervening hydrogen clouds. Implied cloud temperatures (5,000-10,000 degrees) are below predicted 30,000 degrees.	(18) Absorption lines in the spectra of quasar light are quite narrow.	Lines are due to layers in the massive stellar object or its surrounding nebulosity, not intervening clouds. Cooler temperatures expected.
The hydrogen clouds doing the absorbing are not uniformly spread through space, and are more abundant at recent (therefore close) epochs. Lack of metal lines makes galaxy halos unlikely candidates as absorbers.	(19) The number of absorption line systems seen in Lyman alpha does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption systems as high-z quasars.	The absorption systems are due to layering in the quasar and its surrounding nebulosity. No linear or monotonic relationship with redshift is expected.
The magnetic field is in invisible, young intervening galaxies, which must then have fields as strong as mature galaxies.	(20) Quasar jets have variable polarization due to a magnetic field.	The magnetic field is that of the local parent galaxy of the quasar. Local galaxies have fields of about the measured strength.
These still defy any consensus explanation.	(21) So-called "iron quasars" contain extremely strong emission lines from ionized iron.	Normal for stellar objects in a certain range of mass and temperature.

A careful examination of the middle column reveals that almost all of these observational features of quasars have explanations in the standard model. But it also reveals that most of these explanations were contrived after the properties were discovered, and are therefore ad hoc (ex post facto) helper hypotheses, serving the purpose of saving the feature of the standard model that quasar redshifts are distance indicators. The explanations do not flow naturally from the model until after the observations force a model amendment. By contrast, inspection of the last column reveals that most quasar properties become unremarkable if quasars are assumed to be nearby. Only a few arguments are ad hoc, and then perhaps only because of the lack of specificity of the generic model in this paper. That will be remedied with the publication of a new cosmology, the Meta Model, in early 1993.

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world. An Open Letter to the Scientific Community Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.

Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.

To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. Signed: (Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) / Earthtech.org www.earthtech.org http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273 http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA) James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany) Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK) Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA) Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA) Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA) R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Editor's comments:

Meanwhile, we have a good model of a star, our Sun, right in front of our faces. The study of our Sun has revealed an anomaly, something that cannot be explained by the standard theory. It turns out that the temperature of the chronosphere, the atmosphere of the Sun, can be hundreds of times hotter than the surface of the Sun, the photosphere. How can that be? How can cooler make hotter?

Gravity is only one force of nature, there are other forces such as the force which holds atomic particles together - the strong force. And then there is the electromagnetic force, the EMF., which organizes everything else. The Sun is regarded as a ball of plasma. Plasma, one of the four states of matter, is the flow of electric currents in space without a conductor. Plasma currents, composed of both negative electrons and positive ions, create magnetic fields which then interact with the currents. A telltale sign of plasma is the spirialing caused by the size difference of the electron and ion. Benchtop experiments have succeeded in producing extra-energy with plasma. Likewise, a plasma ball the size of our Sun spews out a solar wind which is called outflow. We can visually see this happen. We see the Sun outflowing matter/energy, we see the centers of galaxies outflowing matter/energy.

What we see are vast outflows of matter/energy, sometimes as a jet, sometimes as two jets, or a wind or a geyser from the center of galaxies. The assumption being made in the standard theory is that the accretion disk of a Black hole is reversing part of the inflow of matter.and sending it back out.

And then there is the inside of empty space. Turns out the vacuum of empty space is a false vacuum. Turns out that instead of empty space being full of nothing, it is full of energy. All matter is sustained by the Inside energy source

Well known to scientists but known by many different names.

The Universe is not full of "stuff" all of which was randomly created billions of years ago, astronomers see structures that would take ten times that long tp make. Obviously the Universe is full of stuff that is being created right now. Right now all the stuff in the Universe is in equilibrium with the inside of empty space, being constantly fueled with energy from the inside .according to the second law. The Universe is not a collection of inert matter which happened to organize itself this way. The Universe is a process which is constantly becoming itself.

Go here to read a letter series sent to Jack Sarfatti, a chief proponent of the Big Bang Theory

copied from http://www.plasmacosmology.net/philosophy.html

Science and Philosophy

What is science?

A few words from Hannes Alfven seem appropriate to begin a discussion on the role of philosophy in science. Alfven pointed to an increasing specialisation in science during the latter half of the last century, and this cult of the expert certainly seems to have contributed to much of the resistance to many of his ideas. "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Daniel Dennett

"We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect. Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research." Hannes Alfven, 1986

It is easy to forget that science is essentially a philosophical discipline. It is based on Empiricism, the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are generally now occupied by Professors of Physics.

There is a growing fear, however, that the role of empiricism, and associated philosophical disciplines like rationality, logic and skepticism have been undermined in modern science. Perhaps the greatest philosophers of science, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, pondered such problems. See the next page on skepticism.


The Scientific method

Traditionally we think of the scientific method comprising the following stages.

1 Observation 2 Hypothesis 3 Prediction 4 Testing

Richard Feynman, however, argued that "There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is science'. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking."

