Nico Benschop wrote:
Nereid wrote: While this may be interesting, I'm sorry to say that it seems to have almost nothing to do with the specific question I asked you ("Perhaps you would care to explain how you consider that paper to be relevant to this thread, whose focus is the origins of the universe and observational cosmology?" - added bold). Would you like me to clarify my question?
I also note that you seem to have repeated a common misunderstanding of modern cosmological theories ("Big Bang"), one which we have addressed, at considerable length already, in this thread.
Sure, I did already clarify your question about what redshift has to do with this topic 'The origin of the Universe'. Let me rephrase:
a) The BB theory assumes there *is* an origin (in time)
b) based on the assumption that the universe expands (and by time reversal the BB 'follows'- Gamow in the 1940's, and Le Mètre),
c) based on the assumption (Hubble, 1931) that the redshift of star spectra is a Doppler effect,
d) based on the assumption of 'empty space' (vacuüm), which cannot dissipate radiation, although an entropy-like dissipation of radiation had his preference (witness the footnote in his 1931 paper with Humason on measured redshifts)
e) based on Einstein's axiom that EM-fields (light) propagate at constant speed c (about 300.000 km/s) independent of source & observers motion, and lossless (a kind of perpetuüm mobile;-)
f) based on the assumption 'there is no ether medium' for EM radiation or the Earth or any object to move in (Michelson/Morley 1887).
g) This null-result was based on their assumption that if ether would exist it would not adhere to a heavy body like the Earth, hence not rotate with it, thus making any conclusion impossible about universal ether as a result of measurements along the Earth's surface. So they discarded this adhesion possibily (explicitely or not).
[snip]
I said I'd come back to this, and clarify some misunderstandings of the concordance model(s) of cosmology (a.k.a. Big Bang Theory, or BBT).
Evidence for the Big Bang is, IMHO, one of the best internet sites in terms of comprehensively addressing (most of) the misunderstandings in NB's post (quoted above).
The heart of the BBT is General Relativity (GR); crudely, the observable universe can be explained - quantitatively, consistently, and comprehensively - in terms of GR plus the quantum theory based package called the Standard Model (of particle physics).
So,
pace NB, the core assumptions of the BBT are those of GR and the Standard Model.
Some extra comments, which go to some misunderstandings I read into NB's posts (to the extent that you did not mean these, Nico, I apologise in advance for my own misunderstandings).
First, that if quasars, and only quasars, turned out to be local, so what? The
observed galaxy power spectrum, a.k.a. how the density of the Universe fluctuates from place to place on scales of millions of lightyears, would be unchanged. Or, if you prefer, quasars seem to be a minor component of the universe in the BBT; demote them to merely trivial players and nothing changes.
Second, good observations strongly suggest that
quite a few quasars are indeed at cosmological distances, and
analysis of results from large surveys such as SDSS, are entirely consistent with the overwhelming majority of quasars being at the cosmological distances implied by their observed redshifts.
An implication of these results is that the few 'Arpian' quasars are, very likely, simply chance alignments.
Third, detailed studies of large numbers of quasars and Seyfert galaxies strongly supports
the unified model of active galactic nuclei. In other words, we have a consistent, comprehensive model of quasars, QSOs, type 2 quasars, Seyferts (both 1 and 2),
DRAGNs, ... including their luminosity evolution. Conversely, you have to struggle very hard indeed to make the observational results fit a consistent Arpian story.
Lastly, on 'intrinsic redshifts': if they existed, as Arpians claim, and if you could get some matter from a planet orbiting a star in one of the galaxies or quasars with such an intrinsic redshift, and bring it into you local high school science lab, what wonders you would find! For starters, every visible object - leaf, emerald crystal, vial of bromine, gold bar, sodium vapour lamp, ... - would have an obviously different colour than counterparts made from Earthly atoms. Further, the colours would vary, depending on which quasar or galaxy the atoms came from. Yet the alien electrons and protons (etc) would, if analysed separately from the atoms they came from, be identical to Earthly ones.
Which leads to a point few of those who wish to praise the Arpian ideas even seem to realise, much less acknowledge: acceptance of Arpian ideas requires abandoning the cosmological principle; abandoning that principle means you have no logical basis for assuming that the lines observed in galaxy or quasar spectra originated in the atomic transitions so thoroughly explainable by the standard theory of the atom. If you lose that basis, then you can't explain the spectra of these objects at all (and so there are no 'intrinsic redshifts').
The Wolf effect: in the absence of the comprehensive results above, there might be grounds for spending time on this. However, as unresolved ('point sources') seem to have only redshifts (the Wolf effect, if in play, seems to say there would approximately equal numbers with blueshifts), and as the extent to which quasars can be resolved into extended sources is correlated with their redshifts (if the Wolf effect were in play, there should be no such correlation), even without the above, this hypothesis seems to lack observational corroboration.
An ether and GR: it's a common misunderstanding that SR (special relativity) and an ether (propagation medium for photons) are mutually inconsistent. They're not; the universe could be pervaded by an ether ... as long as it has properties which are not inconsistent with SR. Of course, if you propose such an ether, then it's hard to see how you could do experimental or observational tests to detect it (all such tests should be consistent with SR), nor why you'd want to have such a thing anyway (it doesn't explain anything that is not already explainable). When it comes to GR, same story: you can have a universal ether ... as long as it has zero mass-energy!
Dissipative medium, or photon decay: both of these are examples of 'tired light' hypotheses; AFAIK, there are lots of these, but none has legs ... in fact, all are inconsistent with the observations of light curves of distant type 1a supernovae - you can't get time dilation into any 'tired light' hypothesis.
Finally, inconsistencies.
One curious thing about much of the anti-BBT promotional stuff, especially that from 'plasma universe' supporters: ethers, Arpian quasars, and so on are, very likely, fatal to any purportedly consistent plasma cosmology! How odd, then, that Arp's observations figure so prominently on such sites.
Are they just a collection of globular clusters compared to local clusters which are a collection of ellipticals? 
I learned that light is an EM wave phenomenon (Maxwell). So when I later read that Einstein (following Michelson/Morley 1887) based SR and GR on space = empty (lossfree vacuüm) I was flabbergasted: what wave-phenomenon without a medium to propagate in? That is a contradiction-in-terms. Moreover, to fit the data, Einstein had to 'bend space' by gravity . . . one counter-intuitive idea followed the other, several times, to save by such 'double twists' his theory (based on a wrong assumption that space is empty) and have it fit the facts. Newtons idea that light is a stream of tiny particles would be consistent with empty space, but NOT Huygens' (modern) model of photons as a wave phenomenon. 