At www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/the-universe-is-not-expanding-an-a… … we have all been inculcated with the idea the universe began with a big bang event, an act of creation. This kind of pristine origin myth is a preferred explanation in various scientific disciplines. It provides the universe with a start date and a start mechanism (which can be argued about) and means that science is able to control and manage. Not too different, you might think, between science and the religions of the Book – the fact they have a similar shape and form merely displaying evidence that one usurped the other. Hence, anyone that says the Big Bang did not happen is in a way denying an act of creation, a beginning (and presumably a theoretical ending). As others have said, it is an idea derived from an earthlings perception – and view of space.
In the new notion, Christoff Wetterich of the University of Heidelburg in Germany, the universe does not expand – but the mass of everything has been increasing. What exactly does he mean by this? Could the Earth be also expanding in mass?
The paper, 'A Universe without Expansion' (2013) by Wetterich, is an outline of his ideas (probably not as radical as they are presented in this blog) which can be seen as an abstract at the arXiv preprint server. It was actually published in Nature (see doi:10.1038/nature,2013.13379) so see also www.nature.com. It is of course a model. Hence, it cannot be verified, but as the same story is at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/settled-science-shock-universe… …. which begins with the line, 'More settled science on the ropes' and quotes, 'these results are similar with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the universe was not expanding and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding universe hypothesis'.
For an outline of Big Bang consensus theory go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang …. where the key idea is that the universe is expanding. However, going by the comments it is clear that Big Bang is not the only game in town. One links to various EU sites on plasma cosmolog and another to http://milesmathis.com/ which is aimed against EU theory … However, it seems that redshift has actually been caught in the laboratory – see http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Is redshift due to dust in the universe, another asks – have we been honestly reported to (is red shift well assured, consistent, and predictable). Another quotes Van Flandern whoe listed 19 anomalies including spectra, absorption lines, location, density of charged particles etc. He said it was easy to make a case that very high red shift quasars are not at the cosmological distances implied when their red shifts are interpreted via Big Bang theory. See also http:/;/pgtruspace.wordpress.com/pictorial-schematic-of-divine/gravity-is-a-myth/ … and so on.