The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

[BeAChooser]

Eric Lerner has issued his 2nd video on the Big Bang and the JWST. It is very much worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TFmg6NdGY

Thanks. I'll watch it later today when I have the time.

[jackokie]

@nick c You ask why Lerner didn't include more references to Arp's work in his book? There is a Chinese saying: "Killing the chicken while the monkey watches". Although Arp didn't relocate to the Max Planck Institute until 1993, his difficulties with the Borg (er, the authorities) would have been visible to Lerner. I don't know the date when Perrat submitted (somehow the conclusion of 1984 comes to mind), but had I been Lerner, given the sh*tstorm I would be calling down on my head, I would have very carefully considered what evidence to include in my book. Pick your battles is good advice in all kinds of endeavors, as is picking the hill you choose to die on. The response to Lerner's article thirty years later, when there is even more evidence of the Big Bang's flaws, shows the perils of telling the truth. And if I am undertaking a project which requires investors, I'm going to avoid needless controversies. It's not as if Lerner were the only voice challenging the standard model.

So to me, the question is "Just how much are you going to ask of Dr. Lerner?" By publishing his assertions about the Big Bang and JWST at IAI, he instantly became a lightning rod for all the derision and calumny of our esteemed scientific establishment, with visibility not granted to Wal Thornhill or Don Scott. I sincerely encourage you to watch his latest video, and decide which is more important, mentions of Arp in a 30-year-old book, or reaching an increasingly wider audience in defense of the scientific method?

BTW, here is an article by Miles Mathis, touted by some on this forum. Here the first paragraph:

Halton Arp, who died at the end of 2013, was a very useful gadfly in the recent history of physics,
insisting the redshifts of quasars were not caused by doppler. I am certain we will find that he was
correct in that, and I will show you how the redshifts are caused without doppler. However, Arp always
insisted he was closed out simply for disagreeing with the mainstream, and I am not sure that is true. It
is certain that he was unfairly silenced, and that the dialog in astronomy has never been open. I know
that firsthand. His claims about politics polluting science are also completely valid. But after reading
his books, I think Arp's main problem was that he decided to embrace some wild theories to replace
doppler. I am not sure he would have fared any better if he had stuck to being an experimentalist,
refusing to theorize. But in hindsight it is clear he would have made more progress in the margins if he
had either stuck to data, or embraced a better theory.

http://milesmathis.com/arp.pdf

[jacmac]

Arp and a group of astronomers were confronting each other at a big conference,
One of the group said: Paraphrasing....We know you have anomalous data, but we have a theory for everything, and you don't.
So, we are sticking with our theory. (so much for science !)

This might shed a little light on the above comments from MM about Arp.
There were only a few pages about Arp in an otherwise large survey type of book.
I read the section on Arp.
I didn't buy it and don't remember the name.

[BeAChooser]

My criticism was focused on what he left out of his book - the work of Halton Arp. I posed the question why would a book titled The Big Bang Never Happened not include Arp's work which effectively proves that book title to be correct?

I saw and answered that, nick ... to the best of my ability and knowledge.

Whether or not a quasar is associated with a so called galactic merger (if that is really what is happening) is largely irrelevant (see below).

Arp has pointed out numerous (I don't have time to count them) instances of physical connections between high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies. That is impossible if redshift can be used as a measure of distance. And if those physical connections are real, it effectively FALSIFIES the Big Bang Theory, the Expanding Universe Theory, and the Redshift/distance theory. AFAIK, mainstream does not deal with this other than to dismiss them as chance alignments. Arp has countered this by presenting statistical evidence that the alignments are not random.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm not arguing against Arp's theory. As I said, I've spent considerable time over the years reading about and pointing out these possible quasar/galaxy connections to plasma cosmology skeptics on the internet. They are very interesting. Equally interesting and suggestive is the recent (2014) discovery that the rotation axes of quasars are parallel to each other over long distances and tend to be aligned with the filaments in which the quasars lie.. Arp's theory might explain that fact.

Look, a decade or so ago, I performed and posted statistical calculations like Arp did on JREF, only for alignments of quasars and galaxies that were not discussed by Arp. I did calculations to examine the possible quantization of groups of quasars near certain galaxies that Arp did not look at, as he was unaware of them at the time. As I said, the calculations while often suggestive were not absolutely conclusive. Not enough that I could convince skeptics. The problem pointed out over and over is that small sample statistics can lead one astray. That was always the objection that was raised.

Someone needs to do a large scale statistical study with the latest data ... and it's not going to be Lerner. He has his own interests. It's up to those pushing Arp's ideas. Until that happens, the verdict is out because what's been done so far hasn't convinced the bulk of astronomers even though its statistics that any astronomer can understand, perform and study without invoking "belief" in anything. Why is that? Maybe because Arp decided to toss in the theory about galaxy evolution from quasars. If he'd just done the math and convinced others to do the math, maybe a crack would have formed in their belief about what quasars are, and that would have led to everything else.

