Cosmology View

My views on Cosmology and Physics

site navigation menu


Flawed debate of Big Bang Theory

The Institute of Art and Ideas hosted a debate on the Big Bang Theory. The video, linked at the end, is dated June 14, 2021.

The panel included some familiar names:

Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder, Sean Carroll, David Tong, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Chris Impey, and Bjørn Ekeberg.

Someone says something like "the big bang theory matches all observed evidence" and this statement includes the false clam of the CMB. Of course, I disagree with "all" in that claim.
As I do not believe in this fantasy, creation story, their arrogant claims of certainty of an event to a ridiculous precision of time are disturbing.
Fantasies of multiple universes, even having time in an opposite direction,  are for writers of fantasy or fiction, not a serious cosmologist.

I submitted the following comment to the TouTube video.

(start comment)

This panel of top scientists is very certain of their evidence suggesting an expanding universe.
Clearly, no one in this panel took the time to learn the origin of the redshift numbers.

In 1912, Vesto Slipher measured the first redshift.
In 1914, Vesto Slipher measured the first blue shift, of Andromeda galaxy.
He measured the galaxies just like he measured stars.

Stars have in their spectra emission lines and absorption lines from atoms on the photosphere surface, so these atoms move with the star.
Galaxies and quasars have no photosphere surface, so no atoms in the line of sight can move with them.

Slipher made a fundamental mistake when he assigned a velocity from an atom to the galaxy in the line of sight.

Absorption and emission lines in spectra from galaxies and quasar are atoms moving in the line of sight.

Slipher's mistake continues. Astronomers make this mistake with every galaxy and quasar.

In Slipher's time, the measured velocities were not outrageous.
For example, Slipher measured M31 at about 300 km/s using calcium ions. That is the same velocity as calcium ions in the slow solar wind.

No one questioned his method and results.

Now, many galaxies and quasars have been measured with z> 1. The highest is z=11.

Still, astronomers and cosmologists do not question the method and the results.

All galaxies and quasars having z > 1 share the same redshifted Lyman-alpha emission line.
When a proton captures an electron, the "new" hydrogen atom emits the Lyman-alpha wavelength. The shift in this emission line comes from the proton's velocity.
I expect that most people can accept a tiny proton moving faster than the speed of light.
I am very disappointed that all astronomers and cosmologists, like on this panel, accept that quasars and massive galaxies holding millions of stars are moving with this tiny proton, faster than the speed of light.

Lower redshift galaxies often have a redshifted neutral hydrogen emission line. Neutral atoms are pulled toward the galaxy by gravity. Since the atoms move away from Earth, every galaxy measured using this line is assigned an invalid  recession velocity. The atoms are not moving with the galaxy, just toward it.

The panel is quite certain of the evidence for expansion. Clearly, none of them know the expansion is based on measuring the velocity of atoms.

Their absolute certainty of the big bang time line is based on a mistake of using tiny atoms, instead of the correct object.

I have published 10 books on cosmology and physics. As one doing research, I am quite disappointed in the panel's unabashed confidence regarding outrageous redshift data which should have been questioned.

(end comment)

I wanted to respond to the CMB claim by describing Robitaille's conclusions.
I did not, because the comment would get too long.

If someone responds with a laughable question like "what about the CMB?"
I can respond at that time.

My comment is currently without a response, at 13 hours ago.

I do not expect a response from the celebrities on the panel. I hope to get a response from other viewers of the video, because they might read the comments. Their responses will be interesting, considering the video is about a debate. A debate usually offers conflicting views.

link to YouTube video

date posted 12/20/2021