No Expanding Universe? The Problem Of Galactic Surface Brightness

A new study has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D that calls the notion of expanding space and the Big Bang into question.  The study was conducted by Eric Lerner over at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP).  This study is the second such study published by Lerner that calls the current Big Bang model into question.  The previous study was pushed in the Astrophysical Journal back in 2007.

Both studies address a problem with the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of observable galaxies.  If the universe is actually expanding, current dark matter models predict that the surface brightness of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby galaxies.  If it is not expanding, then the surface brightness of distant and nearby galaxies should be the same.

Both studies found that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same.  To quote Lerner, “The conventional, Big Bang, explanation of this observation is that the distant galaxies have extremely high intrinsic surface brightness but with cosmological dimming, by coincidence, they appear to have the same surface brightness as nearby ones. One of the big problems with this explanation is that the implied intrinsic surface brightness is much larger than that observed for any nearby galaxies and may be physically impossible.”

Lerner notes that, “Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence.”

Dr. Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy, was amazed at the results saying, “It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy.”

These studies aren’t the only problems with the current expanding universe theory.  The red shift of quasars also poses some serious problems that have yet to be addressed by Big Bang theorists.  Edwin Hubble is famous for discovering the so-called “Hubble law.”  Hubble found that the brightness of galaxies are correlated with a shifting of their spectra towards the red end of the light spectrum.  Generally speaking, the dimmer a galaxy appears to be, the more red shifted its spectra will be.  It is theorized that this takes place because galaxies are rapidly moving away from us (expanding space), which induces a Doppler shift of their spectra.  However, it is possible that this red shifting may be caused by something other than “expanding space.”

In order for the Big Bang expanding universe theory to be true, all objects must obey this “law” of cosmology.  However, quasars do not follow this rule.  If one plots the brightness of galaxies over their red shift, you’ll see a line of dots going right up the middle of the graph.  If one does the same thing with quasars, you get a scatter plot.  Mainstream cosmologists write this off by claiming distant quasars are ultra massive super-duper bright objects.  However, if red shift is not caused by the Doppler effect, then quasars become normal sized objects in relation to everything else we observe in space.

But there are other problems with the super-duper gigantic quasar theory.  Noted astronomer Halton Arp found that the red shift of quasars are quantized when taken in relationship to galaxies that are visually nearby to them.  When one looks at quasars, they are almost always found in an apparent visual relationship to a host galaxy.  Arp’s theory is that quasars are ejected from those host galaxies, and then “grow up” to become full sized galaxies in the future.

“Quantized” red shift means the red shift appears to occur in discrete intervals.  That is, if you take a plot of quasar red shifts, and transform them against the rest frame of their host galaxy, you’ll find a cluster of red shifts that are nearly the same, then there will be a gap in the plot, then another cluster that are nearly the same, then a gap, and so forth.

The only way to explain these gaps in the plot under a Big Bang model is for the theorists to claim that the Earth is somehow at the exact center of the universe, and that the quasars formed in concentric shells around our current position in space.  Such a claim harkens back to Mid-Evil science, when astronomers though the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around the Earth.

Yet there are still more problems with quasars. Many distant quasars appear to be physically connected to nearby galaxies by streams of plasma. The most famous example of this comes from galaxy/quasar pair NGC 7603. There are many more examples of this occurring in space. Each time an apparent connection is observed, mainstream astronomers write it off to being a random chance alignment, with the quasar just “appearing” to be connected, but actually being far behind the galaxy in question. In the case of NGC 7603, astronomers looking at the problem theorized the odds of such a random chance alignment occurring in space are on the order of 3 billion to 1.

At this point, I think we should be asking ask ourselves just how many more observations mainstream astronomers are going to write off as “coincidences.”

You can listen to Lerner and Arp describe these problems for yourself in this full length documentary.

If that documentary piqued your interest, be sure to check out these other documentaries:

Thunderbolts of the Gods

Symbols of an Alien Sky

The Electric Comet