what i gathered from this thread is that if red-shift is not actually a Dopler Effect, than Hubble was wrong and the entire Standard Model is incorrect.
It may help to know that the original redshift data (Slipher) of spiral nebulae (galaxies) were taken to be due to Doppler motion; these supposed galaxies were simply seen as moving away from us very quickly.
These results, however, were not necessarily contradictory to both a static model (de Sitter, but not Einstein) or an expansion model (Lemaitre). The problem came later when it was apparent that redshift observations of galaxies beyond much more than a billion light years cause the Doppler equations to go nuts.
Today, as a galaxy glides along
through space (peculiar motion) then the redshift of this particular motion would be considered a separate, Doppler motion, and the cosmic expansion rate at those galactic locations would be the cosmological redshifts. At least as I understand it. The cosmological redshift values quickly far exceed any Doppler motions, if indeed they somehow could determine them.
this entire thread is built from the red-shift paradigm and creates the necessity of fancy math to solve what is otherwise probably a basic concept, per Occam. i propose that red-shift is not a Doppler Effect, therefore has nothing to do with the velocity of a star or the age of the universe.
This, surprisingly, was a huge issue in the late 1920s. Einstein and de Sitter were the two big hitters for their a GR cosmological models. The possibility that the redshifts represented an expanding universe was not even given consideration, in spite of Friedmann's brilliant mathematics that argued that it might be possible.
As I've mentioned, it was controversial enough so that Hubble avoided favoring either the static or the expansion model.
It took Lemaitre to make the jump and, as happens in science, there came a thundering silence. He was ignored. But once he visited with Edington, then Edington had him translate his published 1927 paper into English. Edington immediately saw this as a very reasonable solution and he had no trouble winning de Sitter over to Lemaitre's expansion model. The two of them eventually won Einstein over.
But it took decades of observations before the vast majority of astronomers and cosmologists were convinced of the expansion model. Even its name "Big Bang" was a pejorative, which came from Hoyle who, with Gold and Bondi, presented a static model called the Steady State Model.
The best evidence for BBT is found in the discovery of the predicted CMBR, and it all but killed the SST model, though Hoyle never relinquished.
Any alternative model proposed today, *cough*, must be capable of offering
reasonable explanations for the many favorable observations already established.
Go to the
Big Bang Bullets, which present most of the key tests for any wantabe theory.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram