Talk:Big Bang

IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang please do so at BAUT forum or talk.origins.

'accurateness' of an explanation?

Is it right to refer to the 'accurateness' of 'explanations' in the opening of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.5.236 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took you to mean that you want someone to change "accurateness" to "accuracy". However, I cannot find "accurateness" in the text. Please be more specific about where it is (name the section and give the paragraph # and sentence #). If you meant something else, please be more explicit. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest using the word "coherent" in place of "accurate" to describe the "explanations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.51.102 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Coherent implies self-consistency or agreement with intuition whereas accuracy here implies agreement with observations. We could (and philosophers of physics do) have a discussion about whether or not science gives any truly "accurate" answers but since this article is concerned with observation, and particularly peer-reviewed literature, I think it is fair to say that the big bang theory gives accurate explanations as far as any physicist is concerned. That is to say that, to a physicist accuracy implies coherence. 152.3.44.41 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Gravity Bubble Expansion

The entire idea for the big bang comes from the view that galaxies are flying apart from each other. However, we now know that that view is not entirely accurate, with galaxies as well as entire groups of galaxies actually drawing closer together. A much better theory than Big Bang is that there are anti-gravity bubbles within the structure of the universe, that these bubbles are growing, resulting in both a pushing apart as well as a pushing together of galaxies and groups of galaxies. The bubbles would be created by the same mechanism that creates matter, quantum fluctuations. Bob Mosurinjohn, aka Sputnick on APOD forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.148.124 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, each star or galaxy has its own proper motion relative to the average motion of matter in that part of the universe. But this does not change the observationally supported fact that the average motion is proportional to one's position. See Hubble's law. Consequently the volume occupied by the matter currently in our observable universe is steadily increasing. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New interpretation of the cosmological red-shift showing that there was neither any Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New interpretation of cosmological red-shift showing that there was neither Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding Put forward by: Hasmukh K. Tank, from Space Applications Centre of Indian Space Research Organization, 22/695 Krishna Dham-2, Ahmedabad-380051 India E-mail: [removed] Date:20th February,2010 Wall of text Based on the strikingly matching values of decelerations of: Pioneer-10, Pioneer-11, Galileo and Ulysses space-probes with the deceleration of the cosmologically red-shifting photons, and the 'critical acceleration' of Modified Newtonian Dynamics [MOND], this letter proposes that all these decelerations are because of 'self-gravitational-pull' of the object's own gravity. So, every moving object has to continuously keep on spending a part of its kinetic energy. Newton's laws of motion s need a refinement, of taking into account this very-small deceleration, close to: 6.67 x 10^-10 meters per seconds squared. This refinement will: (i) help in understanding the relative strengths of gravitational and electric forces; and (ii) lead to static model of the universe, i.e. there was neither any Big-Bang, nor the universe is expanding. The strikingly equal amounts of carefully measured1 anomalous decelerations of all the four space probes:For Pioneer-10, a = (8.09 +/- 0.2) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Pioneer-11, a = (8.56 +/- 0.15) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Ulysses,a = (12 +/- 3) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 For Galileo,a = (8.0 +/- 3) x 10^-10 meters/sec^2 and their perfect matching with the deceleration of cosmologically red-shifting photons can not be an accidenta coincidence.For Cosmologically-red-shifted-photon a = 6.87 x 10^-10 meters/sec2 = H c. The reason why the deceleration of cosmologically red-shifting photon is slightly less is because: when the extra-galactic-photons enter our own milky-way-galaxy, they experience some gravitational blue-shift.So, the strikingly matching values of five different decelerations can not be ignored by a scientific mind. Moreover, this value of deceleration also matches with the ‘critical-acceleration’ of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics [MOND] devised to explain the ‘flattening of galaxies’ rotation-curves’.According to Hasmukh Tank, a scientist-engineer from ISRO, all these perfectly-matching-decelerations are because of ‘self-gravitational-pull’ experienced by the moving body itself. Because, every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, produces a curvature of space-time around it, so when a body tries to move in any direction, it experiences a