My question is not irrelevant since it was claimed by Arp that quasars originate and are ejected from active galaxies (often in pairs) and that they evolve into galaxies. If observations show pairs of quasars just a 10000 light years apart in very active regions of what is suspected to be merging galaxies, an explanation is needed. Even if they aren't merging galaxies, but just an active region of one galaxy, an explanation why the quasars aren't apparently moving away from each other at the velocities that Arp's theory would imply is still needed.

But are they actually observing a distant galaxy merger? or is that an assumption?

Yes, the article states the mergers are assumed. Maybe this is something that JWST will clarify. They also said that it's possible (though unlikely) the pairs of quasars are the result of gravitational lensing. But IF they are pairs, regardless of whether they are from the active region of a lone galaxy or a merging pair of galaxies, wouldn't Arp's theory require they be moving away from each other at high velocities? I think it does. Or did Arp think quasars could originate in other ways than the one he showed in his diagram of quasar evolution into galaxies?

[BeAChooser]

Eric Lerner has issued his 2nd video on the Big Bang and the JWST. It is very much worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2TFmg6NdGY

I think Lerner is right to detour momentarily away from the discussion of the content of his last video and challenge Brian's and his cohost’s claim that if you want to reject Big Bang you must offer up a completed alternative. That is basically the primary argument they made in their video against Lerner. And Lerner is correct. That is not scientific method. It’s highly unscientific.

After pointing this out, Lerner describes how he arrived at using the Toleman Test to challenge the Hubble equation and conclude that the universe is not expanding. He then points out that he was able to predict what JWST results would show. He points out that his methodology and conclusions with regard to Hubble data were able to pass peer review and were published in reputable journals. In short, he followed the scientific method that Big Bang proponents have abandoned and made a prediction which JWST confirmed. That’s what his article and his last video was about … using scientific method to show that his non-expansionary equation predicts JWST data out to redshifts of at least 12.

He then points out that it’s not just him saying “there are 16 separate data sets where the Big Bang hypotheses are wrong." He says "You can read papers published with hundreds of authors to a single paper listing two dozen different ways the predictions of the Big Bang theory don’t match observations, but the difference is they don’t conclude from that the Big Bang Hypothesis should be rejected. They simply say ‘these are anomalies … as Dr Becky would say ‘the theory needs some more tweaking’. He's right. That's not scientific method. That's the method that predated science. I love how he then makes fun of some of the dozens of Big Bang tweaks ... Dark energy. Fuzzy dark energy. Early dark energy. White dark energy. Darker dark energy.

Finally he makes another important distinction between what used to be science and what now is called science. He says an “insight that the scientists of the early scientific revolution had …which is that the same physical laws that govern on earth, govern the cosmos" mean "we can learn from the cosmos how things can be done on earth. We can apply those lessons to technology.” And then he notes that doesn't apply to Big Bang cosmology. Big Bang “hypothesizes entities like inflation, dark energy … that not only were not observed on earth, they could not be observed.”

I’ve asked, repeatedly, what benefit are we deriving from all the billions and billions being spent by the mainstream on Big Bang, it’s entities and the particle *science* to investigate it? I can imagine what we might learn by investigating the plasma universe that would improve life on earth, but how has the countless billions spent pursuing Big Bang, dark matter, etc, etc, etc, benefited society and technology?

In summary, I think Lerner made some important and necessary points about what scientific methodology really is (or should be) in his latest video, but I hope that in the next video he will deal only with and directly with the specific (though vague) response that Brian and Lewis gave to Lerner’s charts and the questions involving the Toleman Test. I’d like to see him take apart their comments and arguments about his charts and methodology, point by point, because they succeeded in at least muddying the water. The best way to get this debate moving forward now is to do that.

He now needs to back them into a corner. Rip their arguments against his methodology and results apart, then force them to offer specifics, if they want to show his analysis and data are wrong. If they refuse to do that, and instead make additional unproven claims or offer more vagueness and adhominems, then he should respond with a video pointing that out and suggest they can’t. In which case, any logical person should conclude Lerner is right ... that the universe is not expanding. In fact, I think Lerner should do this even before they respond to his last video.

[jackokie]

@BeAChooser There are several audiences for the current discussion of the Big Bang and JWST: The Big Bangers, the knowledgable dissenters (us), the generally uninformed public/taxpayers, and perhaps those in the scientific community who have until now been afraid to speak up. We are irrelevant in this conflict (and yes, it is a conflict); we can end up pleased as punch that the Big Bang model has been thoroughly dismantled, but so what? Dismantled in whose eyes? If the scientific malpractice is not exposed enough to cause a reversal, the stifling conformity imposed will only get worse. That's why I was cheered to see Dr. Lerner's video essay.

