The Big Bang Redshift Model Fails

Since galaxies, super clusters, stars, and all forms of matter do not expand there is no redshift where gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces dominate. This makes the big bang expansion redshift model highly density dependent and worse than most tired light models.

The Zero-Point Universe

The 100 Greatest Lies in Physics

Goodbye Quarks: The Onium Theory

God Hates Science

[Wstarlights]

I'm assuming Neil Degrasse Tyson and the like believe 'virtual particles' are expanding 🤷‍♂️ because it quote "fits the big bang perfectly" end quote lol

[culture-jamming-rhizome]

Chris Brown did a book on links between the hubble constant and the density of the universe at the largest scales in his book " Astrophysics for people who think physicists are full of shift".

[hoon_sol]

That's right; keep pummeling the delusional Big Bang zealots.

[adamc]

The big bang explanation is like trying to explain the holy trinity. I'll bet your work will never be considered by the mainstream cosmologists.

[frun]

"Matter density may be too high for Big Bang redshift to occur anywhere" 👍 Proponents of Big Bang would argue the average density of the Universe is low.

[John-up]

One day, I decided to study math again so as to understand the 'big bang'. After a few years, I found out not only the 'big bang' has been completely debunked (see Halton Arp), but the math in published papers on the subject are some of the worst cases of bad math ever put out there to fake out anybody who reads their pretentions claims.

[pauldentler]

In astronomical spectroscopy, the Lyman-alpha forest is a series of absorption lines in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars arising from the Lyman-alpha electron transition of the neutral hydrogen atom. Odd that he can't explain this while at the same time debunking an expanding Universe.

[bradleyroe]

If the aether is static but the universe is spinning this may expain.

[adairjanney]

sky scholar has already utterly disproven the big bang

[emerther]

It seems like you said only gravity could counteract the expansion of the universe. Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but any force that is strong enough will (locally) counteract the expansion of the universe.

[space_audits]

Huge fan of your work. They have so many problems with redshift. In my research, I've found that they don't even have a basis to claim to so-called gravitational fields even interact with light. The only deflection (if any) that's ever been seen optically only takes place near the limb of the sun where there's a medium. Pound-Rebka, Pound-Snider, null results and Hafele-Keating didn't prove anything other than clocks in motion go out of sync at varying rates.

What do you think about this, Ray. They claim gravitational redshift due to spacetime curvature caused by a gravitational field. What's the mechanism that facilitates the energy transfer necessary for redshift to occur if there's no background medium? They want to invoke Doppler shift but the frequencies only change because the exchange that's happening within the medium. For example: Sound waves are produced by a disturbance in a background medium of air, which causes the particles within the medium (oxygen and water vapor) to vibrate and transfer energy one another.

And like I said, no experiment has ever been shown to mutually elusively prove em energy interactions with gravitational fields or spacetime curvature. However, if you look at the Zeeman and Star Effects, [electromagnetic fields and electric fields] these are well known mediums that cause spectra shift.

[martinsoos]

"THEIR THEORY DOESN'T WORK EITHER". Red shift through fiber optics does work and if atoms drain energy from photons, then so does the air and dust in the universe. Tired light sounds stupid, how about photon drag.

[rayfleming]

If you would like to support my research you can also donate at paypal.me/rayflemingphysics or patreon.com/rayfleming

[YouthExtension]

lot of it makes sense in your videos but i must point out an error in your recent logic: in local space the expansion does not need to be fast, it's a cumulative effect over large distances. someone calculated it takes only one added atom of new matter per cubic kilometer (don't remember the time period, perhaps in a year) for the overall faster than light expansion between far away points, and the resulting observed redshift. locally gravity overcomes expansion. best from france. A

[nolan]

How about if galaxies heat the intergalactic voids?

[CKyIe]

I believe in the big bag, so I disagree with you, but I like the way you state your ideas and that you do it with humility. Not like the annoying people who smugly believe anything an authority figure tells them. It takes courage to go against the grain.

[delvish]

To my mind it's incredible that these technical aspects even need to be addressed. What the big bang proposes is that spacetime emerged from a change in state, well excuse me for saying so, but time and space are required process parameters for motion and unless they can demonstrate change without motion they're just talking nonsense. It's a religion of math.

[asiseeit...]

Doppler Case #1: The train goes by while blowing the whistle. Doppler Case #2: Both the whistle and observer are stationary and the wind is blowing.

Redshift can only be Doppler Case #1 because Doppler Case #2 for spacetime is stupid. Did JWST just make a case for Doppler Case #2? Is spacetime theory now the stupid one??

(26Apr2023 edit:) Wind? A medium? What...? See item #7 in the 'Space Audits' discussion below.

[KaliFissure]

The curve of spacetime caused by the vacuum energy creates redshift. We are the bottom of a parabola, of viewpoint and there is universe forever but we can't see past a certain curvature.
Observable universe

[whig]

You're basically arguing with religious zealotry. The big bang is nothing more nor less than Roman Catholic theology.