It is a straight forward matter, nonetheless, to differentiate between the approaches favoured by Big Bang supporters and Plasma Cosmologists.
"Don't let your minds be cluttered up with the prevailing doctrine." Alexander Fleming

The 'Actualistic' versus the 'Prophetic'

Following in the footsteps of their famous predecessors, plasma physicists are keen to take an Actualistic approach, that of working backwards from observation, and taking a broad approach to science. Birkeland, for example, believed in experimentation and observation in addition to mathematical modelling, despite having trained as a mathematician. He was famous for his Terella experiments (see history I), and for expeditions to polar regions to observe auroras at first hand.

Big Bangers, by contrast, exhibit a preference for the Prophetic approach, that of starting out from idealised mathematical principles. This theoretical approach, however, is fraught with problems, as the history of science testifies. For example:

1. Sidney Chapman's mathematical models failed to predict the complex three dimensional nature of the Earth's magnetosphere.

2. The Kinetic theory of Ordinary gases fails to predict the behaviour of Plasmas (originally called ionised gases), because of their electrodynamic interactions. The mathematics may work for ordinary gases, but it fails hopelessly for plasmas.

3. Ptolemaic epicycles were mathematically elegant, and they worked, but they failed to recognise the underlying mechanism.

4. The prophetic approach postulates a number of entities prior to their discovery. Hypotheticals like Dark Matter and dark Energy are required to balance the equations in Big Bang cosmology.
"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". Ockham's Razor

Mathematics and Science

The importance of mathematics in science cannot be denied. It is an essential tool for both measurement and prediction, principles on which science is based, but history teaches us to be cautious before relying on mathematics as a starting point.

Ptolemaic epicycles, mentioned above, highlight the dangers of the mathematical approach. They were a series of circular orbits within orbits, and with a few tweaks they would probably still work today, but the point is that -- although mathematically correct, and indeed elegant -- they failed to reflect the underlying reality.

Einstein, no less, had reservations about the mathematical approach favoured by expanding universe proponents:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality."

Einstein, of course, preferred some form of steady state universe, but the mathematical formulae devised by Abbe Georges Lemaitre effectively hijacked his theory and chained it to the expanding universe model.


Math and Logic

It is all too often assumed that mathematics is a form of pure logic, and therefore above reproach. Although it contains many logical elements, the relationship between math and logic is not simple. Bertrand Russell and a number of other philosophers have dedicated no little time in trying to prove the relationship, but all have failed. Math is only pure in so far as much of it reflects the realm of pure thought, and not necessarily reality. Unfortunataly, math all too often drives modern cosmology. The trouble is, math should be our slave ... not our master.

Plasma Cosmology works backwards from observation, not forwards from perfect theoretical principals. Additionally, plasma behaviours are not always easy to model mathematically. Langmuir, after all, borrowed the term from blood plasma because of its life-like qualities.

Russell's Paradox highlights a math-logic problem via the agent of Set Theory.
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell

Science and Religion

It is not the purpose of this web site to enter into any debate regarding the relative merits of science and religion. Alfven, however, warned against the dangers of trying to reconcile the two:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan

Horganism

The belief that we know almost all there is to know, and that there are only a few loose ends to tie-up, is sometimes referred to as Horganism, after John Horgan, a senior writer at Scientific American. In his book, The End of Science, he rejects the idea that any major new discoveries remain to be made.

The history of science suggests that such confidence -- arrogance, perhaps -- is ill-founded. Our journey is probably only just beginning.

http://laserstars.org/summary.html

Emission line stars that emit laser light
Problem : Quasar Redshift
When the spectrum of the star-like object 3C 273 was first observed in 1963, it was found to have one strong emission line and one medium/weak strength line. The problem was, however, that these lines were at wavelengths where no strong lines were expected from laboratory spectra. It has been a traditional assumption in astronomy that the intensities of lines in astronomical sources will be similar to those in the laboratory under ordinary excitation conditions. Schmidt assumed that these two lines were redshifted hydrogen-a and hydrogen-ß lines, and obtained a redshift of 0.157. Subsequently, when other such objects with broad emission lines were discovered (3C 48, 3C 191 etc) they were also labelled quasars and the spectra were similarly interpreted on the redshift hypothesis. In conjunction with Hubble's law it meant that quasars were very distant objects. This in turn led to the well known difficulties concerning their energy generation mechanism, optical variability, lack of correlation in the redshift-magnitude diagram, superluminal motion etc.

Solution : Laser Action
Theoretical and experimental investigations in physics in the next decade showed that when a high temperature plasma rapidly expands (for example, in vacuum) the resulting cooling leads to a population inversion in the lower levels of the atom, and this can lead to laser action. Also, it is well known that in certain types of stars (Wolf-Rayet, P Cygni); matter is ejected more or less continuously. This led Varshni to propose the following realistic model of a quasar: A quasar is a star in which the surface plasma is undergoing rapid radial expansion giving rise to population inversion and laser action in some of the atomic species. The assumption of the ejection of matter from quasars at high speed is supported from the fact that the widths of emission spectral lines observed in quasars are typically of the order of 2000 - 4000 km/sec. The ejected matter can form a nebulosity around the quasar or dissipate into space, depending on the rate of mass loss, how long the ejection has been going, the surroundings of the quasar etc. Laser action is enhanced if the hot plasma ploughs into this colder gas. Thus no redshifts are required to explain the strong emission lines. This model is called the plasma-laser star (PLAST) model.