My impression of the comments to his videos is that there are significantly more people who criticize Keating and other defenders of the BB for the snark and unresponsiveness to Lerner's points than are convinced the BB is wrong. A critical mass of people needs to be concerned enough to force some changes. I hope Lerner continues on in the same vein, which I believe is your thought as well; scientific video falsifying the BB point by point, then more general videos as needed to highlight the non-science coming from the BBers. He is educating non-scientists in the scientific method and why it's important. He's also making the general public aware of the censorship in journal publications.

[nick c]

They also said that it's possible (though unlikely) the pairs of quasars are the result of gravitational lensing. But IF they are pairs, regardless of whether they are from the active region of a lone galaxy or a merging pair of galaxies, wouldn't Arp's theory require they be moving away from each other at high velocities?

In SEEING RED, Chapter 7, "Gravitational Lenses" Arp convincingly deals with this desperation attempt to explain an image which supports Arp's theory. Gravitational lensing was originally expected to form a ring or most likely a portion of an arc around the blocking galaxy. Astronomer Fritz Zwicky searched for examples but could not find anything convincing. He did find some galaxies with halos, but these were actually part of the galaxy's structure. With no striking examples, Gravitational Lensing theory lay dormant for years.

Then along came Arp:

In the 1960's and 70's I started finding high densities of quasars concentrated around nearby, low redshfit galaxies.

At first these observations were attacked as being incorrect, but when that failed, mainstream resurrected the dormant GL theory, that is, the grouping of quasars were distant background objects gravitationally lensed by a nearby low redshft galaxy. But the original GL theory required rings or arcs and that is not what was observed. But mainstream adopted the GL explanation anyway, and in a twist, Arp's discovery was hailed as real.
But then Arp, who seemed to have a tool box filled with monkey wrenches, pointed out that if the quasars were being lensed then the theory required "a steep increase of quasar numbers with fainter apparent magnitudes", but Arp showed that the opposite was the case. In a rare case of mainstream scientific objectivity, leading GL theorist Peter Schneider agreed with Arp. Of course, Arp was ignored and GL was accepted.

Later in Chapter 7, Arp presents more and more evidence of the contradiction of observation with the GL explanation. The chapter is 27 pages of scientific malfeasance by the priesthood of the consensus paradigm.

One more item:

The Einstein Cross

When it was first discovered it caused a panic because it was essentially a high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshfit galaxy...
Gravitational galaxy lensing had to be invoked for this one.

Going back to the original raw data, because he had a skeptical friend who had access, Arp found that the quasars each had a trail of material connecting them to the low redshift galaxy. Arp then questions what would have happened if he had not had this friend? The connecting filaments between a high redshift object and a low redshift galactic core would have been buried and ignored.

A jolt ran through me and i looked at him to read the expression on his face. As usual in such situations his eyes avoided mine....
...a line between Quasar A and B passed directly between the nucleus of the galaxy and Quasar D. On the face of it high redshift gas was indicated near the nucleus of the low redshift galaxy....
...What the spectrum had confirmed was that this indeed was a low density, excited hydrogen filament connecting the two objects of vastly different redshift.

The GL explanation is still used, why? Because it is all they have, the alternative is to discard the entire redshift/distance edifice and along with it the Big Bang and Expanding Universe.

[jackokie]

Here are some key comments from Dr. Lerner's latest video:

Dr Brian Keeting
Eric It’s not accurate to say your critics have not addressed your technical, quantitative arguments. In my two videos they’ve been thoroughly discredited and work by Professor Ned Wright (UCLA). For example You support Tired light (TL). But you just ignore the fact that because, in TL theory, the photons only lose energy but do not decrease their density, the resulting red curve is not a blackbody at To = 2.725, but is instead (1+z)^3 = 1.331 times a blackbody. The FIRAS data limit this prefactor to 1.00001+/-0.00005, which requires that the CMB come from redshifts less than 0.00005, or distances less than 0.25 Mpc. This is less than the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy M31, and we know the Universe is transparent well beyond this distance. In fact, since millimeter wave emission is observed to come from galaxies at redshifts of 4.7 or higher, the tired light model fails this test by 100,000 standard deviations. If that’s not quantitative enough, I don’t know what is!

The lead author of the “Panic” paper even responded to your arguments and debunked them as saying anything whatsoever about the Big Bang. Check it out in the comments here “Errors in the Big Bang Never Happened”
https://youtu.be/iPna7WUODuo

LLPFusion
Certainly it is accurate. I emphasized repeatedly evidence that the JWST data, like the HST date before it contradicts the angular size and surface brightness predictions of the expansion hypothesis. The Big Bang flunks the Tolman test with both sets of data. You don't address these observations at all. You have not answered how galaxies that have the mass and luminosity of the Milky Way but radii 50 to 100 times smaller can grow up to be full-sized galaxies when the JWST images also make clear that collisions between galaxies are not at all common. You don't address that the quantitative predictions of the non-expanding theory, with the linear Hubble relation, accurately fit the observed sizes of galaxies both for the HST data and the JWST data. What Ned Wright wrote 30 years ago can’t possibly answer the research I and my colleagues Riccardo Scarpa and Renato Falomo have published over the past eight years, let alone the recent work on the JWST images. Why can't you answer the very direct questions that I have repeatedly posed?

