Galactic redshift surveys 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 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 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" 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" (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" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs). 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.

I came across these letters of correspondence between Grote Reber and Edwin Hubble.

1939 Reber to Hubble

1939 Hubble to Reber

1942 Reber to Hubble

The 1942 letter describes Reber's suggestion that the red shift would be due to the interaction of light with a medium of free electrons in intergalactic space along with a magnetic field. Grote later came to the conclusion that the red shift was the Compton effect from light travelling through intergalactic free electrons in order to explain his southern sky observations at 144 meters and 500 meters wavelength. See

his 1968 paper

This is the same conclusion that I independently made in conjunction with Dr. Brooks Sharp to explain quasar intrinsic red shifts and the solar red shift, published at about the same time as Reber's above paper.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

(Update 2017) JEAN-PIERRE VIGIER

Back in the days when I was working on the Skylab Astronomy and Space Physics experiments at Martin Marietta and teaching a course called "Anti-Gravity" at the Denver Free University (not to be confused with Denver U.), I went to a lecture given by Jean-Pierre Vigier at Denver U. I spoke with J-P after the lecture and told him my ideas about the Compton Effect causing the cosmological red shift. He was excited by the ideas and arranged for us to meet at DU to discuss this further. We talked for the entire next afternoon. I had published the article in Solar Physics with Brooks Sharp explaining the center to limb variation in solar red shift and quasar red shift in terms of the Compton Effect and also become friends with Grote Reber who explained his hecto-metric wavelength cosmic background brightness observations similarly as being caused by the Compton effect.

J-P had been selected to be Einstein's assistant at Princeton, but the State Department wouldn't allow him to get a visa because J-P was a French Communist. (Sorta the Bernie Sanders of his time imo.) (Einstein couldn't get a clearance because he was a pacifist.) I think physics might have been different if J-P had been granted the visa.

J-P explained to me that he believed that photons had a tiny mass - like the neutrino is now thought to have. He believed this explained the Einstein gedanken experiment for the principle of equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass and helped explain gravitational lensing. He also believed this explained the photon and electron double slit experiment: the electromagnetic wave interference went through both slits and the photon or electron only went through the slit where the mass particle was. It also explained the slowing of light in a transparent medium with reconstruction of the electromagnetic wavefront and Compton scattering without blurring. Some of his ideas are summarized here

But the most exciting part of our discussion was that J-P believed the cosmological red shift was due to photon-photon interaction with the photon having a Compton effect exchange with mass of the second photon. I was worried that this should cause as much blue shift as red shift. I had explained to him my ideas about the Compton effect causing electron and other free particles to increase in mass from simultaneous collisions from all directions causing the velocity vectors to cancel and the energy to convert to mass from E=mc^2. (See Part 5 of my YouTube video below.) He said a similar thing would happen to the photon mass and only a red shift would result. We believed the mass of the electron and photon could increase until it reached a stable mass (e.g. the mass of a neutron plus original mass of the electron or photon as the case might be.) Then new massive particles would be created. These could be the source of cosmic ray particles or even "dark matter".

Photon-photon interactions are now being observed!

I am coming around to Vigier's ideas. It really helps explain how a Compton effect red shift would not result in scattering of the EM wave in the far field while allowing the Compton effect to occur and produce a red shift in the near field.

An interesting effect of the Compton effect causing the cosmological red-shift and the consequent target electrons or anti-electrons getting heavier (Or Jean-Pierre's photon masses getting heavier) is that explains why the universe is overwhelmingly full of ordinary mass rather than anti-particle mass. When the Compton effect target mass has increased to the mass of the target mass plus a neutron, then a neutron is created. This then would decay into a hydrogen atom (proton plus electron). This is true for both an increasing mass of an electron or a positron. So the new mass is an increase in ordinary particles over anti-particles. Both the increased mass of an electron or a positron (or a photon) would become ordinary hydrogen. Hydrogen need not be created in a "big bang" as suggested here.

Update Jan 17, 2020

Fred Hoyle almost got it right. He originally suggested that light would convert to mass. He had an explanation for a static stable universe, but unfortunately he didn't see that the conversion of the light caused the red shift. His paper "A New Model for an Expanding Universe" is found here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/108/5/372/2601825 He later updated it with Tom Gold. (Coincidently my granddaughter (Courtney Young) and Hoyle's granddaughter are both PhD's doing biomedical research at UCLA.)

EXPANDING EARTH

In the late 1980s I had some correspondence with S. Warren Carey. He sent me the manuscript of his book Theories of the Earth and Universe. He asked me to comment on it, so I made some minor typographical and grammatical re-wordings which he accepted. The earth's continents fit together, like puzzle pieces, on a smaller diameter globe. His book makes a very good case for the idea that the earth has been expanding. The major comment I gave him was to suggest that the Compton effect caused mass to be being created where the mass already is by the mechanism I gave in the video and discussed with Vigier. This would be the cause of the creation of mass, in agreement with the conservation of energy and momentum, at the center of the earth. Unfortunately, while Carey agreed that mass was being created where the mass already was, he chose to follow the cosmology of Fred Hoyle and Tom Gold: the steady state universe with the cosmological red shift being Doppler and mass being created by an unknown mechanism to keep the density of an expanding universe constant. I gave a poster paper at an AGU meeting in San Francisco, (near where Carey had been a Stanford visiting Professor), with my mechanism for the expanding earth. The main objection I got from Pangea geologists was, "Where does the water in the oceans come from?" Apparently comets and volcanoes and ice age melt doesn't satisfy them.

The late Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site. (I introduced Grote Reber to Paul Marmet. Marmet worked to help Reber attempt to convert an old radar to a hecto-metric radio astronomy antenna. They wanted to map the Northern sky from Canada, but the radar was in far too much disrepair to be ready for the next solar minimum viewing opportunity.)