Hello Chip

You may be right.

What I meant about zero is this.

Simply because 1000 papers say that the BBT is the standard, means zero with no evidence.

Observations take priority over any theory.

Years gone by, I said to many that, when we see deep into space over 13 Gyrs we shall see existing galaxies in varies stages and ages. I was told that would not be the case and that the images will show the birth of the Big Bang.

 Cosmology - Galaxies

http://astronomyonline.org/Cosmology/Galaxies.asp?Cate=Cosmology&SubCate=CM03

Astronomers Find Most Distant Black Hole

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613143238.htm

And yet in this link they assume that the big bang formed all this in just 700 illion years. Are they on drugs such as speed.

 http://www.stsci.edu/~mutchler/hdfs.html

Quote:

 A NASA Hubble Space Telescope view down a 12 billion light-year long corridor of space loaded with a dazzling assortment of thousands of never-before seen galaxies. The image has a striking similarity to the WFPC2's picture of the northern deep field. The full color picture can be used to estimate galaxy distance and ages

 http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/

Quote

Within the Hubble Ultra Deep Field there are approximately 10,000 discrete objects. The total field of view represents only 1 ten millionth of the total sky. Most of these objects are very small and likely have masses in the range of 10⁵ to 10⁷ solar masses. Note the mass of the Milky Way galaxy is 10¹² solar masses.

and yet in the same link they make statements like this.

Quote:

Thus, many of these objects are pre-galactic size lumps of material which are merging together to form larger galaxies. In this sense, this image is very much like looking back to our origins. Before there can be life, first nature must assemble matter in discrete units that we call galaxies.

They speak of the origin, the image does not show the origin, it shows existing galaxies in varies stages.

Most cosmologist, assume that the BBT is kind of correct and than proceed to look through those EYES. What they see is what they want to see. 

Harry Costas:

Hello Chip

You may be right.

What I meant about zero is this.

Simply because 1000 papers say that the BBT is the standard, means zero with no evidence.

I tire of this. No evidence? I give up.

Observations take priority over any theory.

Not exactly. One way this works is that some theorists develop mathematical and computational models and then see how they fit the observational evidence. Another way this works is that observations provide data and theorists work to determine a possible cause. If you're an observational astronomer, you work from observation to theory much of the time. If you're a research astronomer who's interested in cosmology, sometimes you work the other way around. Which is a priority depends on the type of work you're doing and the path you're following.

Can observation trump theory? Of course, provided it is independently verifiable and that it invalidates a tenet of the theory. If the theory can be modified to fit the data, then that is an alternative, as well.

 http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/

Quote

Within the Hubble Ultra Deep Field there are approximately 10,000 discrete objects. The total field of view represents only 1 ten millionth of the total sky. Most of these objects are very small and likely have masses in the range of 10⁵ to 10⁷ solar masses. Note the mass of the Milky Way galaxy is 10¹² solar masses.

 

and yet in the same link they make statements like this.

Quote:

Thus, many of these objects are pre-galactic size lumps of material which are merging together to form larger galaxies. In this sense, this image is very much like looking back to our origins. Before there can be life, first nature must assemble matter in discrete units that we call galaxies.

 

They speak of the origin, the image does not show the origin, it shows existing galaxies in varies stages.

No contradiction there.

Most cosmologist, assume that the BBT is kind of correct and than proceed to look through those EYES. What they see is what they want to see. [./quote]

No, what is correct is that many (not most) cosmologists assume ... If most cosmologists had the opinion you suggest, it would not be the accepted standard model. There certainly is room for observational biases. That happens all the time. But not the majority of the time. Instrumental limitations will affect everyone who uses the limited technology. Our technologies have limits.

Harry Costas:

Astronomers Find Most Distant Black Hole

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613143238.htm

 

And yet in this link they assume that the big bang formed all this in just 700 illion years. Are they on drugs such as speed.

While the size of this object and it's preliminary position do seem to be at odds, I don't see it as a case against the BBT.  The astronomers in the article didn't seem too concerned either.  Current research tells us that supermassive black holes can form as the result of the merging of galaxies.  Would it not seem logical that in an earlier, more condensed, universe that galaxies would collide more frequently?  That could speed up the formation of the quasar described in the article.

http://www.stsci.edu/~mutchler/hdfs.html

Quote:

 A NASA Hubble Space Telescope view down a 12 billion light-year long corridor of space loaded with a dazzling assortment of thousands of never-before seen galaxies. The image has a striking similarity to the WFPC2's picture of the northern deep field. The full color picture can be used to estimate galaxy distance and ages

 http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/

Quote

Within the Hubble Ultra Deep Field there are approximately 10,000 discrete objects. The total field of view represents only 1 ten millionth of the total sky. Most of these objects are very small and likely have masses in the range of 10⁵ to 10⁷ solar masses. Note the mass of the Milky Way galaxy is 10¹² solar masses.