Kenneth Ferland
Brian your once again ignoring entirly the arguments that Lerner is making, I pointed out too you in your own video that you were not even accuratly conveying what Lerner had predicted about the deep field images.

You can't refute Tolman surface brightness and angular size problems by talking about CMB blackbody spectrums, these are two completly different obsersations. Your not engaging in a defence of the BB theory or falsifying any of Lerners argument. Him being wrong about Tired light dosn't make BB theory correct, and if your both wrong then we should be allowing and encouraging the development of new models.

And stop trying to use the author of the panic paper, he's not retracted his findings in the slightest. His paper directly addresses galaxy evolution, but we all know that has a knock on effect for BB theoy because evolution is the 'out' to explain Tolman test failures of BB theory.

Kenneth Ferland
7 hours ago (edited)
I really want to not the uneven standard being applied here. Brian has an argument against Tired Light and presumes features about it which will make predictions which he then sites as falsified, not just in the instance of what he sites but ALL POSSIBLE VERSION. But when elements nessary for BB theory are in similar trouble they are just altered to no longer make the wrong predictions, aka another version is used and all possible versions are available to use at our discression. If a similar level of flexibility were applied to Tired light we could just declare that what ever causes tired light just magicly dose what ever is needed to make the right spectrum, that would put Tired Light on the same level as Inflation, an unknown process invoked with no experimental or theoretical justification to make everything just work. Obvously that would be bad science but that's being the norm in BB theory is kind of the point.

Dr Brian Keating
@LPPFusion “Why don’t you answer my questions”

Eric First, please look up Brandolini’s law for why I cannot possibly spend the time needed to refute all your claims. You still haven’t apologized for your behavior and misrepresentation and yet accuse the astrophysics community of censoring you.

Eric its hard for a professional scientist to take seriously these constant, Incessant comparison to you and Kepler and Galileo Galilei and your censorious enemies as Ptolemy and believers in fairies. Ditto when each video features pitches for your fusion energy in each video.

That said, no serious astronomer considers the Tolman test valuable or worthy of application. That’s because the Big Bang expansion is as well proven as can be. The TT is the least accurate method of “disproving” the Big Bang because of a host of factors like galactic substructure and the inability to calibrate sizes of galaxies. You seem to think galaxies have standard rulers calibrated to micron precision attached to them. They don’t.

Why do you treat the Milky Way like it’s a standard ruler? It’s not. No one besides you claims it is.

Tolman himself was initially skeptical of the the BBT, but then agreed the Big Bang was right. Just like Albert Einstein (biggest blunder anyone?)

The Big Bang expansion model has nothing to say about galaxy formation or merger history.

Speaking of questions:
I asked you for the ‘galaxy growth formula’ from the Big Bang that you claim exists in your video. You refuse to provide it. Why? Because it doesn’t exist any more than unicorns that poop out money for fusion research do.

I have answered your questions many times. So has Ned. You refuse to answer any of my questions like why you believe In TL despite it not being understood. TL is ruled out at 100,000 sigma. That won’t change!

You claim the Big Bang has 16 errors. You ignore the billions of redshift measures, 100,000 Cosmic Microwave Background data points, dark matter maps, BAO measures, SZ and more that you just ignore.

I have yet to see you refer to a single formula that is quantitative other than the linear angular size relation which you incorrectly (or disingenuously?) claim is how astronomers define z by.

You also do not believe in GR, right?
You do realize you can have expansion without any galaxies at all?

The Tolman test has been passed since Tolman himself. No one has applied it to the galaxies in the JWST. You cannot seriously be claiming that Eric because if so, please cite a quantitative analysis not your Mighty Mouse - you can’t. It’s all handwaving.
Show some equations if you can.

“The Big Bang flunks the Tolman test with both sets of data. You don't address these observations at all. “

Wrong. I did address the angular size vs. redshift — with actual data, with actual error bars in my previous video. The Tolman test is passed and the TL static Universe is rules out by 1000’s of standard deviations.

“You have not answered how galaxies that have the mass and luminosity of the Milky Way but radii 50 to 100 times smaller can grow up to be full-sized galaxies when the JWST images also make clear that collisions between galaxies are not at all common.”

“You don't address that the quantitative predictions of the non-expanding theory, with the linear Hubble relation, accurately fit the observed sizes of galaxies both for the HST data and the JWST data.”

