Replies

Wow. So you don't think glaxies are receding from each other? They can't be standing still (due to gravitational attraction)*, so you must think that they are moving toward each other. If so, where's the blue shift?

The Hubble shift is incapable of explaining motion in the universe if you're talking about motion "away" from an initial Big Bang. It is an example of applying one observation (the doppler effect) to another observation (what appeared to be a red shift of galaxies), explaining the latter in terms of the former, and too hastily extrapolating that to a theory of origins. Their confidence in the undeniable relationship seen between relative motion and doppler-shift was transferred to an hypothesis that depended on the phenomenon of doppler-shift, embuing the latter with the certainty of the former. Since it easily explained a new cosmology, it was just too good. But it breaks down because of periodicity that has been long observed in so-called red shift values and their association with particular types of stars/galaxies. That is, the periodicity is explained as a function of the star's age, not its speed through space relative to other stars (though there is relative motion between stars). A long time ago, such periodicity was explained away as being artifactual due to the paucity of data. That is no longer the case. The data is overwhelming. However, it is being studiously ignored (even to the point of suppressing publication in U.S. journals of criticisms of the Big Bang and promotion of alternate theories to explain the so-called red shift) by those who have committed their entire careers to promoting the Big Bang rather than to finding out what is really going on, no matter where the trail leads, even to the falsification of their hypothesis. Most people don't like to have their hypotheses falsified, especially when they waddle and quack like a religious belief that attempts to explain Life, the Universe, and Everything (to quote Douglas Adams).

*Do you have any idea how slight gravitational attractions are at the distances involved? Besides, there is gravitational attraction that is supposed to be responsible for the foam-like superstructure of the universe (the stars and galaxies are in the interstices between the bubbles which represent more or less empty space, presumably having been aggregated that way by local gravitational effects). Notice also that this "measurement" of dark mass is not what it claims to be. It's just a measurement of detectable mass subtracted from a mass demanded by a hypothesis, the remainder being called "dark mass". That two different measures of visible or detectable mass come close to agreeing doesn't say a thing about the existence of "dark mass". To believe that it does is equivalent to positing that the purchase represented by a bag of tacos left on a street corner was really much larger because no one would have left the bag unless he had already eaten a very large portion and was just too stuffed to finish the rest and too small/weak to carry the rest and, so, the large amount must have been eaten by a dwarf. Given the typical size of dwarf stomachs, the upper limit on the initial size of the Taco Bell purchase was calculated. Two different proponents of this same theory then carefully measure the mass of the "remaining" tacos and find their numbers in close agreement and triumphantly claim to have measured the mass of the "missing" tacos and, by this, to have proven the existence of the dwarf.