 

and yet in the same link they make statements like this.

Quote:

Thus, many of these objects are pre-galactic size lumps of material which are merging together to form larger galaxies. In this sense, this image is very much like looking back to our origins. Before there can be life, first nature must assemble matter in discrete units that we call galaxies.

In everything I've read, the morphology of the outer denzins of the Hubble Deep Field, and Ultra Deep Field, are described as more primative structural types.  More irregular galaxies and newly formed spirals.  This is consistant with looking back toward, but not all the way to, the beginning.

They speak of the origin, the image does not show the origin, it shows existing galaxies in varies stages.

No one has said that we have yet found the origin, but, we are looking back a very long way.  Galaxies, being large concentrations of stars, are very bright.  It is easier to see the early galaxies than to see the scattered stars that preceeded them.  Just as it is easier to see cities at night from orbit than it is to see individual homes.  As our tools advance we will see more, and further, and dimmer.

I've asked this question before in this thread, or in another considering the same topic, if the BBT does not do the best job of explaining current observation, then what does?  Give me a viable alternative.

 Mr X  ===>  You  ===>  Mr Y  ===>

Jeff, consider that we are at Mr X "edge" and he is at our "edge". We know that the universe continues beyond his edge and can conclude, at least in our direction, that Mr X universe along this radius is doubled. Mr Y is also at our "edge" and it should be possible for him to double our radius and further expand Mr X universe.

What I am saying is this. If we can double his radius, why would we be so special that he couldn't double ours? When would someone not be able to double a radius? If we assume that those at the edge of our view are near the edge of the BB universe then we are saying that we are closer to a place of origin than they are.

The only way we can use Hubble's Law and Constant to determine the age of the universe (by calculating how long it would take for everything to come back together) is if we are near the actual center of it all. This is a bold assumption. If all the galaxies we observe are moving in the same direction at different speeds then the whole equation becomes a huge guess. If we truly are at the center then we should be able to find some evidence to confirm it.

The BBT uses Hubble's Law as it's foundation. The way to invalidate BBT would be to prove that Hubble's Law is invalid. I have stated before and illustrated that the motions of galaxies and our observations cannot be modeled using Hubble's Law unless we are at the center of the universe. Is the Vatican dictating scientific policy regarding cosmology?

Food for Thought

BQ
 

brooksquest:

 Mr X  ===>  You  ===>  Mr Y  ===>

Jeff, consider that we are at Mr X "edge" and he is at our "edge". We know that the universe continues beyond his edge and can conclude, at least in our direction, that Mr X universe along this radius is doubled. Mr Y is also at our "edge" and it should be possible for him to double our radius and further expand Mr X universe.

Your sketch has three observers, not two. But, for the sake of discussion, let's replace "You" with a point that represents the intersections of two spherical observable horizons. X and Y can observe that same point, but not each other. Therefore, neither can "know about" the other, much less that a straight line through one of them and that point intersects the other.

IF as you have done above, you put a third observer in the equation (the You)

ANDIF the observers have similar technologies so their observable horizons are the same diameter

ANDIF they lie on the same straight line

ANDIF the spherical observable horizons for X and Y intersect at You,

THEN the entire universe (assuming those three horizons are all of it) is twice the size that any of them can observe.

"You" can see the intersection points in each direction, but he can't see into the other spheres nor can he assume that X and Y lie along a straight line. "You" can only know what he/she can see. X can only see within his own observable horizon, so even though the universe extends at least twice that distance in the direction of You and Y, he can't know it. The same is true in the reverse direction for observer Y. Each of us can posit an increased diameter, but none of us can observe it (and hence prove it). Any of us could set some initial conditions in a model that would result in such an increased diameter, but we couldn't support the non-observable parts with observational data.

If you move the observers (centers of their own observable horizons) nearer one another, then each can see "into" the others' observable horizons, but the overall diameter of the intersections of the spheres is less than twice their own observable horizons.

What I am saying is this. If we can double his radius, why would we be so special that he couldn't double ours?

We can't, so the hypothesis is invalid.

When would someone not be able to double a radius?

See above.

If we assume that those at the edge of our view are near the edge of the BB universe then we are saying that we are closer to a place of origin than they are.