Nope. They don’t. All SNI, BAO, and galaxy size vs z data not only strongly motivate the Big Bang model, they obliterate the STL model of yours.

“What Ned Wright wrote 30 years ago can’t possibly answer the research I and my colleagues Riccardo Scarpa and Renato Falomo have published over the past eight years, let alone the recent work on the JWST images.”

What recent work? Please send a citation to quantitative work not an IAI website. In any case, how does the age of a refutation have any bearing on its veracity? That’s unscientific. If someone says Tomorrow that the earth is the center of the Universe and all refutations of that fact are centuries old, that person is a fool. You were wrong when Ned Wright wrote his damning obliteration of your STL model 20 (not 30 years ago by the way) .

But you’re more wrong now, just hoping to find new bait for people to click on. The problem is the bait is getting pretty stale.

I think there's a "No True Scotsman" argument somewhere in Keating's last response. Well what say you, Forum? Any thoughts?

[BeAChooser]

That's why I was cheered to see Dr. Lerner's video essay.

Don't get me wrong. I completely agreed with Lerner's choice for the topic of his second video. It was definitely essential that he correct the claim that Brian and Lewis emphasized over and over ... that only a completely worked out alternative that can predict everything can prove the Big Bang model wrong. And that until that is offered, the Big Bang must be believed and supported. That's absolute nonsense and I think he did a good job of showing why what they're doing is not science.

BUT, I think the next video needs to get back to the narrow questions he asked in the first video and not let them get away with the non-answer they gave. He needs to go down the things they said and claimed about his Toleman analysis and show that they are wrong. Ultimately that is the only way to prove to uninformed people that Big Bang is wrong. If he can defend his (and his colleagues) Toleman analysis successfully against against all their criticisms, then that alone may convince those funding then endless Big Bang related investigations to stop doing so ... or at least start providing equal funding for the alternatives to be properly explored.

[BeAChooser]

They also said that it's possible (though unlikely) the pairs of quasars are the result of gravitational lensing. But IF they are pairs, regardless of whether they are from the active region of a lone galaxy or a merging pair of galaxies, wouldn't Arp's theory require they be moving away from each other at high velocities?

. ... snip response ...

You failed to answer my question, nick. You keep going off to explain tangents that I'm not arguing about and I am well aware of already. All you said in your response is that the pairs of quasars are real. FINE, I'll accept that. Now answer my question.

If the quasars are real (and there are at least a hundred such pairs already observed according to the article I linked), isn't it Arp's theory that they were created in the active region of a galaxy and are being ejected in opposite directions from that galaxy? If Arp's right about that, then shouldn't the two quasars' be moving rapidly away from each other ... enough to be detected.. The article indicated that in the lastest example, at least, they are not doing that. All I'm asking is why they aren't apparently moving?

[nick c]

wouldn't Arp's theory require they be moving away from each other at high velocities?

I don't see why that is a requirement, though it seems that they would be moving away from the parent galaxy.
But what does that matter? If a high redshift quasar has a real physical connection to a low redshift galaxy's nucleus, then it is game over, and anything else is irrelevant since the issue is whether or not the Big Bang happened. Obviously their distance from Earth is the same and redshift does not equate to distance.

[BeAChooser]

Dr Brian Keating
@LPPFusion “Why don’t you answer my questions”

Eric First, please look up Brandolini’s law for why I cannot possibly spend the time needed to refute all your claims. You still haven’t apologized for your behavior and misrepresentation and yet accuse the astrophysics community of censoring you.

IMO, Dr Lerner has no reason to apologize for his behavior (what behavior?). Nor should he apologize for the content of his latest scientific paper, lastest article and latest videos. He's right, if what he says is true about the Tolman Test and the data, to question the Big Bang Model.

And he and other plasma cosmology supporting scientists have most certainly been censored by the astrophysics community. It's a lie to claim otherwise. In fact, a distinguished group of them even collectively signed a letter complaining about that not too long ago. There's plenty of evidence that it's true, just as there is plenty of evidence that PC/EU supporters (like us) are censored on various mainstream astrophysics and science forums when we try to express PC/EU theories and opinions. For Keating to dismiss that accusation by just saying "uh uh, there isn't" is not at all convincing.

Also Lerner is not asking Keating to defend BB against all of his complaints about BB. It was VERY clear in his first video, linked earlier, that he wanted to narrow the discussion to just the Tolman test and what Hubble and JWST results say about that. *Dr* Brian is clearly trying to weasel out of doing that now. One can only wonder why? (sarcasm). Dr Keating says ...

no serious astronomer considers the Tolman test valuable or worthy of application. That’s because the Big Bang expansion is as well proven as can be. The TT is the least accurate method of “disproving” the Big Bang because of a host of factors like galactic substructure and the inability to calibrate sizes of galaxies. You seem to think galaxies have standard rulers calibrated to micron precision attached to them. They don’t.

