This is a follow up to the previous article, so consider reading that first if you are not already familiar with it (click here). I received a response from Bill Wesley¹, which referred to a “serious theory by a PHD physicist who worked for NASA”. (Included was a link to https://www.jamespaulwesley.org/.)
The response included these points especially relevant to my argument:
- “an infinite eternal steady state universe is presented”.
- “The red shift is considered as caused by the transfer of energy away from the electromagnetic field and into strengthening the energy of the gravitational field such that dark energy is not needed since the red shift is not then a Doppler shift and dark matter is not needed since extended gravity can hold on to galaxies better”.
Here are some observations on those key points:
- an eternal universe is the understanding of spiritual traditions down the ages, what has been called the Ancient Wisdom.
- ‘Steady State’ was the theory of the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. It was he who coined the term Big Bang, intending it to be pejorative, although it has stuck. It is now considered to be discredited, especially following the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which Stephen Hawking described as the final death-knell for the Steady State theory in favour of the Big Bang. However, as I pointed out in the last article, there was a better explanation for the CMBR which is now ignored. I repeat the comment here: “In 1933, the German physicist Erich Regener had predicted the existence of a microwave background produced from the warming of interstellar dust particles by high-energy cosmic rays, thus not a product of a Big Bang. His prediction for its temperature was far more accurate than that of Big Bang theorists Alpher and Herman. Regener was therefore the first to predict the existence of the CMBR, but also the one who predicted it with the greatest accuracy, but for reasons unconnected with a Big Bang”.
- Advocates of the Big Bang myth persist in saying that Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the red shift demonstrated that the universe is expanding. As I have pointed out in earlier articles, this was not what Hubble himself believed. He said in 1935 that some mechanism other than expansion might be responsible for producing the cosmological redshifts². He later wrote a paper that came out decidedly in favour of an alternative theory called the tired-light model. His data agreed with a stationary Euclidean universe in which the redshifts were due to some unknown effect, which caused photons to lose energy as they travelled through space³. He said in his paper that the data were incompatible, and that “the expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results”⁴. In the theory above the red shift is also not a Doppler shift, and there is therefore no need to conclude an expanding universe from it.
- the alternative theory in Wesley’s response does away with the need for dark matter and energy, which physicists have not yet detected despite extensive efforts, even though many of them have an absolute faith in their existence. This is perhaps because they are so addicted to the Big Bang model.
2. E. Hubble and R. C. Tolman, ‘Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular red-shift”, Astrophysical Journal 82 (1935): 302–37
3. ‘Effects of red shifts on the distribution of nebulae’, Astrophysical Journal 84 (1936): 517
4. ibid. p554