We need to realize that we live in a Faraday universe in which there are scientifically observable effects – not causes. Causes are inferred. We don’t observe causes; we observe only their effects. So if we fail to observe one of its effects, or incorrectly correlate various effects with a given cause, we are left with an incorrect explanation of what is observed.
The redshift of distant galaxies is an effect that is observed; an expanding universe, a Big Bang, a surface of last scattering, dark matter, acceleration of universal expansion, and dark energy aren’t. Every hypothesized cause must remain suspect… always. That’s how the scientific method works
Causes are like excuses for behavior; the more you provide the less credible you become. One good one is all you need. Furthermore, proper behavior does not require excuses at all; an excuse is just a segment of a story; it is only of interest if the story of which it is a part is interesting. Normal aspects of an observation do not require the specification of their causes. We’re interested in the events of the video, not the credits. The name of a walk-on in a movie matters only to that insignificant person; he could have been an animated painting on the back wall for all we care. Don’t tell me a galaxy is moving away at half the speed of light; tell me what its redshift is if you must, but what I’m more interested in is how far away the galaxy is based on your chosen relation between redshift and distance, not your favorite bedtime story about how the universe began. Every version of every cosmological theory has a formula that relates redshift and distance; use it unabashedly. Specifications of the distance-redshift relation are more similar than you might think. If I want information about your particular excuse for redshift, I’ll ask. I am not a religious person; I want the facts.
Leave a Reply