Again, that's not at all convincing, Dr Keating. You're making vague statements and HANDWAVING in the hope that all of this will just going away. It won't, until it's settled. And it won't help your case to toss out even more lies, more obfuscation, more strawmen, more red herrings, and more tangents designed to avoid debating the topic honestly. Good examples of each are found in the rest of what you posted. For example ...

You say Dr Lerner treats the Milky Way like it’s a standard ruler, it’s not and that no one beside Lerner claims it's one. That's a lie.

You say Tolman was initially skeptical of the BBT, but then agreed the Big Bang was right. I don't see any proof of this or on what basis he supposedly did.

You say the Big Bang expansion model has nothing to say about galaxy formation or merger history. That's a lie. Note those who I quoted in my earlier posts regarding that issue. The Big Bang model most certainly does include what comes after the moment of creation ... and that has to include how galaxies are formed and evolve, especially if evidence regarding their evolution contradicts what Big Bang theorists have been saying for decades.

You say you have answered Lerner's questions many times. So has Ned. That's untrue. The questions Lerner asked in his video has not been answered by you or "Ned". You basically ignored them as anyone can see.

You say Lerner has refuse to answer any of my questions like why he believe In TL [tired light] despite it not being understood. First, Lerner is not a proponent of tired light. That's a lie. He may have latched onto it 30 years ago as an alternative explanation, but now he just maintains that if data proves redshift cannot be due to expansion, then SOME other mechanism must be responsible for it. There is nothing wrong with argument. It's obvious. And there are in fact several possibilities, beside tired light, that, curiously, the Big Bang establishment has steadfastly refused to explore over the years. They mostly dismiss the alternatives out of hand or with spurious logic ... just like your spurious logic now.

The issue, that you clearly don't want to debate in an honest manner, is whether Lerner makes the case with his Tolman argument that the universe is not expanding. To make this aspect of the discussion central, and hopefully reach some conclusion he offered a pointed video dealing primarily with the logic and data behind that claim, and he asked questions directly related to that ... questions that you basically ignored. Everyone can see that.

You say TL is ruled out at 100,000 sigma. That won’t change! In the above contact, that just a strawman. It doesn't bear on the logic, data, conclusions and questions that Lerner posed. You're just trying to change the subject and everyone here can see that.

You say Lerner claimed the Big Bang has 16 errors. True, but so what? Again, this an attempt by you not to address the one, critical issue that Lerner has now posed. One that if he's right, makes it irrelevant where there are 15 (or 16) other errors or not.

You say Lerner ignores the billions of redshift measures, 100,000 Cosmic Microwave Background data points, dark matter maps, BAO measures, SZ and more that you just ignore. You have to be joking, *Dr* Keating. Dark matter maps? LOL! It's obvious to every reader that you're just trying to muddy the water and avoid addressing the SINGLE problem that Dr Lerner has posed to you. And you're dishonest too. Lerner hasn't ignored redshifts. Good grief, man, he using what you astrophysics say are the redshifts from JWST observations against you. And it doesn't matter if there 100,000,000 CMB data points ... if his Tolman arguments proves there was no Big Bang. Then YOU will have to find another cause for the CMB.

You say you have yet to see Lerner refer to a single formula that is quantitative other than the linear angular size relation which he (you say) "incorrectly (or disingenuously?)" claims is how astronomers define z. Problem is he doesn't need more than the one formula and you have haven't proven that Lerner's formulas are wrong or his interpretation is wrong. You need to PROVE IT.

Lay your case out in a simple, comprehensible manner like Lerner did. Show the correct formulas and be sure to provide your sources for what you claim. Because so far you're not convincing us. And probably the public is becoming suspicious about such unsourced, unverified claims from someone who still believes in a dozen gnomes or so after decades and decades of trying to prove (in a convincing way) their existence.

You say Lerner does not believe in GR, right? Whether he does or not, that's nothing but a red herring. A diversion from the issue at hand.

You tell Lerner "you can have expansion without any galaxies at all." Another red herring and again one you haven't proven.

You claim the Tolman test has been passed since Tolman himself. Again, PROVE IT with specific citations that can be debated by Lerner and judged by us. And prove it for the JREF data. Stop just claiming things, because quite frankly many of us no longer believe most of what you Big Bang *scientists* claim. You don't appear any more reliable than scientists in the mainstream's climate change arena. We don't believe in the many unproven, mythical gnomes that you've invented and used, as Lerner correctly noted, to TWEAK your theory in order to fit observations that contradicted the last rendition of your theory. You truly are playing games with Ptolemaic epicycles, just like Lerner observed.

