mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
'Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt.' -- Lev Landau ///
'I am certain that it is time to retire Landau?s quote.' -- cosmologist
Michael Turner [Physics Today 2001/12, 10-11]

[reprinted from /Meta Research Bulletin/ 11, 6-13 (2002)]

/ Abstract./ Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems
with the Big Bang. [[1] <#_edn1>] Since that publication, we have had
many requests for citations and additional details, which we provide
here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the earlier list.
Then we supplement the list based on the last four years of developments
? with another 20 problems for the theory.

*(1)  Static universe models fit observational data better than
expanding universe models.*

Static universe models match most observations with /no/
adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical
observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the
cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to
match different tests. [[2] <#_edn2>,[3] <#_edn3>] Without ad hoc
theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the
discrepancy could be explained, Occam?s razor favors the model with
fewer adjustable parameters ? the static universe model.

*(2)  The microwave ?background? makes more sense as the limiting
temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.*

The expression ?the temperature of space? is the title of
chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington?s famous 1926 work, [[4] <#_edn4>]
Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would
cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant
starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined
to 2.8°K [[5] <#_edn5>]), essentially the same as the observed,
so-called ?background?, temperature. A similar calculation, although
with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of
intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]
<#_edn6>] So the intergalactic matter is like a ?fog?, and would
therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation,
including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.

Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to
radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7] <#_edn7>] The amount of
radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths,
as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic
medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared
and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies
absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more
easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave
radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that
medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or
to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from
the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument
alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us
from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang
theory cannot be correct.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big
Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow?s
upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the
actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction,
the Big Bang?s hypothetical ?fireball? becomes indistinguishable from
the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of
the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched
observations. [[8] <#_edn8>] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for
the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

*(3)  Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many
adjustable parameters to make them work.*

The universal abundances of most elements were predicted
correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State
cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium.
The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the
abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least
one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it?s
a question of figuring out why the element was either created or
destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take
away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains. The best
the Big Bang can claim is consistency with observations using the
various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element.
Examples: [[9] <#_edn9>,[10] <#_edn10>] for helium-3; [[11] <#_edn11>]
for lithium-7; [[12] <#_edn12>] for deuterium; [[13] <#_edn13>] for
beryllium; and [[14] <#_edn14>,[15] <#_edn15>] for overviews. For a full
discussion of an alternative origin of the light elements, see [[16]
<#_edn16>].

*(4)  The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed
?walls? and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.*

The average speed of galaxies through space is a
well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly
the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures
(superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17] <#_edn17>], and to clear
all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial
directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers
of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy
speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of
?viscosity? of space. To form these structures by building up the needed
motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of
100 billion years. [[18] <#_edn18>]

*(5)  The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just
the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at
all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.*

According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of
1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The
redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair
approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high
redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse
square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness.
This must be explained as quasars ?evolving? their intrinsic properties
so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way,
the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than
the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably
bright. It isn?t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should
evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the
observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of
quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. See [[19] <#_edn19>,[20]
<#_edn20>].

By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for
quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In
[20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts
are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with
the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z
> 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11
quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated
with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar
redshifts are intrinsic. [[21] <#_edn21>]

*(6)  The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.*

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction
toward resolving this since the ?top ten? list first appeared, the error
bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite
overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr).
Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the
?observational error? explanation because that would almost certainly
push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which
creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure
is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively
bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering
the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again.
[[22] <#_edn22>,[23] <#_edn23>]

*(7)  The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite
universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.*

In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for
galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The
Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of
galaxies relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130
Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a
"Great Attractor" pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in
newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the
hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us
out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave
"background". The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of
large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in
motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big
Bang. [[24] <#_edn24>,[25] <#_edn25>,[26] <#_edn26>,[27] <#_edn27>,[28]
<#_edn28>]

*(8)  Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must
be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.*

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters,
superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this
invisible, not-yet-detected ?dark matter? to keep the theory viable.
Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have
never detected. By contrast, Milgrom?s model (the alternative to ?dark
matter?) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales
and requires no ?dark matter? to exist at any scale. (I exclude the
additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by,
e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don?t like modifying the law of
gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical
necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17^th century. [[29]
<#_edn29>,[30] <#_edn30>]

Milgrom?s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom?s is an
operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is
consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for
gravity. So Milgrom?s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for
?dark matter? in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big
Bang ?fudge factor? no longer needed.