backward-pull, because of its own gravity. Space-time are bendable; they are not perfectly rigid like the cement-road. So, moving through space-time is like walking on a sandy path; so the moving object has to spend a part of its kinetic-energy, to keep moving. In the case of the cosmologically red-shifting-photons, the expense of energy can be expressed as follows:We can express the cosmological red-shift z in terms of de-acceleration experienced by the photon, as: z = H D / c i.e(h delta f / h f) = H D / c, and h delta f = (h f / c^2) (H c)D. So, the loss in energy of the photon is equal to its mass (h f / c^2) times the deceleration a = (H c) , times the luminosity-distance D traveled by it. Here, H is Hubble’s constant, and c is speed of light. And the acceleration a = 6.87 x 10-10 meters/sec^2. Based the previous paper^2 the acceleration a = H c can be expressed as a =H c = G M/ R = G 10^80 mp /(10^40re)^2 = G mp / re^2. Where M was total-mass of the universe, R was radius of the universe, G is Newton’s gravitational-constant, mp is mass of the proton, and re is classical-radius of the electron, as defined by Dirac re = e^2/me c^2.It means that the above acceleration a implies the ‘self-gravitational-pull’ at the level of the protons and neutrons contained in the nucleus of the atoms.A Gadanken-experiment to understand the ‘ self-gravitational-pull. Since the Sun is sure to expand in the future, and it is likely to swallow all the inner planets and our Earth, let us plan to shift the position of the earth. For this purpose, we will need a space-shuttle which can step-by-step transport the earth’s matter to a selected new position in the outer space. Supposing, in every trip, the shuttle is able to carry m kilograms of matter. As the shuttle starts its first trip, it will experience the earth’s gravitational-pull, and so, it will have to consume its kinetic-energy equal to say, m . g . h ; where: g is gravitational-acceleration, m is mass lifted by the shuttle, and h is height at which the mass is lifted. As the trips proceed, the earth’s mass will go on reducing, reducing the value of g . Also, the mass accumulated at the height h will pull the mass being lifted. Say, to lift half of the earth’s mass, total consumption of kinetic energy is K units. This amount of kinetic energy can either be re-obtained by bringing-back the lifted mass. Or, this amount of kinetic energy, which has got converted to gravitational-potential-energy, can be used to pull the remaining half portion of the earth’s matter to the heighth. It means, that we have to spend K units of energy to bring the earth to a new position. Supposing this new position is not sufficient for protecting the earth from the Sun’s expansion,then we will have to repeat this procedure. And we will have to consume K units of energy every-time. So, to keep a massive body moving, we have to continuously, keep on spending energy. It means that every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, has to continuously spend a part of its kinetic energy to keep moving.Thus,we considered here a necessity of refinement of Newton’s laws of motion that: Every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, has a ‘gravitational potential-well’, or ‘the curvature of space-time’ around it; so when it tries to move in any direction, it has to climb its own potential-well; so it experiences a backward-force, towards its previous position. This ‘self-gravitational-pull’ is proportional to its mass m, and acceleration H c. And the Force (F)= k . m ,where k = H c,and m is mass of the body. In the case of cosmologically red-shifting photon, its mass is m =(h f/c^2). This ‘self-gravitational-pull’ can be experimentally verified by: (i) applying force smaller than the acceleration H c in the outer space where there is no other gravitational force; and(ii) we can send space-probes, like the Pioneer-10 and 11, in different directions, of different masses, and speeds. This law of ‘self-gravitational-pull’ will lead to the static model of the universe, making the explanation for the relative strengths of gravitational and electric forces, proposed by Tank^2 , valid for all the history of the universe References 1.Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto M. M., and Turyshev.S.G.Indication, from Pioneer 10, 11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration. Phys. Rev. Letters. 81 (1998) 2858-2861 [(Comment by Katz J.I.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1892 (1999); Reply: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1893 (1999)].2,Tank H.K. “An Explanation for the Relative Strengths of ‘Gravitational’ and ‘Electric’ Forces Suggesting Equality of the ‘Electrostatic-potential-energy’, ‘Gravitational-potential-energy’ and ‘Energy of Mass’ of the Universe ” Science and Culture 75, No: 9-10, Sept-Oct 2009 p. 361-363 11:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 122.170.30.12 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) First, note that this talk page is intended for discussing the associated Wikipedia article, not for announcing your latest ideas. Having said that, let me point out just one major flaw in your argument. You claim that "every piece of matter" experiences a "self-gravitational pull" which manifests itself as a deceleration of the order of 10-10 ms-2. With this constant deceleration, planetary orbits would decay over a timescale of 10 million years or so. This possibility is contradicted by the known age of the Earth. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The acceleration in question seems to affect differently to(i) linearly moving objects, and (ii) to the orbiting objects. In the case of MOND the effective acceleration gets inceased from its expected value GM/r^2 to [GM/r^2xthe critical-acceleration]^1/2, where GM/r^2 is much lesser than the critical acceleration of MOND. So, we need to think more.11:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.176.142 (talk) There are many papers on 'Gravitational self-force' accessable from www.google.co.in, which should help in understanding the 'self-gravitational-pull' in question.11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, so "orbiting objects" are affected differently. Occam's razor says that it is always a bad sign when you have to add exceptions and special cases to your theory to sidetstep objections. I agree that you need to think more, but please do your thinking somewhere else. When you have published your theory in a peer-reviewed paper in a mainstream journal, then it is ready for Wikipedia - not before. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC) While solving the most important problems, we need to do constructive critisism, and offer constructive suggestions;this is not a quiz game played by collage students.Wikipedia's discussion-page should mean reader's reactions on the subject of the article. Peer-reviewed journals are commercial activities, so they bother very much for the impact-factor and mind-set of readers, they do not loose anything by not publishing a very-important paper. e.g. The paper on Bose-Einstein's statistics was rejected by NATURE, but later the subject turned out to be worth The Nobel Prize.Wikipedia will be helpful in the progress of science, if it helps in overcoming the problems associated with the present system of peer-reviewed journals. I've taken the liberty of removing your email, since Wikipedia is a very visible site and is ripe for harvesting by spambots. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC). Thanks. (Sorry, I can't help myself.) I stopped taking this seriously when I got to "every moving object has to continuously keep on spending a part of its kinetic energy". This is a fundamental failure to understand Galilean invariance. An object is never "moving" in an absolute sense, but only relative to some observer in a non-accelerating frame of reference. If an object has to decelerate according to one observer, another observer will see that object start out at rest and spontaneously accelerate! That second observer measures an acceleration, and an increase of kinetic energy that is not caused by any force, which contradicts the starting proposition. The original assumption is inherently self-contradictory. CosineKitty (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Dear friends, just think of a situation that every motion is relative. If every particle's motion is relative, then it would mean that no particle is actually,(i.e.absolutely)moving. So, in my opinion, there are two types of motions, (i) relative, and (ii) absolute, i.e. it moves with respect to its previous position. Einstein's relativity is correct with respect to the first,relative motion. But there is absolute motion as well, i.e. a change of co-ordinates of a particle with respect to its previous co-ordinates.The MOND's acceleration, and the deceleration experienced by the cosmologically red-shifted photon, are with respect to their absolute motion.11:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.176.142 (talk) According to many physicists, Einstein's special relativity is correct only with respect to absolute frame of reference. Einstein's transformations have only one-way correctness. Google-search will show many papers showing mathematical-mistakes in the derivations of special-relativity's expressions. So, we need to keep an open mind. Yeah it is trully amazing how many idiot there are out there that do not understand the math of special relativity and think they found a "mistake". Most theory institutes have regular mail claiming this, producing giggles among the staff around the coffee table. Sillyness has no bound. About MOND, that theory has some serious issues that need to be dealt with before becoming a serious contender. Not to mention that it does not seem to be compatible with various other observations, cannot describe structure formation, etc. TimothyRias (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is funny: where are these absolute "co-ordinates of a particle"? I would love to be the first to win a Nobel Prize for observing the invisible grid marks on the fabric of space itself!  :) CosineKitty (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Also - once again - please look at the big hand at the top of the page. This discussion page is for discussion of the article - not debate about the theory and other competing theories. This discussion should be moved to individual talk pages or to the Science Reference Desk. Thanks! PhySusie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please insert {{hidden archive bottom}} or {{hab}} after the unnecessary discussion, otherwise all further additions to the talk will be hidden whether pertaining to that discussion or not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Abundance of elements' boast

