Nobody is claiming the big bang model is perfect, but it's got a lot of support like the redshift of galaxy data presented in the OP, and perhaps
most compelling are the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe findings
. We have to admit that the observations
which led to the pronouncement of "Dark Energy" refute the accusation that if science finds anomalous results which don't agree with the accepted
theory, it will sweep that evidence under the rug or ignore it. That hasn't happened, the data so far has continued to be accepted, and yet as far as
I know, there is no known explanation or theory to model how "dark energy" works. Cosmologists don't have all the answers (why would anyone go into
the field if they did?) So for you conspiracy theorists who think that science just ignores data it can't explain, it should have ignored the dark
energy data, right? (because we can't explain it).
The quasar data presented in the OP does pose a bit of a paradox in that it doesn't follow the same luminosity vs redshift pattern as galaxies, and I
don't know the reason, but I can think of a couple of possibilities like gravitational lensing and/or a function of the age of the quasar versus
prevalence and luminosity. It's certainly a valid question raised in the OP and if anyone has an explanation I'd like to see it.
Regarding the quantization of redshift studies referenced in the OP, I am not an expert on that subject matter but I did read up a little bit on that
and in some of the sources I found some red flags like they arrived at the results "using simulated data" whatever that means.
If you look at astronomy over the last 500 years, we've had 500 years of essentially being "wrong". When the preponderance of new observations
requires us to abandon the old model and accept a new one as has happened numerous times in astronomy/cosmology, then we do so. But look for example
at the change in our model of the universe when we replaced Newton's model with Einstein's model. Newton's model worked quite well at explaining
most of the data, but it wasn't perfect. Einstein showed if you travel really fast, Newton's model falls apart. We weren't traveling really fast at
that time so that's why it worked. But GPS wouldn't work based on Newton's physics, it takes Einstein's modifications to make it work.
My own belief is that we will see cosmology adopt a new model of the universe, in a fashion parallel to the way we accepted Einstein's model in
favor of Newton's model. That is, not everything in the old theory gets thrown out, but refinements and modifications will be made to better fit the
existing observable data. And then that theory will only hold up until we make new observations and tweak it again. This process isn't new, it's
been going on for over 500 years and will continue to go on, though not at the pace some would like to see, but as the previous poster said, science
has some good reasons for being somewhat conservative about abandoning old theories and accepting new ones. But when the evidence is compelling
enough, it happens.
In summary, I find a lot of interesting anomalies in the data, many of them worthy of additional research and the development of new theories. But I
look at all the evidence for big bang theory (with it's noted incompleteness and yet to be answered questions), and I look at alternative
explanations of the universe. So far, I have not seen an alternative explanation which is supported by existing evidence better than the big bang.
I have seen scary things like one professor of electrical engineering who obviously doesn't understand electrical engineering come up with some crazy
theories that don't make any sense, but fortunately the other 99.99% of electrical engineering professors and physicists do know how electrical
engineering works. I guess my advice to anyone who is not technical enough to read the papers would be to watch out for the one guy who disagrees with
everyone else. Every once in a while that one guy is right, the other 99.99% are wrong, like when one guy thought the earth revolved around the sun,
instead of vice versa, so I would not dismiss them completely, however I would be aware that probably most of the time, going against the 99.99% of
the smartest experts in the relevant subject matter isn't going to be siding with the team that turns out to be right.
[edit on 5-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]