The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

Page 1

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

The Top 30 Problems with

the Big Bang

Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with

the Big Bang. [1] Since that publication, we have had many

requests for citations and additional details , which we provide

here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the

earlier list. Then we supplement the list based on the last four

years of developments—with another 20 problems for the

theory.

1. Static universe models fit observational data better

than expanding universe models.

Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable

parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations,

but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic

deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match

different tests. [2,3] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone

falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained,

Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters—

the static universe model.

2. The microwave “background” makes more sense as

the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight

than as the remnant of a fireball.

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of

Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work. [4] Eddington calculated

the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that

Page 2

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable

parameters, he obtained 3 K (later refined to 2.8 K [5]), essentially the

same as the observed, so-called “background,” temperature. A similar

calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting

temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy

light. [6] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog,” and would

therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation,

including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.

Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of

infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [7] The amount of

radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing

wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by

the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio

galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a

way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer

wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the

galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two

wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no

chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly

uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of

microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone

implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a

distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang

theory cannot be correct.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on

the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst

being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50 K made in 1961, just

two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic

quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball”

becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of

all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged

Page 3

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

between 5 K and 50 K, matched observations. [8] And the Big Bang

offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with

wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

3. Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang

require too many adjustable parameters to make

them work.

The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly

by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological

model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big

Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the

abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at

least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction.

Often, it’s a question of figuring out why the element was either

created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang.

When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction

remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is consistency with

observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for

each light element. Examples: [9,10] for helium-3; [11] for lithium-7;

[12] for deuterium; [13] for beryllium; and [14,15] for overviews. For

a full discussion of an alternative origin of the light elements, see

[16].

4. The universe has too much large scale structure

(interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as

short as 10-20 billion years.

The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured

quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of

the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and

walls) we see in space [17], and to clear all the voids between galaxy

walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are

special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around

Page 4

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially

much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of

space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions

through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100

billion years. [18]

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease

with time in just the right way so that their average

apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts,

which is exceedingly unlikely.

According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is

roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-

distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If

the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would

be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is,

on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be

explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they

get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar

at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1,

explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It

isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just

this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations

using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a

measure of cosmological distance. See [19,20].

By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance

for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies.

In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar

redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic

factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar

redshifts (e.g., z> 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A

grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection

Page 5

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong

evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic. [21]

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the

universe.

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward

resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on

the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap

the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers

have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational

error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the

Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which

creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the

cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively

bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering

the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse

again. [22,23]

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high

for a finite universe that is supposed to be

everywhere uniform.

In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of

a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang

interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies

relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc.

Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a “Great

Attractor” pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer

studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the

hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us

out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave

“background.” The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of

large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in

Page 6

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big

Bang. [24,25,26,27,28]

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-

baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of

the entire universe.

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and

the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-

detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of

the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By

contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides

a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no

“dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-

100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO

studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in

this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not

just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [29,30]

Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an

operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is

consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for

gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need

for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one

more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field

show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some

of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the

highest-redshift quasars.

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early

universe be “primitive,” meaning mostly metal-free, because it

requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in

stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest”

Page 7

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

quasars and galaxies. [31,32,33] Moreover, we now have evidence

for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be

the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few

primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by

hydrogen clouds. [34]

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated

back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual

density of matter in the universe to the critical

density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059.

Any larger deviation would result in a universe

already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went

against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big

Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the

cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its

own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10120, and

observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) “quintessence” or

“dark energy.” [35,36] This latter theoretical substance solves the

fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy

sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep

consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be

accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor.”

* * * * *

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes

most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy,

according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that

opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a

fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not

happen, which would be proving a negative—something that is

normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not

Page 8

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer

makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure

would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually

amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed,

many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in

science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only

when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from

chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.

Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic

theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not

from add-on bits of new theory.

Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review paper

in support of the Big Bang. [37] But these generally don’t count any

of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as

some ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction

successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from

any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State

[16,38], Plasma Cosmology [18], Meta Model [3], and Variable-Mass

Cosmology [20].