The current intro boasts:

The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions

No, not "closely", for Helium-3/4 the fitness is very good but for Lithium-7 the match is bad (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). If we just adhoc grabs a auxilliary hypothesis, say that f.ex. heavier elements are spallated by cosmic radiation producing Li-7, this auxilliary hypothesis by itself isn't enough to justify the fitness to be good, we must have quite a few citations making this statement in the context of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and in order to be NPOV, we must add something like are considered by scientists^{[whom, by the way?]} to closely match... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The true details of nucleosynthesis arguments are actually statistically very significant if you take the priors correctly. What you need to do is look at all the species at once and take into account the errors on each and add appropriately. Lithium-7 is one of the least abundant species still around from the Big Bang and spallation is large enough to heavily pollute the sample (unlike, say, deuterium). So, it's not really a good idea to attribute this fact. The best nucleosynthesis papers show it to be nearly ironclad as a measurement. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Digging up a cite or two, especially ones that mention the spallation issue, and adding them to this article and to Big Bang nucleosynthesis might not be a bad idea? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So dug: [1], [2], [3], and the seminal review of the "lithium problem" with the most likely solutions outlined: [4]. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Universe expansion2.png image - galaxy shapes

Nitpicking, but the galaxies on the image are all disk-shaped, fully formed with arms. AFAIK galaxies evolve through globular, disk, spiral stages. --Dc987 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think we'd risk confusing readers if we tried to show morphology evolution in the diagram, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientists who don't believe in the big bang

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article makes it sound like all scientists believe in the big bang, but nothing is further from the truth. There should be mention in the article of scientists who don't believe in it. Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven said the big bang is just a religious myth.173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC) A small number of scientists dispute the Big Bang theory. Most of them, like Alfvén, are not cosmologists. The vast majority of scientists and an even vaster majority of cosmologists do not. Per WP:FRINGE, the former group is really not prominent enough to justify much coverage here. (This edit-conflicted with the section being removed. I've restored it to answer the comment since it is actually about improving the article, although further debate is unlikely to be productive.) Olaf Davis (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I see that Alfvén died 15 years ago at the age of 86, and his theory of plasma cosmology was developed some 30 years before that. Like Hoyles Steady State theory, it deserves an honourable mention in the history of cosmology, but it isn't relevant for an article about the current state of knowledge. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Alfven proposed plasma cosmology as a possible alternative. At any rate Alfven never believed the big bang theory. That is what is important here. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC) There is in fact a lengthy petition signed by cosmologists who don't believe in the big bang, see: http://cosmologystatement.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC) The strength of scientific consensus is not determined by number of names on a petition, though. Do serious journals on cosmology give much time to papers disputing the Big Bang? No. Does the mainstream or popular science media? No. Do the vast majority of cosmologists treat the dissenters as people with reasonable claims they happen to disagree with? No, they largely ignore them or treat them as crackpots. Those are what matters, and all of these add up to pointing to the dissenters as a 'fringe' group under WP:FRINGE. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC) It is media driven. No one will contradict the media. It is a fad. And so called 'serious' journals have been dead wrong about many things over the years. The big bang is a fad, a snowball, which is absurd right on the face of it. Top cosmologists have signed that petition. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) As much as the IPs comments show little sense of reality, he does have a point that the article should have a small section/paragraph discussing alternatives. It is simply a fact, that regularly people have proposed alternative theories, which where subsequently rejected based on observational evidence. Although most alternatives are not really notable enough to mention, the fact that alternatives have been proposed and rejected is. If nothing else, such a section could help make clear what the current status is with a vast majority of supporters and some occasional dissenters. TimothyRias (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC) The first paragraph of the "Features, issues and problems" section mentions this a little bit - do you think it should be expanded? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Prof. Michael J. Disney of Cardiff University slammed the big bang theory in American Scientist magazine in September 2007, and he is a professional cosmologist. He says the evidence is flimsy and not convincing. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Here is yet another mainstream publication with an article about the universe being 'static' and not expanding (no big bang): http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000002000298000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no 173.169.90.98 (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) New Scientist and American Scientist aren't peer-reviewed journals, and they will often publish "controversial" (i.e. wrong) viewpoints to sell more magazines. Concerning the Physics Essay article, it looks like Lorenzo is saying that he derived his results assuming a Euclidian universe, because space-time curvature is not significant at the scale he's working at, NOT that the universe is static. I don't currently have access to the full article however, and I wonder if this was reviewed at all considering the broken English found in the abstract ("All the results are deduced in a Euclidean universe because the concept of space-time curvature is not necessary as well as in a static universe because two mechanisms for the redshift of galaxies alternative to the Doppler effect are invoked."). As Olaf Davis said, alternatives were suggested in the past from non-crackpots. These were shown wrong. Currently, it is impossible (when in possession of all the required mathematics and all the available data) to deny the fact that the Big Bang happened. The debates are on how it happened, rather than whether it happened, much like in plate tectonics the debates are about the mechanisms which powers continental drift, and not about whether continents are moving. Crackpottery published in New Scientist and American Scientist remains crackpottery. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Professor M.J.Disney is not a crackpot, Sir, he is a professional cosmologist who does not believe in the big bang nonsense. Neither did Hannes Alfven believe in the big bang myth. Also, the English is not broken in the Physics Essays abstract, you just don't understand what he is saying. And the Physics Essays article says 'mechanisms for the redshift of galaxies alternative to the Doppler effect' which means in plain English, no big bang. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) With regards to the Big Bang, Alfven was a crackpot taking shots in the dark. He didn't believe that there was evidence for the big bang, and that the physics community only believes it because of "divine dictation" by Einstein Friedman LeMaitre et al. Which of course, conveniently forgets about the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. You can disagree if you want, but in that case, Wikipedia is not the place to argue about it. If you succeed in convincing the mainstream scientific community that the case for the Big Bang is poor, it'll be reflected in the article. However, until that happens, this article will "side" with the Big Bang. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion was pompously declared closed so quickly, but I take issue with the statement therein:

Currently, it is impossible (when in possession of all the required mathematics and all the available data) to deny the fact that the Big Bang happened.