*(9)  The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show
insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher
redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.*

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in
the early universe be ?primitive?, meaning mostly metal-free, because it
requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in
stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the ?earliest?
quasars and galaxies. [[31] <#_edn31>,[32] <#_edn32>,[33] <#_edn33>]
Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what
the Big Bang expected to be the ?dark age? of evolution of the universe,
when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be
blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [[34] <#_edn34>]

*(10)    If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the
beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to
the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59 .
Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on
itself or already dissipated.*

Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations
went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big
Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the
cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own
because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10^120 , and
observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) ?quintessence? or
?dark energy?. [[35] <#_edn35>,[36] <#_edn36>] This latter theoretical
substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible,
undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe
to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be
accurately described as ?the ultimate fudge factor?.

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most
astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to
one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could
easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter
than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a
negative ? something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot
/prove/ that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the
Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein
proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead,
the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected
discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal
process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has
value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model
from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.
Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory
itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on
bits of new theory.

Of course, the literature also contains the occasional
review paper in support of the Big Bang. [[37] <#_edn37>] But these
generally don?t count any of the prediction failures or surprises as
theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And
the ?prediction successes? in almost every case do not distinguish the
Big Bang from any of the four leading competitor models:
Quasi-Steady-State [16,[38] <#_edn38>], Plasma Cosmology [18], Meta
Model [3], and Variable-Mass Cosmology [20].

For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by
astronomers. However, one web site by Ned Wright does try to advance
counterarguments in defense of the Big Bang. [[39] <#_edn39>] But his
counterarguments are mostly old objections long since defeated. For example:

(1)  In ?Eddington did not predict the CMB?:

a.      Wright argues that Eddington?s argument for the ?temperature of
space? applies at most to our Galaxy. But Eddington?s reasoning applies
also to the temperature of intergalactic space, for which a minimum is
set by the radiation of galaxy and quasar light. The original
calculations half-a-century ago showed this limit probably fell in the
range 1-6°K. [6] And that was before quasars were discovered and before
we knew the modern space density of galaxies.

b.     Wright also argues that dust grains cannot be the source of the
blackbody microwave radiation because there are not enough of them to be
opaque, as needed to produce a blackbody spectrum. However, opaqueness
is required only in a finite universe. An infinite universe can achieve
thermodynamic equilibrium (the actual requirement for a blackbody
spectrum) even if transparent out to very large distances because the
thermal mixing can occur on a much smaller scale than quantum particles
? e.g., in the light-carrying medium itself.

c.      Wright argues that dust grains do not radiate efficiently at
millimeter wavelengths. However, efficient or not, if the equilibrium
temperature they reach is 2.8°K, they must radiate away the energy they
absorb from distant galaxy and quasar light at millimeter wavelengths.
Temperature and wavelength are correlated for any bodies in thermal
equilibrium.

(2)  About Lerner?s argument against the Big Bang:

a.      Lerner calculated that the Big Bang universe has not had enough
time to form superclusters. Wright calculates that all the voids could
be vacated and superclusters formed in less than 11-14 billion years
(barely). But that assumes that almost all matter has initial speeds
headed directly out of voids and toward matter concentrations. Lerner,
on the other hand, assumed that the speeds had to be built up by
gravitational attraction, which takes many times longer. Lerner?s point
is more reasonable because doing it Wright?s way requires fine-tuning of
initial conditions.

b.     Wright argues that ?there is certainly lots of evidence for dark
matter.? The reality is that there is no credible observational
detection of dark matter, so all the ?evidence? is a matter of
interpretation, depending on theoretical assumptions. For example,
Milgrom?s Model explains all the same evidence without any need for dark
matter.

(3)  Regarding arguments against ?tired light cosmology?:

a.      Wright argues: ?There is no known interaction that can degrade a
photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a
blurring of distant objects which is not observed.? While it is
technically true that no such interaction has yet been discovered,
reasonable non-Big-Bang cosmologies require the existence of entities
many orders of magnitude smaller than photons. For example, the entity
responsible for gravitational interactions has not yet been discovered.
So the ?fuzzy image? argument does not apply to realistic physical
models in which all substance is infinitely divisible. By contrast,
physical models lacking infinite divisibility have great difficulties
explaining Zeno?s paradoxes ? especially the extended paradox for
matter. [3]

b.     Wright argues that the stretching of supernovae light curves is
not predicted by ?tired light?. However, one cannot measure the
stretching effect directly because the time under the lightcurve depends
on the intrinsic brightness of the supernovae, which can vary
considerably. So one must use indirect indicators, such as rise time
only. And in that case, the data does not unambiguously favor either
tired light or Big Bang models.

c.      Wright argued that tired light does not produce a blackbody
spectrum. But this is untrue if the entities producing the energy loss
are many orders of magnitude smaller and more numerous than quantum
particles.

d.     Wright argues that tired light models fail the Tolman surface
brightness test. This ignores that realistic tired light models must
lose energy in the transverse direction, not just the longitudinal one,
because light is a transverse wave. When this effect is considered, the
predicted loss of light intensity goes with (1+z)^-2 , which is in good
agreement with most observations without any adjustable parameters. [
NOTEREF _Ref4051228 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT 2,[40] <#_edn40>] The Big Bang,
by contrast, predicts a (1+z)^-4 dependence, and must therefore invoke
special ad hoc evolution (different from that applicable to quasars) to
close the gap between theory and observations.

