I mentioned John Gideon Hartnett who is a YEC/YCC physicist at a secular university and has several PhD students. I mentioned he invited me to be his student, but I couldn’t manage a move to Australia, for starters…
Anyway, one of the “best” explanations for redshifts as due to cosmological expansion is the apparent time dilation in supernova light curves. Supposedly a supernova’s unfolding/evolution over time should appear to take longer the more redshifted it is.
But, Hartnett refers to a paper by Crawford and summarizes:
A similar point is made by Crawford [22]: “Since current investigators assume that the type Ia supernovae have essentially a fixed absolute BB magnitude (with possible corrections for the stretch factor), one of the criteria they used is to reject any candidate whose predicted absolute peak magnitude is outside a rather narrow range. The essential point is that the absolute magnitudes are calculated using BB and hence the selection of candidates is dependent on the BB luminosity-distance modulus.” Basically he is claiming selection bias. Is not this circular reasoning? If you select only the candidates that fit the desired luminosity-distance criteria and use them to determine the luminosity distance. Since one cannot determine the absolute magnitudes of the sources without assuming a cosmology, the standard concordance criteria (Ωm ≈ 0.3, ΩΛ ≈ 0.7, and H0 ≈ 70 km/s/Mpc) are used to calculate the absolute magnitudes for the candidates, which must be in a narrow range near MB ≈ −19, and the acceptable ones are used to test the same model, and therefore determine values for Ωm and ΩΛ. This is confirmed by [26] who state “…for any individual SN Ia, the intrinsic width is unknown, so without assuming a (1 + z) dilation, the intrinsic width and dilation cannot be separated.”
Next as already mentioned, and practically ignored is the invariant blink rate of quasars with red shift! This isn’t trivial. This is evidence, as far as quasars at least, that the redhift isn’t cosmological.
Comparably bad is this observation by Hartnett:
they should be young objects. Their larger redshifts imply younger quasars. Therefore, quasars should be deficient in metals at higher redshifts, which should be observed in their metal abundances as a function of epoch. But observations show no metal deficiency as a function of redshift [25, 83]. Quasar environments, based on their emission lines, are generally metal rich with metallicities near or above the solar value even to the highest redshifts.
Add to that observed proper motions in quasars as mentioned in a paper above, high Z quasars could be near.
Then the gamma ray bursts is red shifted galaxies:
Crawford [21] makes a careful analysis of the traditional explanation that an inverse correlation between luminosity and these time measures together with strong
luminosity selection as a function of redshift cancels any observed time dilation. He confirms that there is an inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures. Of the 4 listed above it is strongly seen in 2 of them. But using the concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. He finds that GRBs out to z = 6.6 show no evidence of time dilation in the raw data and rejects the hypothesis with a probability of 4.4 × 10−6
.
So we have dubious issues with redshift, especially the quasars, we have a failed Tolman test according to Disney, we have a religiously adopted inflation model, tried replace it with Variable Speed of Light, and no lab confirmation of dark matter or dark energy, attempted to replace Dark Matter with Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Without cosmological redshift we don’t know the universe is expanding.
We also don’t absolutely know we’re in the sort of curved universe where we’ll see the appearance of galaxies receding about the same way no matter where we are in the universe. We could actually be in privileged geometric position in the universe, something that troubled Hubble himself.
The Big Bang model should not be compared to the supposed flaws in Newtonian mechanics at relativistic speeds or Newtonian gravity with gravity under General Relativity. Newton’s is at least in the drivers seat for a lot of practical applications, in including spacecraft. That is not the case with the major pillars of the Big Bang.
I think it’s a little premature to be making pronouncements that the Big Bang is confirmed model.
Even my professor James Trefil, a big advocate of Dark Matter, was not convinced of the Big Bang. He gave a table of reasons he was skeptical, albeit favorable, to the Big Bang in his book on Dark Matter.
Notwitstanding the weighty objections to YEC/YCC, criticisms of the Big Bang are fare game. It’s certainly not as well established as many bread-and-butter principles in Earth-bound condensed matter physics as evidenced by the success of silicon valley.
I’m not saying that Big Bang advocates are fraudulent (though Dr. De would say so), but rather, cosmologists and astrophysicists have been dealt a tough hand. We are limited as a matter of principle what we can actually deduce about all the universe from our little corner of reality. I respect that gallant attempts at trying to extrapolate grand ideas from such small tiny dots in the sky.