Strange

Indeed. I should have said "inaccurate", especially as I have said elsewhere that Newtonian theory is "not wrong"!

That is a different question. It was known that Newtonian gravity was not accurate even when Einstein was developing the theory (which, I have read, was part of his motivation). The anomalous precession of Mercury is the usual example. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html Since then, other areas where the Newtonian theory is wrong have been found. One of the earliest was the difference in the amount of gravitational lensing predicted.

I don't know if there is much point responding to this emotional rant but there are a few things which need correcting.... It is very common in science for theory to come first and then evidence is found to confirm it. Sometimes it isn't and the theory is rejected. You ignore the fact it took decades for enough evidence to be found for the big bang model to be accepted over the alternatives. As with all theories, it is constantly being tested, new evidence is always being looked for. People would love to show that it was wrong there would be great fame and massive prizes for anyone who did so. You have some emotional dislike of the big bang model for some reason. But that's just too bad. Anyone could come up with an alternative model and test it against the evidence. I'm sure this happens all the time and then they realise their idea won't work for one reason or another (i.e. doesn't fit all the evidence). All you have done is make up numbers and then use your misunderstanding of the theory to try and show that your invented numbers show the science to be wrong. That is not how things work in science. You can find plenty of papers which challenge aspects of the big bang model. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is so overwhelming the most they can do is make small modifications to the theory (like the addition of dark energy - based on exciting new evidence). You were making up fictional numbers and then asking for a conclusion. Without knowing on what basis you invented the numbers, how can anyone answer any questions abut them? (For any new readers, it is important to know that the question was based entirely on a fictional universe, not evidence from ours.) There are many possible causes of red-shift. Some of them may have been known earlier, but they are not relevant. The cosmological redshift was predicted in 1927 by Lemaitre and discovered by Hubble two years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law But, of course, it was decades until there was enough evidence for the big bang model to be generally accepted. That is often the case with radical, paradigm-shifting ideas. At any point evidence could have been found that contradicted the big bang model. But it wasn't. Today the evidence is overwhelming. But we might still discover something that shows the model to be fundamentally flawed. In which case we will have the (exciting) challenge of finding a new explanation for all the existing evidence. I suggest David hides under the bedsheets until then. But what is more likely is that we will develop a theory of quantum gravity that gives us a much better understanding of the early universe. And that may change the big bang model (as it has already been modified by theoretical and observational advances). Thanks for the compliment but I am neither especially knowledgable nor a scientist. (Although the only science research project I have worked on did involve the CMB.) That is possible. But I would be happy to bet it won't happen. No it is based on observations and knowledge of nucleosynthesis. Interestingly, much of the fundamental work on stellar nucleosynthesis was done by Fred Hoyle, one of the smartest and most outspoken opponents of the big bang model. (He gave it is name. He was also a good friend and drinking buddy of Lemaitre, the founder of the big bang model.) Er... Yes, according to the big bang model the early universe was different. The first stars would have been low (effectively zero) metallicity and therefore very large and short-lived. We begin to see some evidence of this in the most distant galaxies.

Because that is the only way we can draw any conclusions. Otherwise you can just make up any "facts" you like. Yep. That is what happened in our universe. Without knowing the cause we wouldn't have had an explanation for redshift, the CMB or any of the other evidence for the big bang model. In this case, it was theory (cause) first and then the evidence to confirm it.

I would rather discuss the Beta universe where a redshift of 1100 represents a distance of 13 B ly. And a redshift of 12 represents a distance of about 1,300 Billion Ly. Except on Tuesdays.

That is the process of verifying theory that you claim doesn't happen. You have just proved yourself wrong. Well done. Can you be specific? You will need to be more specific about that too. Sorry. But I will. Please apologise for accusing people of lying if you didn't mean it. It works, therefore it is not wrong. Newtonian gravity describes it as a force. That works, in most cases, and is therefore not wrong (in most cases).