By no means is this ?top ten? list of Big Bang problems exhaustive ? far
from it. In fact, it is easy to argue that several of these additional
20 points should be among the ?top ten?:

·       *"Pencil-beam surveys"* show large-scale structure out to
distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite directions from us.
This appears as a succession of wall-like galaxy features at fairly
regular intervals, the first of which, at about 130 Mpc distance, is
called "The Great Wall". To date, 13 such evenly-spaced "walls" of
galaxies have been found! [[41] <#_edn41>] The Big Bang theory requires
fairly uniform mixing on scales of distance larger than about 20 Mpc, so
there apparently is far more large-scale structure in the universe than
the Big Bang can explain.

·       Many particles are seen with energies over 60x10^18 eV. But that
is the *theoretical energy limit* for anything traveling more than 20-50
Mpc because of interaction with microwave background photons. [[42]
<#_edn42>] However, this objection assumes the microwave radiation is as
the Big Bang expects, instead of a relatively sparse, local phenomenon.

·       The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of *matter and
antimatter* were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the
present universe apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as
CP violation asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with
matter, but left much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of
this asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can?t be
antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with
the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not
seen. [[43] <#_edn43>,[44] <#_edn44>]

·       Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a
smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO?s Lyman-alpha emission line.
This is called the *Gunn-Peterson effect*, and is rarely seen, implying
that most hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen
Gunn-Peterson trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z »
6.1. [[45] <#_edn45>] Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6
briefly appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by
a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the
supposed reionization epoch and at a time when the Big Bang expects no
galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if only a few galaxies had turned
on by this early point, their emission would have been absorbed by the
surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. [34] So
the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the theory
it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG 0052+251 is at the
core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host galaxy appears undisturbed by
the quasar radiation, which, in the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong
enough to ionize the intergalactic medium. [[46] <#_edn46>]

·       An *excess of QSOs* is observed around foreground clusters.
Lensing amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too
weak to explain this association between high- and low-redshift objects.
This apparent contradiction has no solution under Big Bang premises that
does not create some other problem. It particular, dark matter solutions
would have to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that
imply that dark matter increases away from galaxy centers. The
high-redshift and low-redshift objects are probably actually at
comparable distances, as Arp has maintained for 30 years. [[47] <#_edn47>]

·       The Big Bang violates the * first law of thermodynamics*, that
energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new
space filled with ?zero-point energy? be continually created between the
galaxies. [[48] <#_edn48>]

·       In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences
from homogenous distribution were found out to a scale of at least 200
Mpc. [[49] <#_edn49>] This is consistent with other galaxy catalog
analyses that show no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to
1000 Mpc. [[50] <#_edn50>] The Big Bang, of course, requires
*large-scale homogeneity*. The Meta Model and other infinite-universe
models expect fractal behavior at all scales. Observations remain in
agreement with that.

·       *Elliptical galaxies* supposedly bulge along the axis of the
most recent galaxy merger. But the angular velocities of stars at
different distances from the center are all different, making an
elliptical shape formed in that way unstable. Such velocities would
shear the elliptical shape until it was smoothed into a circular disk.
Where are the galaxies in the process of being sheared?

·       The polarization of radio emission rotates as it passes through
magnetized extragalactic plasmas. Such *Faraday rotations in quasars*
should increase (on average) with distance. If redshift indicates
distance, then rotation and redshift should increase together. However,
the mean Faraday rotation is less near z = 2 than near z = 1 (where
quasars are apparently intrinsically brightest, according to Arp?s
model). [[51] <#_edn51>]

·       If the dark matter needed by the Big Bang exists, microwave
radiation fluctuations should have ?*acoustic peaks*? on angular scales
of 1° and 0.3°, with the latter prominent compared with the former. By
contrast, if Milgrom?s alternative to dark matter (Modified Newtonian
Dynamics) is correct, then the latter peak should be only about 20% of
the former. Newly acquired data from the Boomerang balloon-borne
instruments clearly favors the MOND interpretation over dark matter.
[[52] <#_edn52>]

·       *Redshifts are quantized* for both galaxies [[53] <#_edn53>,[54]
<#_edn54>] and quasars [[55] <#_edn55>]. So are other properties of
galaxies. [[56] <#_edn56>] This should not happen under Big Bang premises.