For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored

by astronomers. However, one web site by Ned Wright does try to

advance counterarguments in defense of the Big Bang. [39] But his

counterarguments are mostly old objections long since defeated. For

example:

1. In “Eddington did not predict the CMB”:

a. Wright argues that Eddington’s argument for the “temperature

of space” applies at most to our Galaxy. But Eddington’s

reasoning applies also to the temperature of intergalactic

space, for which a minimum is set by the radiation of galaxy

and quasar light. The original calculations half-a-century ago

showed this limit probably fell in the range 1-6 K. [6] And

Page 9

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

that was before quasars were discovered and before we knew

the modern space density of galaxies.

b. Wright also argues that dust grains cannot be the source of the

blackbody microwave radiation because there are not enough

of them to be opaque, as needed to produce a blackbody

spectrum. However, opaqueness is required only in a finite

universe. An infinite universe can achieve thermodynamic

equilibrium (the actual requirement for a blackbody spectrum)

even if transparent out to very large distances because the

thermal mixing can occur on a much smaller scale than

quantum particles—e.g., in the light-carrying medium itself.

c. Wright argues that dust grains do not radiate efficiently at

millimeter wavelengths. However, efficient or not, if the

equilibrium temperature they reach is 2.8 K, they must radiate

away the energy they absorb from distant galaxy and quasar

light at millimeter wavelengths. Temperature and wavelength

are correlated for any bodies in thermal equilibrium.

2. About Lerner’s argument against the Big Bang:

a. Lerner calculated that the Big Bang universe has not had

enough time to form superclusters. Wright calculates that all

the voids could be vacated and superclusters formed in less

than 11-14 billion years (barely). But that assumes that almost

all matter has initial speeds headed directly out of voids and

toward matter concentrations. Lerner, on the other hand,

assumed that the speeds had to be built up by gravitational

attraction, which takes many times longer. Lerner’s point is

more reasonable because doing it Wright’s way requires fine-

tuning of initial conditions.

b. Wright argues that “there is certainly lots of evidence for dark

matter.” The reality is that there is no credible observational

detection of dark matter, so all the “evidence” is a matter of

Page 10

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

interpretation, depending on theoretical assumptions. For

example, Milgrom’s Model explains all the same evidence

without any need for dark matter.

3. Regarding arguments against “tired light cosmology”:

a. Wright argues: “There is no known interaction that can

degrade a photon's energy without also changing its

momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which

is not observed.” While it is technically true that no such

interaction has yet been discovered, reasonable non-Big-Bang

cosmologies require the existence of entities many orders of

magnitude smaller than photons. For example, the entity

responsible for gravitational interactions has not yet been

discovered. So the “fuzzy image” argument does not apply to

realistic physical models in which all substance is infinitely

divisible. By contrast, physical models lacking infinite

divisibility have great difficulties explaining Zeno’s

paradoxes—especially the extended paradox for matter. [3]

b. Wright argues that the stretching of supernovae light curves is

not predicted by “tired light.” However, one cannot measure

the stretching effect directly because the time under the

lightcurve depends on the intrinsic brightness of the

supernovae, which can vary considerably. So one must use

indirect indicators, such as rise time only. And in that case,

the data does not unambiguously favor either tired light or Big

Bang models.

c. Wright argued that tired light does not produce a blackbody

spectrum. But this is untrue if the entities producing the

energy loss are many orders of magnitude smaller and more

numerous than quantum particles.

d. Wright argues that tired light models fail the Tolman surface

brightness test. This ignores that realistic tired light models

Page 11

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

must lose energy in the transverse direction, not just the

longitudinal one, because light is a transverse wave. When

this effect is considered, the predicted loss of light intensity

goes with (1+z)–2, which is in good agreement with most

observations without any adjustable parameters. [2,40] The

Big Bang, by contrast, predicts a (1+z)–4 dependence, and

must therefore invoke special ad hoc evolution (different from

that applicable to quasars) to close the gap between theory and

observations.

* * * * *

By no means is this “top ten” list of Big Bang problems

exhaustive—far from it. In fact, it is easy to argue that several of these

additional 20 points should be among the “top ten”:

• “Pencil-beam surveys” show large-scale structure out to

distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite

directions from us. This appears as a succession of wall-like

galaxy features at fairly regular intervals, the first of which, at

about 130 Mpc distance, is called “The Great Wall.” To date,

13 such evenly-spaced “walls” of galaxies have been found!

[41] The Big Bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on

scales of distance larger than about 20 Mpc, so there

apparently is far more large-scale structure in the universe than

the Big Bang can explain.

• Many particles are seen with energies over 60 × 1018 eV. But

that is the theoretical energy limit for anything traveling more

than 20-50 Mpc because of interaction with microwave

background photons. [42] However, this objection assumes the

microwave radiation is as the Big Bang expects, instead of a

relatively sparse, local phenomenon.

• The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and

antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter

Page 12

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

dominates the present universe apparently because of some

form of asymmetry, such as CP violation asymmetry, that

caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left

much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this

asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can’t be

antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter

boundary with the intergalactic medium that would produce

gamma rays, which are not seen. [43,44]

• Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would

produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s

Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson

effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the

universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson

trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z ≈ 6.1. [45]

Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly

appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed

by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56,

prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a time when

the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover,

if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their

emission would have been absorbed by the surrounding

hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. [34] So

the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the

theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG

0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host

galaxy appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in

the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong enough to ionize the

intergalactic medium. [46]

• An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters.

