This is Kierein Part 2.
See Kierein Part 1 at ilki.substack.com/p/lilki-no-big-bang-universe-part-1
See Kierein Part 3 at ilki.substack.com/p/lilki-kierein-on-redshift-gravity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the Big Bang is Wrong
John Kierein
https://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
…
The Big Bang Has Many Problems
There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, "Big Bang Theory Under Fire" http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm . These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness http://www.nrao.edu/pr/1999/distance/ . Better estimates of distance are also derived from "red clump stars" standard candles than from Cepheid variable measurements. (The time to the so-called big bang is still quite uncertain. The debate continues, as in the May 2014 distance measurement workshop at the Munich Institute for Astro- and Particle Physics, but radio astronomy results are not discussed. Some results have been called the "skeleton in the closet".)
{{Thunderbolts.info explained years ago that measurements of distances beyond c. 300 lightyears have a margin of error of c. 100%, so measurements beyond that are fictitious. Since the age of the universe depends on distance measurements, those estimates are also pure guesswork. Also, I have an earlier post about Stars being much closer than thought. And John Kierein has stated that many or most quasars are within our own galaxy.}}
Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/26/index.html are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.
Measurements of the uranium content of stars … has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars http://sci.esa.int/content/news/index.cfm?aid=1&cid=1&oid=30255 is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Abundant_Carbon_in_the_Early_Universe_999.html has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.
A dusty galaxy http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-black-hole-blast-biggest-science-galaxies-space/ has been found that shouldn't exist so close to the big bang.
No big bang means no lithium problem http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html .
Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1143/ .
Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/32/ . The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.
There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.
Hercules A http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap121205.html appears to be the largest object observed in the known universe in radio astronomy observations. It would not be such an unusually large intrinsic object if its redshift is intrinsic due to local Compton effect scattering, and it is nearer than its redshift would indicate.
Galactic redshift surveys http://www.polaris.net/~ksn/beta.htm#beta1 show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.
How do galaxies collide … if they are flying away from each other?
Mature galaxies http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524 are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.
There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang. What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)
If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past. Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light. These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped. But the highest energy cosmic rays http://www.aip.org/pt/cont9801.html are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff energy.
The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Assis.Neves.pdf (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.) Pierre-Marie Robitaille shows problems with the big bang interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation maps in this "YouTube video."
There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/d_1996/sandage_hubble.html ). There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out. Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon. Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction. He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better. He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following are some other interesting theories against the Big Bang Expanding Universe theory.
Redshift by Cosmic Dust trumps Hubble and Tired Light Theories
https://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/11/redshift-by-cosmic-dust-trumps-hubble-and-tired-light-theories/
Redshift by cosmic dust supports the death of the Big Bang Theory
https://www.prlog.org/10568265-redshift-by-cosmic-dust-supports-the-death-of-the-big-bang-theory.html
https://www.prlog.org/10568265-qed-redshift-as-tired-light-theory.jpg
REDSHIFT OR TIRED LIGHT
http://model31.pl/en/redshift-or-tired-light/
Energy quanta in the form of quantum gas fill the Universe. In this gas, light rays “travel”. Close to the light source (e.g. a star), energy quanta have a specific stress, an initial power given to them by the star. The further from the star, light ray quanta, being subject to resistance to motion caused by the cosmic quantum gas (called microwave background radiation) are “relaxing” slowly, losing their power, the frequency of their vibrations is decreasing, their temperature is going down, they are cooling down (see figure below).