The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[durgatosh]

Clay

What is "decided"? Man does not currently have the ability or the information to prove or disprove any theory or speculation on the origin of the universe as we know it. Man can only continue to explore and gather information. If you have other issues you want to discuss I would open threads and discuss them now for the topic of this thread will probably never be decided....

 

Sorry if you think that "decided" is a wrong word.

 

What I mean is that the definition of origin needs to be arrived at in the context of the universe. If there is an origin, the endless question of "where it came from" can never be solved unless one tries to explain that the origin is from nothing. If, on the other hand, we say that there is no origin and the universe has existed eternally, we need to explain the eternal existence. My re-interpretation of zero attempts to do precisely that.

 

One may succeed or one may not; it is immaterial. What is remarkable is that we are able to question and attempt to understand the basic questions about the origin of the universe despite the infinite vastness of the universe and such limited knowledge of mankind. But the quest should continue.

 

DP

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Durgodosh said

 

1. What is the definition of origin in the context of the universe?

2. If one keeps on asking "where did it come from", where do you end?

3. If you say that universe started with big bang, what is the origin of the infinitely dense complex which exploded as the big bang?

4. If you say that universe is ever-existing, how do you explain it in terms of origin?

 

The word universe means "all" and therfore has no origin.

 

The parts within the universe may have an Origin or an oring through evolution.

 

Where did it come from? Well cannot crete or destroy so therfore its been out there in one form or another.

 

Infinite dense object is not the issue, Because the Big Bang occured at the same time everywhere. There is not one location.

 

If we say that it is ever-existing than we look at the never ending story of recycling. Birth and death of stars are common info, also with galaxies and their never ending changes and collisions.

 

Discussing any model would need to be supported by evidence and observations.

 

The above is my opinion. Than again whose opinion is correct these days.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

 

I do not agree with the statement.

But! it makes the statement

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion

 

Read the remaining post.

[durgatosh]

Harry Costas

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe.............

 

I do not agree with the statement.

But! it makes the statement

 

Big bang is an explanation of origin of universe from singularity. According to this theory, space, time, mass-energy had a beginning at the Big bang and therefore, in that sense, big-bang occured everywhere simultaneously. My problem is not whether or not big bang happened. I want to know the nature or origin of that singularity.

 

Harry Costas

 

Where did it come from? Well cannot crete or destroy so therfore its been out there in one form or another.

 

Exactly. The steady state theory says the same thing. But I would like to go further. If it has always been in one form or another, how do you explain its existence. The problem remains regarding the infinite existence of the universe. The re-interpretation of zero that I have put forward is a mathematical explanation of the infinite and eternal existence of universe. Only if one appreciates zero as an all-encompassing number from negative infinity to positive infinity.

 

All other theories attempt to explain the "how" of universe and its origin and existence. My proposal of the re-interpretation of zero attempts to answer "why" of the existence and origin of the universe.

 

DP

[Harry Costas]

Hello durgatosh

 

Did you read

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

 

I quoted what they said, and I also said I do not agree with it.

 

anyway.

 

also

 

Man in histroy has wanted to know his origin.

 

The parts within the universe have their existence through a process called recycling. Matter tranfered to many different phases.

 

Atomic to subatomic and subatomic to atomic.

 

We notice this process in compact stars and ultra dense matter that does not allow light to escape. The so called black hole, which is not a hole as we see at the movies.

 

When a star goes supernova it leaves behind depending on the size of the star,,,,,neutron core,,,,,,,or maybe a quark core,,,,,,,,,or maybe a preon core and so on.

 

The reverse will happen as in neutron cores, neutron is relased and forms hydrogen atoms.

 

ooops got to run

[durgatosh]

Harry Costas

Did you read

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

 

I quoted what they said, and I also said I do not agree with it.

 

Yes, I did read it. That the big-bang appeared everywhere simultaneously is just because it was the beginning of space and time (according to this theory). To be fair, the link you provided concedes the limitations of the big-bang theory. Specifically,

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang.