Lensing amplification caused by foreground galaxies or

clusters is too weak to explain this association between high-

Page 13

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

and low-redshift objects. This apparent contradiction has no

solution under Big Bang premises that does not create some

other problem. In particular, dark matter solutions would have

to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that

imply that dark matter increases away from galaxy centers.

The high-redshift and low-redshift objects are probably

actually at comparable distances, as Arp has maintained for 30

years. [47]

• The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that

energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that

new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually

created between the galaxies. [48]

• In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences

from homogenous distribution were found out to a scale of at

least 200 Mpc. [49] This is consistent with other galaxy

catalog analyses that show no trends toward homogeneity even

on scales up to 1000 Mpc. [50] The Big Bang, of course,

requires large-scale homogeneity. The Meta Model and other

infinite-universe models expect fractal behavior at all scales.

Observations remain in agreement with that.

• Elliptical galaxies supposedly bulge along the axis of the most

recent galaxy merger. But the angular velocities of stars at

different distances from the center are all different, making an

elliptical shape formed in that way unstable. Such velocities

would shear the elliptical shape until it was smoothed into a

circular disk. Where are the galaxies in the process of being

sheared?

• The polarization of radio emission rotates as it passes through

magnetized extragalactic plasmas. Such Faraday rotations in

quasars should increase (on average) with distance. If redshift

indicates distance, then rotation and redshift should increase

Page 14

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

together. However, the mean Faraday rotation is less near z = 2

than near z = 1 (where quasars are apparently intrinsically

brightest, according to Arp’s model). [51]

• If the dark matter needed by the Big Bang exists, microwave

radiation fluctuations should have “acoustic peaks” on angular

scales of 1° and 0.3°, with the latter prominent compared with

the former. By contrast, if Milgrom’s alternative to dark matter

(Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is correct, then the latter

peak should be only about 20% of the former. Newly acquired

data from the Boomerang balloon-borne instruments clearly

favors the MOND interpretation over dark matter. [52]

• Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies [53,54] and quasars

[55]. So are other properties of galaxies. [56] This should not

happen under Big Bang premises.

• The number density of optical quasars peaks at z= 2.5-3, and

declines toward both lower and higher redshifts. At z = 5, it

has dropped by a factor of about 20. This cannot be explained

by dust extinction or survey incompleteness. The Big Bang

predicts that quasars, the seeds of all galaxies, were most

numerous at earliest epochs. [57]

• The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used

to determine the temperature of the intergalactic medium. It is

typically inferred to be 20,000 K, but there is no evidence of

evolution with redshift. Yet in the Big Bang, that temperature

ought to adiabatically decrease as space expands everywhere.

This is another indicator that the universe is not really

expanding.] [58]

• Under Big Bang premises, the fine structure constant must

vary with time. [59]

Page 15

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

• Measurements of the two-point correlation function for

optically selected galaxies follow an almost perfect power law

over nearly three orders of magnitude in separation. However,

this result disagrees with n-body simulations in all the Big

Bang’s various modifications. A complex mixture of gravity,

star formation, and dissipative hydrodynamics seems to be

needed. [60]

• Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar

quasar metallicities. [61] The iron-to-magnesium ratio

increases at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). [62]

These results imply substantial star formation at epochs

preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary

to normal Big Bang scenarios.

• The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen

in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has

searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed

for the most part to detect them. [63] Moreover, the relative

abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big

Bang. [64] The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in

the quasar’s own environment, not at their redshift distance as

the Big Bang requires.

• The luminosity evolution of brightest cluster galaxies (BGCs)

cannot be adequately explained by a single evolutionary

model. For example, BGCs with low x-ray luminosity are

consistent with no evolution, while those with high x-ray

luminosity are brighter on average at high redshift. [65]

• The fundamental question of why it is that at early

cosmological times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars

(globular clusters) were able to form remains unsolved in the

Big Bang. It is no mystery in infinite universe models. [66]

Page 16

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

• Blue galaxy counts show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a

factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of

space is larger than in the Big Bang, where it should get

smaller as one looks back in time. [67]

* * * * *

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence

accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even

the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe

and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible

alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance,

four good alternative models are not even being comparatively

discussed by most astronomers.

Acknowledgments

Obviously, hundreds of professionals, both astronomers and scientists

from other fields, have contributed to these findings, although few of

them stand back and look at the bigger picture. It is hoped that many

of them will add their comments and join as co-authors in an attempt

to sway the upcoming generation of astronomers that the present

cosmology is headed nowhere, and to join the search for better

answers.

References

[1] T. Van Flandern (1997), MetaRes.Bull.6, 64; <http://metaresearch.org>,

“Cosmology” tab, “Cosmology” sub-tab.

[2] T. Van Flandern, “Did the universe have a beginning?,” Apeiron 2, 20-24

(1995); MetaRes.Bull.3, 25-35 (1994); http://metaresearch.org, “Cosmology”

tab, “Cosmology” sub-tab.