·       The *number density of optical quasars* peaks at z = 2.5-3, and
declines toward both lower and higher redshifts. At z = 5, it has
dropped by a factor of about 20. This cannot be explained by dust
extinction or survey incompleteness. The Big Bang predicts that quasars,
the seeds of all galaxies, were most numerous at earliest epochs. [[57]
<#_edn57>]

·       The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used to
determine the *temperature of the intergalactic medium*. It is typically
inferred to be 20,000°K, but there is no evidence of evolution with
redshift. Yet in the Big Bang, that temperature ought to adiabatically
decrease as space expands everywhere. This is another indicator that the
universe is not really expanding.] [[58] <#_edn58>]

·       Under Big Bang premises, the *fine structure constant must vary*
with time. [[59] <#_edn59>]

·       Measurements of the * two-point correlation function* for
optically selected galaxies follow an almost perfect power law over
nearly three orders of magnitude in separation. However, this result
disagrees with n-body simulations in all the Big Bang?s various
modifications. A complex mixture of gravity, star formation, and
dissipative hydrodynamics seems to be needed. [[60] <#_edn60>]

·       Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar
*quasar metallicities*. [[61] <#_edn61>] The iron to magnesium ratio
/increases/ at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). [[62]
<#_edn62>] These results imply substantial star formation at epochs
preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary to normal Big
Bang scenarios.

·       The absorption lines of * damped Lyman-alpha systems* are seen
in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see
these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to
detect them. [[63] <#_edn63>] Moreover, the relative abundances have
surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. [[64] <#_edn64>] The
simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar?s own
environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires.

·       The *luminosity evolution* of brightest cluster galaxies (BGCs)
cannot be adequately explained by a single evolutionary model. For
example, BGCs with low x-ray luminosity are consistent with no
evolution, while those with high x-ray luminosity are brighter on
average at high redshift. [[65] <#_edn65>]

·       The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological
times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (*globular clusters)*
were able to form remains unsolved in the Big Bang. It is no mystery in
infinite universe models. [[66] <#_edn66>]

·       *Blue galaxy counts* show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a
factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of space is
larger than in the Big Bang, where it should get smaller as one looks
back in time. [[67] <#_edn67>]

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality
evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field.
Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the
universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with
credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this
circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being
comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

* Acknowledgments*

Obviously, hundreds of professionals, both astronomers and
scientists from other fields, have contributed to these findings,
although few of them stand back and look at the bigger picture. It is
hoped that many of them will add their comments and join as co-authors
in an attempt to sway the upcoming generation of astronomers that the
present cosmology is headed nowhere, and to join the search for better
answers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* References*

[[1]] T. Van Flandern (1997), _MetaRes.Bull._ _6_, 64;
<http://metaresearch.org>, ?Cosmology? tab, ?Cosmology? sub-tab.

[[2]] T. Van Flandern, ?Did the universe have a beginning??, _Apeiron_
_2_, 20-24 (1995); _MetaRes.Bull._ _3_, 25-35 (1994);
http://metaresearch.or <../>g, ?Cosmology? tab, ?Cosmology? sub-tab.

[[3]] T. Van Flandern (1999), /Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New
Comets/, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (2nd ed.).

[[4]] Sir Arthur Eddington (1926), ?The temperature of space?, /Internal
constitution of the stars/, Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1988,
chapter 13.

[[5]] Regener (1933), _Zeitschrift fur Physiks_; confirmed by Nerost (1937).

[[6]] Finlay-Freundlich (1954).

[[7]] E.J. Lerner, (1990), ?Radio absorption by the intergalactic
medium?, _ Astrophys.J._ _361_, 63-68.

[[8]] T. Van Flandern, ?Is the microwave radiation really from the big
bang 'fireball'??, _Reflector_ (Astronomical League) _XLV_, 4 (1993);
and _MetaRes.Bull._ 1, 17-21 (1992).

[[9]] (2002), _Nature_ _415_, vii & 27-29 & 54-57.

[[10]] (1997), _Astrophys.J._ _489_, L119-L122.

[[11]] (2000), _Science_ _290_, 1257.

[[12]] (2000), _Nature_ _405_, 1009-1011 & 1025-1027.

[[13]] (2000), _Science_ _290_, 1257.

[[14]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, 252-260.