This is either too simplistic or just plain wrong. Steady state models are perfectly compatible with theory and observation and have been proposed by active current cosmologists. Eg:

• Aguirre, Anthony and Gratton, Steven n (2003). "Inflation without a beginning: A null boundary proposal". Phys.Rev. D67 083515.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Aguirre, Anthony and Gratton, Steven (2002). "Steady-State Eternal Inflation". Phys.Rev. D65 083507.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review what is meant by big bang. It typically is NOT the appearance of an initial singularity. TimothyRias (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however the article is not clear on the subject. To me, the BB is the end of inflation. However when I tried to add that the inflation article awhile back it was removed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think actually that the second sentence of this article is quite clear on what is meant by the big bang model. I also think that you cannot unambiguously say that the "big bang happend at the end of inflation". Most generally the term "big bang" refers to the whole model including inflation. (Of course, there is a usage where people refer to the inflation phase as happening before the big bang.) TimothyRias (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The key word is "finite" in the article's 2nd sentence. This excludes past eternal steady state models. Therefore it is not the case that all mainstream theories are BB theories. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm hugely familiar with the theories you're talking about, but are they excluded by the first sentence? It just says that the universe was in a "primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past"; that's an accurate description of a universe where inflation ends but does not begin, since the end of inflation is at finite t. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the past eternal models the initial conditions are set (in theory) in the infinite past, not at any finite time, even though inflation ends on our past light cone only a finite time ago. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - despite having quoted that sentence I somehow missed the word "initial" in it. I take your point, then. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I had this particular thread closed because virtually all of the threads I've seen here about "discussing" the Big Bang "being wrong" are always about some creationist or some fan of a crackpot whining on and on and on and on about how it is a terrible injustice to not include their pet fringe alternative theory/hypothesis, and how it's an even more terrible injustice to include what mainstream science says about the Big Bang, and how it's the most terrible injustice of all that no one else on Wikipedia agrees with them. And I've seen that none of those particular threads were about actually improving this article, beyond giving undue weight to fringe theories. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to finally have people using the talk page for discussing improvements and refinements to this article, I'm just giving my reasons/justifications for always wanting to nip any threads about how "the Big Bang is wrong"--Mr Fink (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, creatonist and crank threads are tedious. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a published peer-reviewed article that favors a static (not expanding) universe. http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The abstract of that article says "The application of these new formulas to the data of the two-degree field galaxy redshift survey provides a Hubble constant of (65.26±8.22) km s−1 Mpc−1 for a redshift lower than 0.042". Maybe you can explain how a non-expanding universe would have a non-zero Hubble constant ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hubble constant is the slope of redshift versus distance. The redshift can be caused by other things than a recessional velocity, that is what the article says. With no big bang at all. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the Hubble constant is (redshift/distance) x c, and the units of km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ implies that redshifts are Doppler shifts and the authors are inferring velocities from them. Redshift itself is a dimensionless quantity (it is delta wavelength/wavelength), so in a non-expanding universe model you would express redshift/distance in units of Mpc^-1. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They throw in the 'c' simply to compare notes with the big bang model numerically. But they are proposing a Non-Doppler effect as the actual cause of the redshift. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, can you quote exactly where in the article the authors specifically state, if not explain how, that they have refuted all of the evidence that points to the Big Bang, AND PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US HOW BEST TO REWRITE AND IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE TO REFLECT THAT?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Without the cosmological redshift being due to expanding space, the big bang theory collapses, 'all the rest' of the evidence being circumstantial and debatable point by point. The crucial assumption is that the redshift is due to expanding space. The article presents an alternative to that crucial assumption. The article presents a static universe and is peer reviewed. So not all scientists accept the big bang theory. - That needs to be explicitly stated in the Wikipedia article. - There needs be a section on 'scientists who don't believe the big bang theory'. - There should be referenced this article, and Dr. M.J.Disney's article, and Dr. Aiguirre's article, and the petition signed by all those top names, Gold, Bond, etc.67.78.143.227 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)