 

My attempt is to do exactly this: to describe what gave rise to the big-bang (split of zero). But because there are problems with this concept (already mentioned in previous posts), a better explanation would be by re-interpreting zero as an all encompassing number (from negative infinity to positive infinity). This does not preclude the occurence of big-bang(s) because at a critically small magnitude (critically close to zero), thee would be a split (bang): according to the hypothesis I put forward: "The instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero".

 

I neither agree nor disagree with the big-bang. I only say that big-bang does not explain the origin. It may answer many "how's?" of the universe but does not explain the "why's". And I am interested in the "why's"

 

DP

[Eclogite]

I neither agree nor disagree with the big-bang. I only say that big-bang does not explain the origin. It may answer many "how's?" of the universe but does not explain the "why's". And I am interested in the "why's"

DP

This is one of the older problems in philosophy, is it not? Aristotle I think, dealt with it. If you are successful in your goal to explain why the Big Bang happened you will be left with the need to explain how those causes arose. For example, if the Big Bang arose out of the collision of two Universes in other dimensions, you have to ask how they arose, or how the dimensions arose in the first place. And where did the first place come from? It is an endless recursive exploration that leads nowhere and everywhere.

[durgatosh]

Eclogite

If you are successful in your goal to explain why the Big Bang happened you will be left with the need to explain how those causes arose. For example, if the Big Bang arose out of the collision of two Universes in other dimensions, you have to ask how they arose, or how the dimensions arose in the first place. And where did the first place come from? It is an endless recursive exploration that leads nowhere and everywhere.

 

That is exactly my point. I want to explain the origin in a way so that we do not need to fall in the trap of this endless exercise of "where it came from". I would urge you to read my first post (article) on this thread. I have re-interpreted zero as an all encompassing entity (from negative infinity to positive infinity). Also, I have explained that zero is infinitely unstable and thus can only exist as a vast multitude of things (from negative infinity to positive infinity) as long as the sum total is zero. This is a mathematical explaination for the eternal existence of the universe.

 

If we believe in this theory, it is immaterial whether or not big-bang occured. As I wrote in my last post,

This does not preclude the occurence of big-bang(s) because at a critically small magnitude (critically close to zero), there would be a split (bang): according to the hypothesis I put forward: "The instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero".

 

DP

[Freethinker]

So what am I supposed to do here? How does this Hypography thing work anyway?

 

Ya thanks alot Tormod. I was happy in my isolation and getting work done.You had to send that announcement and get me back here didn't you? Interesting that I am still in the top 10 list of posters after almost a year of abstinence.

 

Anyway. the BIg Bang. It seems most of the problem in understanding it is the name. Like Bang means there had to be an EXPLOSION or something. The best explanation I ever heard puts things in a much clearer light. The BB is not a THEORY, it is an OBSERVATION. Start with,

 

"What is north of the north pole?"

 

If one walks from anyplace on Earth (other than the north pole of course) and walks North, one will eventually reach the North Pole (unless one drowns, freezes to death, ... first). Once at the North Pole, ANY step is a step AWAY from the North Pole. Thus, while we can structure a interrogatory statement (question) such as "What is North of the North Pole?" that does not mean that the interrogatory statement is valid, that there can be an answer. In this case, the reference direction of North loses any context regarding "What is "North" of the North Pole?".

 

Now, if we "walk backwards in time", we can see (thru direct observation of light reaching us now) and thru experimentation and mathematical modelling what course of events lead to our current state of existence. We see overwhelming evidence for an exanding universe model. Thus we wind this expansion backwards and develop models showing us the various processes that developed the existing particles and their interactions (laws of physics). As we go further and firther back, we reach a point at which "TIME" as we understand it (just a "NORTH" as we understand it) stops being a usable reference term. Our models all show that just prior to reaching that point as we go backwards, specific things were happening (expansion) The "North Pole" of this observational walk back in time is named the Big Bang.

 

Thus to ask what happened in "Time" before the BB is like asking what is North of the North Pole? The reference is no longer valid. Our current existence did not (exist).

[Freethinker]

Now, for a little more comprehension help (and post count), it must be understood that at any one time the total energy in the Universe equals ZERO. We exist as localized fluctuations. So when you add this to the question you get "What happened before there was nothing?"

[TheFaithfulStone]

This is one of the older problems in philosophy, is it not? Aristotle I think, dealt with it. If you are successful in your goal to explain why the Big Bang happened you will be left with the need to explain how those causes arose. For example, if the Big Bang arose out of the collision of two Universes in other dimensions, you have to ask how they arose, or how the dimensions arose in the first place. And where did the first place come from? It is an endless recursive exploration that leads nowhere and everywhere.

 

In other words, it's turtles all the way down.

 

TFS

[C1ay]

Ya thanks alot Tormod. I was happy in my isolation and getting work done.

But you've got work to do here :hihi: Glad to see you FT...

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

So far the BBT is only a theory and not a fact.

 

Its easier to discuss the observations and work out how the stars and galaxies evolve by comparing them at different stages and form.

 

As for the other logic, negative and positive infinity and zero. Reminds me of going round and round in circles.

 

 

Reading through many papers lately, it seems to me that the BBT has had its day. But! many people wish to hold onto the theory for what ever reason.

 

Thats my opinion.

[Buffy]

...only a theory and not a fact.

Non-sequiter. There are only theories that explain more facts than other theories and are not contradicted by as many facts.

Reading through many papers lately, it seems to me that the BBT has had its day.

Don't leave us hanging in suspense Harry! What papers? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

Much more importantly, we want to hear *your* explanation of why any "papers" that are out there lead you to the opinion that "BBT has had its day." If thats so, then there's some other theory that better explains the facts, right? What is it? Science fans everywhere are standing by!

But! many people wish to hold onto the theory for what ever reason.

Maybe they have good reasons. Maybe you should point out the facts that are better explained by these other theories and ask those who "hold onto the theory for whatever reason" for a response.

Thats my opinion.

And explaining and asking questions is Science!

 

Opening the doors of perception,

Buffy

[Harry Costas]

Hello Buffy

 

Throught the posts I have give info.

 

I will repeat those if you wish.

 

I have to go, but I will be back

 

Your response is right.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Buffy

 

Is the universe really expanding, because Hubble himself had reservations over his constant and up to this date its under fire.

========================================

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics

National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6

Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988

 

Read the paper for further info.

 

This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the energy lost should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results, which are consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.

 

 

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

 

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

 

I know you said not to include links, but this link hits the nail on the head.

 

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html

 

OOps i notice Michael had the same link

 

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

 

These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years, said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

 

If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not.

 

 

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

 

More and more astronomical evidence shows the weaknesses of the theory stating that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space.

 

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Big Bang Theory Busted

By 33 Top Scientists

 

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

 

Can all these 33 well known scientists be wrong.

===========================================

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

 

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5].

 

 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

 

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry

 

 

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

 

Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations.

 

Discovery of H2, in Space

Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

 

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

 

 

Exploding the Big Bang

David Pratt

 

The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].

 

Redshift

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

 

 

Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

 

 

To Alfvén, the problems being raised were not surprising. "I have never thought that you could obtain the extremely clumpy, heterogeneous universe we have today, strongly affected by plasma processes, from the smooth, homogeneous one of the Big Bang, dominated by gravitation."

 

The problem with the Big Bang, Alfvén believed, is similar to that with Chapman's theories, which the scientific community accepted mistakenly for decades: Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfvén, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."

 

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

A Bang into nowhere. Written well.

 

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf080/sf080a04.htm

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

 

Measurements of periodic red-shift bunching appeared in the literature at least as far back as 1977 in the work of W.G. Tifft. The implications of this phenomenon are apparently too terrible to contemplate, for astrophysicists have not taken up the challenge. They may be forced to take the phenomenon more seriously, because two new reports of redshift bunching have surfaced.

 

First, B. Guthrie and W, Napier, at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory, have checked Tifft's "bunching" claim using accurately known red shifts of some nearby galaxies. They found a periodicity of 37.5 kilometers/second -- no matter in which direction the galaxies lay.

 

(Gribbin, John; "'Bunched' Red Shifts Question Cosmology," New Scientist, p. 10, December 21/28, 1991.) The work of Guthrie and Napier is elaborated upon in the next item.

