Astronomical Surprise: Massive Old Galaxies Starve To Death In The Infant Universe
That was in 2005, the same problem persists today.
This titanic mass is similar to that of the largest structures observed in the Universe today, but finding such a massive object in the early universe surprised astronomers.
Yes, we would have expected baby looking structures far away, so why do they look so similar to things near us (like old). Or alternatively, the YEC/YCC’s would say they look created and are all almost homogenously young, except for the bluing (for whatever reason) the farther away they are.
Maguijo’s VSL won’t explain this, but I think it’s in the right direction. This is a real anomaly. Same for the spiral galaxies.
It doesn’t prove YEC/YCC, but it does tell me, it’s early in the game to be making final pronouncements about the cosmos.
Beyond that, there are determined minority that don’t like the explanation for redshifts due to expanding space. I thought Varshni had a compelling explanation for Quasars, and Varshni is not a creationist. He postulates plasma laser action as creating the appearance of red shifts in Quasars. He gives a good example here:
http://laserstars.org/V1977/index.html
In the course of our analysis of the spectra of quasars (Varshni, 1973, 1974a, 1975a, 1976b) we have found that there are at least ten quasars whose emission-line spectra (as observed, no red shift)
A testable hypothesis is that if the supposed “redshifted” Quasars are a lot closer than supposed, using the quasars as reference points in parallax/astrometry measurments will result in conflicting estimates of distance.
Another testable hypothesis is confirmation of laser action in star plasmas which would make Quasars look redshifted and immensely powerful.
John Gideon Hartnett, a YEC physicist at a secular university with multi-PhD physics students invited me in 2008 to be his PhD student. I couldn’t make the offer work. I had to stay in the USA!
Anyway, I thought this critique of redshifts by Hartnett had some teeth to it:
The Hubble law, determined from the distance modulii and redshifts of galaxies, for the past 80 years, has been used as strong evidence for an expanding universe. This claim is reviewed in light of the claimed lack of necessary evidence for time dilation in quasar and gamma-ray burst luminosity variations and other lines of evidence. It is concluded that the observations could be used to describe either a static universe (where the Hubble law results from some as-yet-unknown mechanism) or an expanding universe described by the standard Lambda cold dark matter model. In the latter case, size evolution of galaxies is necessary for agreement with observations. Yet the simple non-expanding Euclidean universe fits most data with the least number of assumptions. From this review it is apparent that there are still many unanswered questions in cosmology and the title question of this paper is still far from being answered.