[R. N. Boyd]:

Get rid of the concept of an expanding universe. Steven Hawking has been saying for over 10 years now, that the universe is infinite in volume. But why should anyone believe a Nobel Prize winner, eh?

I don't see expanding universe astronomical interpretations as having any validity, as these interpretations are relying exclusively on the Doppler effect as the one and only cause of the red shift. It is well known that there are other mechanisms which cause red-shifting, such as gravitation. (See: Misner Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation")

In addition to the gravitational red shift there are, at last count, 6 additional mechanisms which act to shift light toward the red end of the spectrum. For example, from Kiehn,

"...the Action 1-form, A, has the physical dimensions of the flux quantum, h/e. The 2-form, G, has the physical dimensions of charge, e. The 3-form, A^G, has the physical dimensions of angular momentum, h, and the 3-form A^F, has the physical dimensions of spin multiplied by the Hall impedance, Ýh/eÞ 2 = hÝh/e 2 Þ = hZhall."

He goes on to show that fractional Hall impedance is a built-in function of the vacuum which shall cause red shifting of photons.

There are indications that both spin and torsion fields can cause red shifting in the vacuum. There are also a couple of mechanisms known in optics, but these are rather obscure, and the references have slipped my mind. It's been since around 1978 since I saw those reference materials regarding optical red shifting. At the time, I was doing research for a position with the Naval Research Lab in Washington D.C., which was involved with laser fusion and optical ablation experiments.

If you are at all familiar with Paul LaViolette's works, he shows a subquantum effect as being responsible for cosmological red-shifting. (I have evidence that there are subquantum entities. For example, the ZPE curvature is on the order of ~10^-66 cm [Wheeler].)

Whittaker and Bateman both showed redshifting mechanisms due to curvatures of space caused by strong electric and magnetic fields, early in the last century.

To me, the hint is that these people prefer consistency with what was ascribed to in the past, to whatever facts which are contrary to the commonly held [herd-mind] view.

In summation, I do not agree with the commonly held assumption that the universe is expanding by virtue of observations of red shift, because of the several mechanisms aside from the Doppler effect which can act to create red shifting.

I also do not have any agreement whatsoever with the concept of the "big bang" (The big bang theory is busted.). I ascribe to an infinite volume universe with no expansion, no beginning and no end. (Why did there have to be a beginning of the Universe? Because people and creatures are born and die, must we assume that the vast universe must also do so?)