 

Sec ond, B. Koo and R. Krone, at the University of Chicago, using optical red-shift measurements, discovered that, in one direction at least, "the clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly spaced layers."

 

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

 

The Big Bang Never Happened.

Two World Systems Revisited:

 

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang.

 

 

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies

by Mark Stewart

 

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

 

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift vs. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

 

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?

 

 

Also the Big Bang theory states that the elements lighter than Lithium were made during the Big Bang.

 

I understand from reading other papers that Hydrogen and Helium maybe formed from neutron stars releasing neutron that form hydrogen than fusing to form Helium and the remainder of elements upto Iron.

 

Some of you would say, darn we have been over this over and over. We are going around in circles.

 

Well until it is resolved we may do so.

[Eclogite]

Much more importantly, we want to hear *your* explanation of why any "papers" that are out there lead you to the opinion that "BBT has had its day." If thats so, then there's some other theory that better explains the facts, right?

This is illogical. One can evolve a suspicion that may turn into a certainty that a current theory is inadequate/fatally flawed/wrong, without having any clear notion of what should replace it. I refer you to Thomas S.Khun's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for several intriguing examples of this.

 

Harry, I have been highly critical of you in many previous posts for your tendency to offer opinions as if they were facts, and more especially to make declarations with no justification, or supporting research. On this occasion you have offered what, at a casual glance, appear to be good quality support. A personal thanks for that.

I thought you rather spoiled the positive effect your links had with your final remarks.

Also the Big Bang theory states that the elements lighter than Lithium were made during the Big Bang.

 

I understand from reading other papers that Hydrogen and Helium maybe formed from neutron stars releasing neutron that form hydrogen than fusing to form Helium and the remainder of elements upto Iron.

Big Bang theory does not prohibit the formation of hydrogen and helium after the event. Therefore, the fact that there is a mechanism to generate these is irrelevant. (Incidentally, you seem to have overlooked the formation of helium in routine stellar nuclear synthesis.)

 

For the record Harry, I also think the Big Bang is in error, but on philosophical, not scientific grounds. Therefore I tend not argue against it on a science board. I shall read your links with interest.

[Buffy]

This is illogical. One can evolve a suspicion that may turn into a certainty that a current theory is inadequate/fatally flawed/wrong, without having any clear notion of what should replace it. I refer you to Thomas S.Khun's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for several intriguing examples of this.

Just to clarify, that's exactly my point, in scientific revolutions doubt without a new theory is what gets things going, but "had its day" is like saying its "in its last throes": the vast majority will not shift their opinions *until* there is a new theory.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with casting doubt, in fact its essential to scientific progress. I will say however when people just post things like that link to the "33 Scientists" that are content free except to say "the 'establishment' won't *allow* us to find a new theory," that all I hear are a bunch of whiners who aren't worth being listened to, so it does nothing but give me the feeling that they aren't getting funding because they really don't have any negatory data that holds up to even modest scrutiny. Given the number of truely crackpot ideas out there, a healthy dose of skepticism helps you avoid a lot of wild goose chases. As Tormod likes to quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

 

Harry, thank you for posting these links and I'll take some time to look at them all, but I'd encourage you to be a good detective and consider some questions as you study this:

• Just as is claimed about the established theories, the new theories (or even objection arguments) can suffer from obstinant unwillingness to consider or address weaknesses or counter arguments. cf. The Final Theory which has never really addressed its detractors complaints.
  
• You should check the provenance of sources. I've found a lot of cases in areas like this where two articles are published and 50 articles reference those two and then people claim that "52 independent studies prove this," when it all comes from one data set.
  
• Look at how you and others interpret data: as is true in Evolution as well, there is a tendency to point to articles like the first one in your post and claim that they support a conclusion--like "doppler red shift doesn't exist"--when they actually argue nothing of the sort--in this case its really saying "there is more than one cause of red shift.
  

 

Lots of questions here, and Cosmology is hot BECAUSE a lot of it is not certain and theories are being modified on a daily basis, but overstatement about "the end of BBT" doesn't really do anyone any good.

 

You say you want a revolution, well you know, :shrug:

Buffy