But you are just making things up. That isn't evidence, it is fantasy. Also, in our universe we knew the cause of the redshift before it was found. So, what is the cause of the redshift in your universe? But, if they see all the same things that we do, then they probably live in a similar universe described by GR and the explanation for everything they see is that their universe is expanding. Nonsense. You are seriously in a fantasy world now.

What is the cause of the redshift in this? If you are just going to invent random redshifts with no cause and random distance with no basis in reality, then you are not doing science. It is just The Game of Thrones. (But less interesting.)

Why? What causes it?

With things like this, evidence shows that "personal experience" is the worst possible evidence.

In your fantasy universe, there is no expansion therefore no changing scale factor and therefore no redshift. How about this: in Alfa universe magic exists and all unicorns are pink (because they are redshifted).

Do you hav any evidence that scientific theories are not properly verified? Do you have any evidence that GR is accepted "because Einstein said so"? Do you have any evidence that scientists lie about their tests of GR? Not at all. But that won't make GR wrong. In the same way that Newtonian gravity is not wrong.

If you live in a different universe, then that might be true. But in this universe it is not true(*). You can't ignore expansion. You might as well say, "if we ignore the speed of light" or "if we ignore the fact we are humans" or "if we ignore the fact that this is a science forum". (*) as far as we know ... current best theories ... evidence ... consistent ... within margins of error ... further evidence ... yada yada

And so far, your experiments are consistent with that being the case. The experiment you have done to eliminate these causes (the glass jar) stopped the effect. As far as I am concerned you are "debunked" already. I see absolutely no reason to consider that anything extraordinary is happening here. You would need to provide a water-tight experiment that allowed no other influences before I would consider adding psychic abilities to the list of possibilities.

Thank you! We are all doing it now!

By the way: you keep talking about the importance of evidence and theory. This is one of those cases where the theory came first (with its prediction of what we should expect to find). When Hubble's law was discovered it was consistent with the theory, but not convincing by itself. Then various other bits of evidence were found, all consistent with the theory, so it got stronger. Then the CMB was found with exactly the properties predicted. That was the death of the steady state and alternative models.

Correct. It took 13 billion YEARS. At the time it was emitted, it was much less than 13 billion light years away. It is now much more than 13 billion light years away. You should find out how to calculate these distances and then you will gain a better understanding.

You are confused because you don't actually read. The article you quote from says: "Astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered seven primitive galaxies from a distant population that formed more than 13 billion years ago." That is time, not distance. The CMB was created 13.8 billion years ago and the source is 45 billion light years away. This has been explained several times before. Perhaps you should make sure you understand this before making more wild guesses.

OK. Let's use that information to calculate the distance, rather than making up numbers. The distance to the source of the CMB is about 45 billion light years. That has, as you know, a red shift of about 1100. That is about 100 times greater than the redshift of this galaxy. So the distance to this galaxy is about 45 billion / 100 = 500 million light years. Does that make sense?

What makes you think they are? Please provide some evidence for this.

No. I don't know what makes you think that. It seems like a good idea to reuse the hardware now it is there in the wrong orbit.

No. Please stop assuming that if you, personally, have failed to understand something then it must be wrong. The problem is with your lack of understanding, not the theory. We only know the CMB is redshifted from theory. You can't measure the redshift directly.

As the article says, that is "13 billion years ago". That is not the same as 13 billion light years away. The scale factor and red-shift are related to how far away the galaxies were when the light was emitted. The relationship between the light travel time and that distance is non-linear (because of expansion).

The satellites and receivers do make their adjustments automatically. By using the mathematics of GR. If GR were wrong then the results would be wrong and this would very quickly become apparent (very small differences would be apparent as noticeable errors in calculated location). Edit: Swansont's answer is much better (as always).

OK. So that is not what "theory" means in science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A theory is as far from "uncertain belief" as it is possible to get. That doesn't help. That refers to the wavelength of the radiation, which makes perfect sense. Whereas "wavelength radiation" seems to be entirely meaningless.