We don't believe you because you've had 50 to 60 years to prove they aren't gnomes AND YOU'VE FAILED, while spending countless billion of OUR taxpayer dollars trying. That money has bought you lots of nice houses, cars, childrens educations in Ivy League schools, vacations and retirement plans, and accomplished nothing more than to give you excuses to spend even more of OUR money on the search for even more gnomes to tweak you theory.

We also don't accept all the handwaving you've constantly done to explain away observations that were problems for your model ... like the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system and the helical winding observed in plasma filaments at ALL scales (all the way up to the scale of galactic clusters and the filaments connecting them). We are tired of contradictory or unexplained observations being disappeared, never to be heard from again, once they are mentioned ... as if they were never discovered. And I could go on and on listing your side's BAD BEHAVIORS the past 20-30 years.

You claim Lerner's statements that "the Big Bang flunks the Tolman test with both sets of data" and that "you don't address these observations at all“ is wrong. You say you "addressed the angular size vs redshift — with actual data, with actual error bars in my previous video" and that "the Tolman test is passed and the TL static Universe [BAC - notice the red herring here folks?] is rule[d] out by 1000’s of standard deviations." Prove it. You showed no calculations whatsoever to come up with that claim. You waved your hand at a chart with no source and expected everyone to just bow down and believe you. I, for one, DON'T. You may be lying ... AGAIN. If you want to convince us, break your claims down into simple charts like Lerner did, spelling out your sources and logic, so if nothing else, Lerner has something to respond to other than your vague statements. Otherwise, much of the audience is not going to just accept your claims. You have too much vested interest in Big Bang for us to ignore. If you and Lewis can spend the hours it must have taken to prepare the video you produced to respond to Lerner's first video, then you can spend a few hours, like Lerner did, preparing a series of charts to prove what you calm ... rather than just making unfounded claims and waving your hands.

You say "All SNI, BAO, and galaxy size vs z data not only strongly motivate the Big Bang model, they obliterate the STL model of yours." Sorry, Dr Keating, but we are not going to simply accept your claims and handwaving, and no one else out there logically should. Especially given all the lies and irrelevant distractions you've posted in your response to this issue so far. The public would be foolish to just believe you, Dr Keating.

Next you say,

@Lerner “What Ned Wright wrote 30 years ago can’t possibly answer the research I and my colleagues Riccardo Scarpa and Renato Falomo have published over the past eight years, let alone the recent work on the JWST images.”

What recent work? Please send a citation to quantitative work not an IAI website.

*Dr* Keating, if you won't spend 1 minute of your *precious* *science communicator* time to search out Dr Lerner's latest peer reviewed scientific papers to learn what he is been talking about, you're not only stupid, but a downright lazy fool. In which case, I can see why you'd prefer to keep the status quo the status quo, where you have a nice gig that let's you can sit around on your butt patting yourself on the back pontificating with your Big Bang friends (who also have nice comfortable gigs). Defending the status quo for the mainstream has always been the safe, easy gig in science.

Finally, say to Lerner "You were wrong when Ned Wright wrote his damning obliteration of your STL model 20 (not 30 years ago by the way)." Wow! Not just stupid, foolish and lazy, but petty. Yes, Wright last UPDATED his criticism of Eric Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened book about 19 years ago (11 Oct 2003) not 30. Give Lerner a break. After all, you probably voted for a President who makes even bigger gaffs DAILY. And what you've failed to disclose is that Lerner replied to Wright's criticisms (https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmi ... rong-2003/) and Wright just ignored his response. Much like you’re trying to do with Lerner here. But in any case, your Ned Wright attack on Lerner is completely irrelevant if what Lerner says about the Toleman test and JWST data is correct. So deal with that issue, rather than tossing yet out more red herrings.

I think there's a "No True Scotsman" argument somewhere in Keating's last response.

LOL! Had to look that one up. And yes, you’re right. Keating’s response is definitely an example of that fallacy. I think his belief must go something like this … *No TRUE astrophysicist believes Big Bang is wrong … thus keep sending us swimming in money to keep endlessly searching for Big Bang’s endless list of gnomes so we can pay for the endless homes, cars, vacations, etc. etc. etc that make being a modern astrophysicist (or science communicator) such a nice gig.*. Just saying …

[BeAChooser]

But what does that matter? If a high redshift quasar has a real physical connection to a low redshift galaxy's nucleus, then it is game over, and anything else is irrelevant since the issue is whether or not the Big Bang happened.

