Regarding arguments against “tired light cosmology”:

Regarding arguments against “tired light cosmology”:

a. Wright argues: “There is no known interaction that can
degrade a photon's energy without also changing its
momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which
is not observed.” While it is technically true that no such
interaction has yet been discovered, reasonable non-Big-Bang
cosmologies require the existence of entities many orders of
magnitude smaller than photons. For example, the entity
responsible for gravitational interactions has not yet been
discovered. So the “fuzzy image” argument does not apply to
realistic physical models in which all substance is infinitely
divisible. By contrast, physical models lacking infinite
divisibility have great difficulties explaining Zeno’s
paradoxes—especially the extended paradox for matter. [3]
b. Wright argues that the stretching of supernovae light curves is
not predicted by “tired light.” However, one cannot measure
the stretching effect directly because the time under the
lightcurve depends on the intrinsic brightness of the
supernovae, which can vary considerably. So one must use
indirect indicators, such as rise time only. And in that case,
the data does not unambiguously favor either tired light or Big
Bang models.
c. Wright argued that tired light does not produce a blackbody
spectrum. But this is untrue if the entities producing the
energy loss are many orders of magnitude smaller and more
numerous than quantum particles.
d. Wright argues that tired light models fail the Tolman surface
brightness test. This ignores that realistic tired light models

must lose energy in the transverse direction, not just the
longitudinal one, because light is a transverse wave. When
this effect is considered, the predicted loss of light intensity
goes with (1+z)–2, which is in good agreement with most
observations without any adjustable parameters. [2,40] The
Big Bang, by contrast, predicts a (1+z)–4 dependence, and
must therefore invoke special ad hoc evolution (different from
that applicable to quasars) to close the gap between theory and
observations.
* * * * *
By no means is this “top ten” list of Big Bang problems
exhaustive—far from it. In fact, it is easy to argue that several of these
additional 20 points should be among the “top ten”:
· “Pencil-beam surveys” show large-scale structure out to
distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite
directions from us. This appears as a succession of wall-like
galaxy features at fairly regular intervals, the first of which, at
about 130 Mpc distance, is called “The Great Wall.” To date,
13 such evenly-spaced “walls” of galaxies have been found!
[41] The Big Bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on
scales of distance larger than about 20 Mpc, so there
apparently is far more large-scale structure in the universe than
the Big Bang can explain.
· Many particles are seen with energies over 60 ´ 1018 eV. But
that is the theoretical energy limit for anything traveling more
than 20-50 Mpc because of interaction with microwave
background photons. [42] However, this objection assumes the
microwave radiation is as the Big Bang expects, instead of a
relatively sparse, local phenomenon.

· The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and
antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter

dominates the present universe apparently because of some
form of asymmetry, such as CP violation asymmetry, that
caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left
much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this
asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can’t be
antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter
boundary with the intergalactic medium that would produce
gamma rays, which are not seen. [43,44]
· Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would
produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s
Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson
effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the
universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson
trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z » 6.1. [45]
Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly
appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed
by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56,
prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a time when
the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover,
if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their
emission would have been absorbed by the surrounding
hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. [34] So
the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the
theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG
0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host
galaxy appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in
the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong enough to ionize the
intergalactic medium. [46]