Assuming we have the spherical observable horizons intersecting other than at a point, the above statement could be true if we had a linearly expanding universe where everything is expanding in a straight line away from some central point. We can't observe this, since we can't see back to the beginning; nor can we see to the edge. That is, we can't know that we can see to the edge. Neither do we know the direction in which it lies.

We've described in earlier discussions that there are several components to any object's motion in the universe. When we look at the large-scale structure of the universe based on data from galaxy surveys, there does not appear to be any "preferred direction" to the expansion ... it is a general expansion "outward." This question may never be settled to your satisfaction unless we can find a way to get "out there" (anywhere far from here) to see if we really do observe the same situation from another spot. That is the theory we have.

The only way we can use Hubble's Law and Constant to determine the age of the universe (by calculating how long it would take for everything to come back together) is if we are near the actual center of it all.

That's not quite correct. If you had that situation then you might reach that conclusion based on what you observe. But even if you were far from the center, you might still reach that same conclusion if you observed a Hubble-like flow.

When cosmologists calculate the age of the universe, the Hubble flow is not the only parameter in their models. When you read the conclusions carefully, you'll see they refer to a "minimum age" rather than an absolute age.

This is a bold assumption.

I agree.

If all the galaxies we observe are moving in the same direction at different speeds then the whole equation becomes a huge guess.

That is not what we observe. We observe many different components of cosmological expansion ... that is, we do not observe a single velocity. Basically, we observe ALL directions ... that is, each galaxy has its own cosmological component of velocity, and they differ. They are not colinear.

If we truly are at the center then we should be able to find some evidence to confirm it.

We have no way of knowing what lies beyond our observable horizon. So how would we be able to confirm our location through observation? You can extrapolate and speculate ... as in the original thought experiment you postulated ... and you might well be right accidentally (however educated, it would still be a guess) but you could not confirm it with data (since you can't observe beyond your own horizon).

The BBT uses Hubble's Law as it's foundation. The way to invalidate BBT would be to prove that Hubble's Law is invalid.

That is an approach that has been tried again and again, by professionals who have means far beyond yours and mine, and it hasn't panned out. Yet.

I have stated before and illustrated that the motions of galaxies and our observations cannot be modeled using Hubble's Law unless we are at the center of the universe.

You have stated, but not illustrated or demonstrated. If you could demonstrate or illustrate that point, then wouldn't there be working cosmologists who'd already have done it? It's not a new idea ...

Is the Vatican dictating scientific policy regarding cosmology?

Not to denigrate the influence of the Vatican (after all, it is not silent on that point), but it doesn't dictate scientific policy in any broad sense.

Hello All

The Big Bang has no edge.

The Big Bang refers to the sudden ejection of matter from singularities through out the universe.

The expansion refers to space time and not actual distance.

There are many forms of the Big Bang. One that most think of is one Big Bang from one singularity. This is incorrect. 

 Jeff,

From Earth we see out into the universe and find that from Earth the universe appears spherical. I realize that we cannot know anything beyond our view from Earth. The simple illustration I made was another attempt to explain that even though someone far away may think the Milky Way is at the edge of their horizon, it actually isn't. I am merely trying to point out that although we think the universe is a certain size, there is no reason to believe that anyone, anywhere would know there is more beyond. It is a put yourself in their shoes scenario that could be considered scientific because Hubble's Law tells us that anyone anywhere in the universe would observe the same expansion that we observe from here. If you do not think we have doubled the radius of the observable universe for one of these edge observers then I do not know any better way to explain it. If you know of a reason why we cannot assume others may have the knowledge that our universe is larger let me know. The big question here is how many overlapping spheres are there out there and when do those spheres stop?

Cheers,

BQ 

BQ 

I understand. It's not that I disagree the universe is or could be larger than what we observe. I certainly think it is. It's just that we can't know it. Believing, postulating, calculating, and hypothesizing are very different from seeing and knowing, much less demonstrating.

So, we can't know that the universe is bigger than what we see, even though it may be logical to believe it to be so. Until observational technology improves, we're pretty much stuck with what we can see.

We can "add to it" a bit by extrapolating backwards in time, from reasonable principles (such as our current knowledge of nuclear physics) and find that will take us further back in time than we can actually see -- thereby leading us to believe (but not know) that the universe is larger.

We can speculate -- but not know -- that each of those other galaxies we see at cosmological distances could have an observable horizon equal to, or even greater than, our own. From that we can extrapolate that there must be more to the universe than we can see. But we can't know it because we can't observe it or test for it. Again, the principles may be solid enough. We just can't know for sure.

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that it works like you propose. I just want to make clear the distinction between speculating and knowing.

As to the big question ... who knows?

