S.Ingvar

Big bang is a misinterpretation of the spectral lines' redshift which is an entropy displacement effect that force the radiation's energy towards equilibrium. This entropy law is the same for electrodynamics (as light) and hydrodynamics (as water) and aerodynamics (sound). But the constant's size depends on the matter. Se example on http://www.theuniphysics.info Ingvar, Sweden

On this webpage you can find many "good explanations of astronomy stuff" as well as new insights about the whole physics. http://www.theuniphysics.info Ingvar, Sweden

There are many reasons to write articles that support the "holy scripture". Here is one economical example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize Another reason is that if you follow your intellecually sound common sense but not the consensus canon, your questioning is not accepted, and your articles -- even emprical based on understandable experiments and observations -- will not be accepted for publication. You will also be banned from debate forums. Anyhow, the big bang interpretation is a hypothesis that help to explain the spectral lines expanded wavelengths. The only known idea was the Doppler shift, that Edvin Hubble multiplied with the speed of light. There was no problem when the redshift was lower than 100%. But today redshifts are up to z=6 (600%). It forced the big bang theorists to invent new help-hypotheses that make astronomy and astro-physics complicated and impossible to understand. My experience is that the big bang hypothesis is a hinder for new facts that can give the right explanation. I have made some interesting experiments that demonstrate that the same natural phenomenon explains the light’s redshift and the waterwaves' expanding and even the frequency shift of the sound with the distance (a new discovery). You can see pictures and diagrams from my experiments at http://www.theuniphysics.info Mathematical analyses show that Max Planck and Edvin Hubble have found the same radiation entropy phenomenon about how energy is dissipating towards equilibrium; but they made different interpretations. This is not my hypotheses. This is what the analyses and the facts and the history of science say. Read for example the history at Planck's Nobel Lecture at http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play on formulae, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on a sound physical conception. In this case the quantum of action must play a fundamental role in physics, and here was something entirely new, never before heard of, which seemed called upon to basically revise all our physical thinking ... Ingvar, Sweden