So what you're really admitting is that Arp's theory about quasar origins might be wrong. Ok, but the truth is that the data on quasar and galaxy connections is also not conclusive because we can't be sure the light from the quasars aren't coincidently peeking through the matter in those physical connections. I remember reading about in one instance where better telescope observations showed that it was entirely possible that the quasar identified by Arp as in front of a nearby galaxy was shining through the foreground. And maybe it is just coincidence that some quasars are located along bridging material. As I said earlier, there needs to be independent analysis of such cases to see if Arp's probabilities hold up. Why not put your efforts into seeing if that can be done ... rather than attacking Lerner just because he decided not to bring a lightning rod to Arp's own efforts? Lerner himself had nothing to really contribute to what Arp was already saying and doing about quasar redshifts. All that could have happened is that the controversial nature of Arp's claims might have helped discredit Lerner, and vice versa. One of them supporting the other wasn't going to change things.

And note, Arp never mentioned Lerner in his articles, as far as I can tell. You can verify this by going to Arp's official site, https://www.haltonarp.com, and doing a search for "Lerner." Later on, Arp mentioned (in a few of his papers ... for example, https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intr ... laxies.pdf) plasmoids in association with quasars, but he didn't mention that Lerner did much to popularize that association. And I don't think his omissions were tit for tat. I don't believe he was that petty. I know of no instance where Arp attacked Lerner for not openly supporting him and his theories. Can you point out an instance where he did? If not, why do what Arp didn't do, especially now, when supporting Lerner might be so critical?

[Robertus Maximus]

Excellent thread BeAChooser.

Just a personal comment.

It was interesting to see David Malone introducing the Institute of Art and Ideas ‘Heretics, Heresies…’ discussion, in the first link you provided.

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

I have a VHS tape recording from 1993 of a UK TV show called ‘Big Science’ that was presented by David Malone, with the opening line: “Tonight why the Big Bang might be a big mistake.” He goes on to interview the ‘leading’ cosmologists of the day pitted against the ‘heretic’ Halton Arp.

Halton Arp is given the final opportunity to reply to his critics who suggest that he is creating complete anarchy in orthodox thinking when he is asked: “How do you prevent anarchy?”, “Well, er… not by tyranny.” came the reply.

Thirty years later David Malone is still presenting the same debate! How times change!

Although Lerner has come in for some criticism on this thread his work and efforts must be applauded, he seems to be the only Big Bang critic directly taking on the Big Bang Industrial Complex at the moment.

As with many others it was Lerner’s book (BBNH) that, by a circuitous route, led me to the electrical nature of the universe; just because I disagree with Lerner over the nature of stars and elliptical galaxies I’m not going to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, as I agree with his evolving infinite eternal universe model (BBNH Chapter 7, p 295). Ironically, in that chapter he mentions “tiny trickles of electricity” but also refers to energy flow, this suggests to me that Lerner is well aware of the electrical nature of the universe.

Likewise in BBNH, Lerner promotes Alfven’s anti-matter or ‘fireworks’ proposal to explain cosmic expansion and redshift; this was always a point I never agreed with, it’s good to see he now favours a non-expanding universe. I’m not too sure what Lerner now favours to explain redshift but I tend to lean toward the Wolf Effect (https://docslib.org/doc/6770234/arxiv-a ... of-quasars and https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf ... .359...67J).

Generally, Lerner’s cosmology is one of the universe ‘winding up’ presenting a future of hope and possibility, compared to the winding down, degenerating, hopeless Big Bang model. The fact that a future of hopelessness is promoted by the controlling authorities is no accident. In that sense then, the Big Bang serves a wider cultural purpose which is one reason it is not going away any time soon.

Finally, the Big Bang theory cannot be falsified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), no amount of evidence will be allowed to disprove the theory, more ‘epicycles’ or “knobs and whistles” will simply be added. By definition it is pseudoscience, it is ‘settled science’ and it is but one of a number of new religions.

[nick c]

BeAChooser,
Have you read SEEING RED?

Arp's work does not need Lerner. I write that, not as a criticism of Lerner's work, with which I generally agree, but as a clarification of the differences of Lerner's and Arp's objectives.

Arp is not trying to disprove the Big Bang. Arp is dealing with his own theories of how galaxies are born and mature. That has been his life work going back to the ATLAS OF PECULIAR GALAXIES (1966), which is considered to be a classic Astronomy reference book. It just so happens that along the way his observations have a by product of falsification of the Big Bang Theory, for which Arp paid dearly, basically becoming a persona non grata in academia and among his fellow professional astronomers.

There is no reason for Arp to reference Lerner, His work is independent of Lerner, whose stated goal is to prove the Big Bang never happened. In contrast, Arp is focused on the meaning of redshift observations. Lerner, in his book, should have a chapter devoted to Arp. But Arp's work is really not about disproving the Big Bang...though that is the by product.

And as a side note: I don't necessarily agree with Arp's theories of galaxy creation, but I do believe that he proves that quasars are the offspring of relatively nearby galaxies. The chance alignment and gravitational lensing arguments are ridiculous attempts by an indoctrinated priesthood to defend their paradigm and that priesthood sends a warning out to any members who are considering dissent....the same thing that happened to Arp will happen to you, so stay in step!