The current speculation is that there are roughly 12 billion to 15 billion galaxies within our observable horizon. By hypothesizing there could be an observer in each of them, with an observable horizon similar to our own, the diameter of the universe is thought to be about 150 billion light-years.

I saw a 3D computer model of the distribution of observable galaxies within our observable horizon. This was in a Swinburne University (Australia) seminar last October. For some reason, the overall shape of the universe extrapolated from that model was roughly a rectangular prism. I did not ask about the shape formed by the outer boundaries, and should have. I think it must have been either an observational bias (the galaxy surveys are not complete, for instance) or a limitation of the 3D spatial memory of the supercomputer used for the simulation.

Hello All

An alternative to the Big Bang is a recycling process that we actually observe in stars and galaxies.

The process can explain the reason why we see matter no older than 14 billion years. Everytime matter recycels the dating process starts again and again. This is why we see births and deaths of stars and varying ages.

The recyling process can explain all forms and processes that we observe without adding ad hoc ideas to make it work as in the Big Bang theory.

Harry Costas:

Hello All

An alternative to the Big Bang is a recycling process that we actually observe in stars and galaxies.

The process can explain the reason why we see matter no older than 14 billion years. Everytime matter recycels the dating process starts again and again. This is why we see births and deaths of stars and varying ages.

The recyling process can explain all forms and processes that we observe without adding ad hoc ideas to make it work as in the Big Bang theory.

What evidence is there of that recycling on a cosmological scale?  How would that alternative explain the accelerating expansion?  I believe that we see no matter older than 13.7 B years because that is the current limit of our observational tools.  The Big Bang doesn't preclude the notion of recycling.  In fact there are several variations of the BBT that include a contraction and new BB.

 Regardless of how big "it" is we are imprisoned on this isle which as far as we know, confines us to being the center of our part of the universe. Back to square one historically speaking. Just wish technology will find a way for us to know more...soon.

Lots of good info in this thread. Some facts, some truths and some speculation.

BQ 

Hello All

I do not agree with the Big Bang.

But! If you are going to discuss the theory than use it to the extent that the model was made for.

 Creation of a Cosmology:

Big Bang Theory

 http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

 Evidence for the Big Bang

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

Five ages of the universeFive Ages of the Universe

 http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html

 THE BIG BANG:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

Quote: 

"Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

• The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
• By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
• It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

• Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
• Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
• Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
• Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.

One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe."

Cosmological Timeline

http://www.organizationforlearning.com/Background/Cosmology/Timeline.html

 I may be biased because of my religion, but as far as I know, no explosion ,so significant that it birthed time and space itself, could ever be conjured without the aid of a Superior Being.  I like to keep my mind open to all theories, but the Big Bang, being how it is the most credible, is just one on how my God created the Universe.  "You must think of the Big Bang as an explosion of space and time as the birth of space and time"  Discover Magazine

 

TayEchoBeta:

 I may be biased because of my religion, but as far as I know, no explosion ,so significant that it birthed time and space itself, could ever be conjured without the aid of a Superior Being. 

I can appreciate that and have no problem with your believing it. But, as a matter of policy (see here), we don't discuss it at Astronomy.com, please.

Hello Techego

What you say is one reason why schools, churches and politics supported the Big bang.

Saying that, religion as chip would say, should be left out of discussion at this port.

Hi zachsdad.

Lets talk basics, you cannot have a bang of any kind without an atmosphere, to even talk about a Big Bang is rediculous as sound waves do not travel in space

Think about it!!!

DM

DavidMawer:

Hi zachsdad.

Lets talk basics, you cannot have a bang of any kind without an atmosphere, to even talk about a Big Bang is rediculous as sound waves do not travel in space

Think about it!!!

DM

If a tree falls in a forest . . .

Seriously though, I think the phrase "Big Bang" itself has caused much of the controversy about the event.  The word 'bang' instantly brings to mind the image of an explosion radiating out from a single source and propogating in a uniform and typically radial manner.  That's not at all what current theory holds, but, sadly there is no getting rid of that image.  "The Big Poof" is probably more accurate, but not near as sexy.  And the most accurate description of all the "Moment of Creation" starts treading on ground that makes many scientists nervous, as it comes very close to showing that there might not be as much difference in various philosophies as they would like to believe.  Whatever you call it, it happened, and while some try to understand how, other try to understand why.  For myself, I like both questions.

 95% of the people on this planet believe in some kind of a supreme being. Less than 20% believe in the current model of the universe that started with the BBT. I am one of the 5 % and of the 80 % which puts me in the spiritual minority and the BBT doubting majority.