[[15]] (2001), _Astrophys.J._ _552_, L1-L5.

[[16]] C.F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, J.V. Narlikar (2000), /A different
approach to cosmology/, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Chapter
9: ?The origin of the light elements?.

[[17]] (2001), _Science_ _291_, 579-581.

[[18]] E.J. Lerner (1991), /The Big Bang Never Happened/, Random House,
New York, pp. 23 & 28.

[[19]] T. Van Flandern (1992), ?Quasars: near vs. far?, _MetaRes.Bull._
_ 1_, 28-32; <http://metaresearch.org>, ?Cosmology? tab, ?Cosmology?
sub-tab.

[[20]] H.C. Arp (1998), /Seeing Red/, Apeiron, Montreal.

[[21]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, 705-711.

[[22]] (1999), _Nature_ _399_, 539-541.

[[23]] (1999); _Sky&Tel._ _98_ (Oct.), 20.

[[24]] D.S. Mathewson, V.L. Ford, & M. Buchhorn (1992), _Astrophys.J._ _
389_, L5-L8.

[[25]] D. Lindley (1992), _Nature_ _356_, 657.

[[26]] (1999), _Astrophys.J._ _512_, L79-L82.

[[27]] (1993), _Science_ _257_, 1208-1210.

[[28]] (1996), _Astrophys.J._ _470_, 49-55.

[[29]] T. Van Flandern (1996), ?Possible new properties of gravity?, _
Astrophys.&SpaceSci._ _244_, 249-261; _MetaRes.Bull._ _5_, 23-29 &
38-50; <http://metaresearch.org>, ?Cosmology? tab, ?Gravity? sub-tab.

[[30]] T. Van Flandern (2001), ?Physics has its principles?, /Redshift
and Gravitation in a Relativistic Universe/, K. Rudnicki, ed., Apeiron,
Montreal, 95-108; _MetaRes.Bull._ _9_, 1-9 (2000).

[[31]] (2001), _Astron.J._ _122_, 2833-2849.

[[32]] (2001), _Astron.J._ _122_, 2850-2857.

[[33]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _565_, 50-62.

[[34]] (2002), <http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/cowie/z6/z6_press.html>.

[[35]] (2000), _Astrophys.J._ _530_, 17-35.

[[36]] (1999), _Nature_ _398_, 25-26.

[[37]] (2000), _Science_ _290_, 1923.

[[38]] (1999), _Phys.Today_ _Sept, _13, 15, 78.

[[39]] E.L. Wright (2000), <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html>.

[[40]] (2001), _Astron.J._ _122_, 1084-1103.

[[41]] H. Kurki-Suonio (1990), _Sci.News_ _137_, 287.

[[42]] C. Seife (2000), ?Fly?s Eye spies highs in cosmic rays? demise?,
_ Science_ _288_, 1147.

[[43]] (2000), _Sci.News_ _158_, 86.

[[44]] (1997),  _Science_ _278, _226.

[[45]] (2000), _Astrophys.J._ _530_, 1-16.

[[46]] (2002), <http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/35/A.html>.

[[47]] (2000), _Astrophys.J._ _538_, 1-10.

[[48]] B.R. Bligh (2000), /The Big Bang Exploded!/, <brbligh at hotmail.com>.

[[49]] (2000), _Astrophys.J._ _541_, 519-526.

[[50]] (1999), _Nature_ _397_, 225.

[[51]] (1998), /Seeing Red/, H. Arp, Apeiron, Montreal, 124-125.

[[52]] McGaugh (2001), _Astronomy_ _29#3_, 24-26.

[[53]] (1992), _Astrophys.J._ _393_, 59-67.

[[54]] Guthrie & Napier (1991), _Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc._ 12/1 issue.

[[55]] (2001), _Astron.J._ _121_, 21-30.

[[56]] (1999), _Astron.&Astrophys._ _343_, 697-704.

[[57]] (2001), _Astron.J._ _121_, 54-65.

[[58]] (2001), _Astrophys.J._ _557_, 519-526.

[[59]] (2001), _Phys.Rev.Lett._ 9/03 issue.

[[60]] (2001), _Astrophys.J._ _558_, L1-L4.

[[61]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _565_, 50-62.

[[62]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _565_, 63-77.

[[63]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, 51-67.

[[64]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, 68-92.

[[65]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, 103-122.

[[66]] (2002), _Astrophys.J._ _566_, L1-L4.

[[67]] (1992), _Nature_ _355_, 55-58.

©1991-2005 Meta Research. All rights reserved
Back To Top <#top>      Contact Meta Research
</mailer/form-feedback.asp>      Privacy Policy
</home/about%20meta%20research/privacy_policy.asp>