[3] T. Van Flandern (1999), Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets,

North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (2nd ed.).

[4] Sir Arthur Eddington, (1926), Internal constitution of the stars, Cambridge

University Press, reprinted 1988.

Page 17

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

[5] Regener (1933), Zeitschrift fur Physiks; confirmed by Nerost (1937).

[6] Finlay-Freundlich (1954).

[7] E.J. Lerner, (1990), “Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium,”

Astrophys.J. 361, 63-68.

[8] T. Van Flandern, “Is the microwave radiation really from the big bang

'fireball'?,” Reflector (Astronomical League) XLV, 4 (1993); and

MetaRes.Bull.1, 17-21 (1992).

[9] (2002), Nature 415, vii & 27-29 & 54-57.

[10] (1997), Astrophys.J.489, L119-L122.

[11] (2000), Science 290, 1257.

[12] (2000), Nature 405, 1009-1011 & 1025-1027.

[13] (2000), Science290, 1257.

[14] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, 252-260.

[15] (2001), Astrophys.J.552, L1-L5.

[16] C.F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, J.V. Narlikar (2000), A different approach to

cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 9: “The origin

of the light elements .”

[17] (2001), Science 291, 579-581.

[18] E.J. Lerner (1991), The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New

York, pp. 23 & 28.

[19] T. Van Flandern (1992), “Quasars: near vs. far,” MetaRes.Bull.1, 28-32;

<http://metaresearch.org>, “Cosmology” tab, “Cosmology” sub-tab.

[20] H.C. Arp (1998), Seeing Red, Apeiron, Montreal.

[21] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, 705-711.

[22] (1999), Nature 399, 539-541.

[23] (1999); Sky&Tel.98 (Oct.), 20.

[24] D.S. Mathewson, V.L. Ford, & M. Buchhorn (1992), Astrophys.J.389, L5-L8.

[25] D. Lindley (1992), Nature 356, 657.

[26] (1999), Astrophys.J.512, L79-L82.

[27] (1993), Science 257, 1208-1210.

[28] (1996), Astrophys.J.470, 49-55.

Page 18

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

[29] T. Van Flandern (1996), “Possible new properties of gravity,”

Astrophys.&SpaceSci.244, 249-261; MetaRes.Bull.5, 23-29 & 38-50;

<http://metaresearch.org>, “Cosmology” tab, “Gravity” sub-tab.

[30] T. Van Flandern (2001), “Physics has its principles ,” Redshift and Gravitation

in a Relativistic Universe, K. Rudnicki, ed., Apeiron, Montreal, 95-108;

MetaRes.Bull.9, 1-9 (2000).

[31] (2001), Astron.J.122, 2833-2849.

[32] (2001), Astron.J.122, 2850-2857.

[33] (2002), Astrophys.J.565, 50-62.

[34] (2002), <http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~cowie/z6/z6.html>.

[35] (2000), Astrophys.J.530, 17-35.

[36] (1999), Nature 398, 25-26.

[37] (2000), Science 290, 1923.

[38] (1999), Phys.TodaySept, 13, 15, 78.

[39] E.L. Wright (2000), <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html>.

[40] (2001), Astron.J.122, 1084-1103.

[41] H. Kurki-Suonio (1990), Sci.News 137, 287.

[42] C. Seife (2000), “Fly’s Eye spies highs in cosmic rays’ demise,” Science 288,

1147.

[43] (2000), Sci.News 158, 86.

[44] (1997), Science 278, 226.

[45] (2000), Astrophys.J. 530, 1-16.

[46] (2002), <http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/35/A.html>.

[47] (2000), Astrophys.J. 538, 1-10.

[48] B.R. Bligh (2000), The Big Bang Exploded!, <brbligh@hotmail.com>.

[49] (2000), Astrophys.J. 541, 519-526.

[50] (1999), Nature 397, 225.

[51] (1998), Seeing Red, H. Arp, Apeiron,Montreal, 124-125.

[52] McGaugh (2001), Astronomy 29#3, 24-26.

[53] (1992), Astrophys.J.393, 59-67.

[54] Guthrie & Napier (1991), Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 12/1 issue.

Page 19

Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 2002

[55] (2001), Astron.J.121, 21-30.

[56] (1999), Astron.&Astrophys. 343, 697-704.

[57] (2001), Astron.J.121, 54-65.

[58] (2001), Astrophys.J.557, 519-526.

[59] (2001), Phys.Rev.Lett.9/03 issue.

[60] (2001), Astrophys.J.558, L1-L4.

[61] (2002), Astrophys.J.565, 50-62.

[62] (2002), Astrophys.J.565, 63-77.

[63] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, 51-67.

[64] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, 68-92.

[65] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, 103-122.

[66] (2002), Astrophys.J.566, L1-L4.

[67] (1992), Nature 355, 55-58.