Dear Pluto,
I have not yet checked all your websites but I can give you a part answer already. I will deal first with the irritating points then with your really interesting comment about galactic evolution.

Like you I oppose the Big Bang 100% – and I totally agree that it is propped up by perverse ideological, religious and political motives. In this case though it is vital that we critique our own arguments fully. For example Arp – or Lerner for that matter – can only be respected inasfar as he makes sense; it is beholden on us to hunt out the difficulties and potential – not just the actual – paradoxes lurking in any thinker’s writing. This of course also applies to Olbers and to you and me.

Hence one cannot dismiss Olbers’ compelling and factually-based logic as a mere “old fantasy idea.” In order to uphold an infinite universe – i.e. infinite in space and time and matter content, one has to come up with a conception of the universe to explain away Olbers’ Paradox. Arp has not put forward a model to achieve this; Lerner rather ducks the point but is more aware of the paradoxes than Arp.

The basic riposte to Olbers’ position is galactic recession itself. The night sky is not bright because the redshifting of galaxies lengthens the wavelengths of photons into the microwave range, leaving the night sky dark. That galaxies are receding from each other is in no way proof that all galaxies and everything else began as Big Bang – this latter is an erroneous extrapolation unjustified by the evidence. But this evidence is galactic recession itself and the increasing redshift of increasingly distant galaxies is backed by plenty of research. The brightness of fixed candle stars e.g. classical Cepheids, the angular size of galaxies themselves, the brightness of supernovae within galaxies – all indicate that galaxies are mutually receding from each other, although the mechanism is not understood. Lerner’s comments about the ideas of Winston Bostick are the best I have come across.

Of course, a few galaxies may be approaching us for a while e.g. Andromeda,but we can no more extrapolate a collision with that galaxy as we can extrapolate to a Big Bang!

Much more interesting is your comment about Hubble and the supposed evolution of galaxies from elliptical to spiral. As you correctly note, mainstream astrophysics now claims the opposite i.e. spiral to elliptical. However, both these views I consider mistaken.

Spectroscopic characteristics of spirals and ellipticals are quite different. Spiral galaxies comprise mainly type 1 stars which have high metallicity i.e. lots of elements heavier than helium or boron. In contrast elliptical galaxies comprise primarily type 2 stars which are of low metallicity. The vortex mechanism that leads to galaxy formation is stronger in spiral galaxies – this is why they are spirals, though this also applies to irregular galaxies and open clusters. The stronger vortex mechanism in the early spiral galaxy leads to the formation of very large type 2 stars, which, as they evolve, become type 1 stars because they quickly form heavier elements. Such very large type 2 stars do not occur in ellipticals so the stellar populations there remain at the type 2 stage, never converting to high metallicity stars.

Hence the spectroscopic difference between type 1 and type 2 stars – and their differential galactic distribution between spirals and ellipticals – essentially makes it impossible for one type of galaxy to evolve into the other. I exclude dwarf ellipticals of course as these are often a by-product of spiral galaxy formation – as are globular clusters, which also comprise type 2 stars. I rather suspect that the claim of “back and forth” evolution of spiral and elliptical galactic forms is rather generated by holding onto the belief in a static Arp-like universe.

Please consider these new thoughts. I will post back when I get through all the websites you kindlily provided. I look forward to your next communication in the meantime.

Yours faithfully

Mark