The contradictions about what the BB actually was are confounding. The universe, as observed today, appears to be expanding, which implies an explosive origin. So... we cannot say it exploded and then say it didn't. If the BB happened at all it would have had to result in the expansion we see today. The expansion of all the matter in the universe from a hot dense state, starting with the tremendous inflationary epoch, followed by a gradual slow down and now an acceleration period is part of the theory. How something so dense as the mass of the universe at a "point" could expand is beyond physics. Nothing existed prior to the bang so whatever was in the "point" wasn't there before it "exploded". Reverse expansion leads us back to a denser universe, if we take this to the extreme we are back to all the mass of the universe in the same place. A place that cannot be located. 

The foundation of the theory is an expanding universe. We have discussed this at length and have suggested that if we can eventually prove that redshifted light can be caused by factors other than recessive motion, we might be able to get back on track with the steady-recycling universe (that is really out there).

The BB origin, the cosmic egg and the epoch, are fantasy and cannot be explained with physics. Saying physics did not exist at that time is not good enough to justify the event.

There has to be a way to isolate and measure the speed of the light we are seeing from distance sources and compare them to local light speed. There has to be a way to test the effect of intergalactic matter, gravity and other stuff to find out if they are causing redshift. 

We need to stop kneeling at the Hubble alter of political correctness and find the truth!!!

Cheers,

BQ 

brooksquest:

 95% of the people on this planet believe in some kind of a supreme being. Less than 20% believe in the current model of the universe that started with the BBT.

Here we go again with conjecture, or at least with unsupported opinion. If you can support these with data, please do so. If not, then let's agree that it's opinion -- not necessarily fact. I certainly can concede the point that "many" believe in a supreme being ... but it's irrelevant since we have agreed not to discuss that here.

I might be able to accept your 20% figure as a reasonable "guess" if you assume that a very large percentage of the people on this planet have no view at all on how the universe began.

... The contradictions about what the BB actually was are confounding. The universe, as observed today, appears to be expanding, which implies an explosive origin.

I'm not sure which earlier thread on this point you reference here, but when I talk about what some people call the explosion represented by the Big Bang, I try to be careful to avoid the interpretation that it was an explosion such as that we witness when a bomb goes off. It was an entirely different kind of event (since it created spacetime itself, according to the theory). What it shares with the kinds of explosions we're more familiar with is an general outward expansion after the initial event.

... Reverse expansion leads us back to a denser universe, if we take this to the extreme we are back to all the mass of the universe in the same place. A place that cannot be located. 

I agree, but saying that we can't locate the place is not tantamount to saying it didn't, or couldn't, exist. The reason we can't locate it is that since the theory says it created spacetime then that "point" has now become "everywhere."

The foundation of the theory is an expanding universe. We have discussed this at length and have suggested that if we can eventually prove that redshifted light can be caused by factors other than recessive motion, we might be able to get back on track with the steady-recycling universe (that is really out there).

Not so fast. You'd also have to propose a reasonable method for continually generating both mass and spacetime. The steady-state theory posits it without providing a mechanism. It also fails several other key tests. I would agree, however, that IF non-BB factors to explain what the BB calls cosmological redshift can be proposed and successfully tested, then we have a basis for an alternative theory. By the way, several have been proposed ...

The BB origin, the cosmic egg and the epoch, are fantasy and cannot be explained with physics. Saying physics did not exist at that time is not good enough to justify the event.

The fact that you do not understand or agree, does not mean that others don't. The BB is the current working model because enough cosmologists working in the field (none of whom are here at Astronomy.com) accept it on the basis of tested and validated evidence. I strongly disagree with your use of the term fantasy. The point is moot, however, since (as suggested above) this site is not a hotbed of activity among working cosmologists -- only (so far as anyone has admitted here) armchair philosophers and amateurs. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But be clear about what it is and avoid denigrating the work of those who actively research in this field.

It is completely okay to disagree with the conclusions, methods, and data developed and used by working cosmologists. I would just like us to be clear that it we are not among that crowd.

There has to be a way to isolate and measure the speed of the light we are seeing from distance sources and compare them to local light speed. There has to be a way to test the effect of intergalactic matter, gravity and other stuff to find out if they are causing redshift. 

This has been done and continues to be done. Perhaps I miscontrue: do you think it has not been, or that it does not continue?

G'day

If you use the Big Bang Model, the errors created would be duplicated.

People talk about expansion and give us all the maths to go with it.

Than we observe the images and find that there is no actual expansion, but the BBT says expansion in time space that we cannot see. 

I have spoken to many cosmologists who think that the BBT is in fantasy land.