I think the last point you brought up was what really got me thinking that the current assumptions about the Big Bang Theory are wrong. It was when they showed that image from the Hubble Deep Field a few years back. According to the theory, what was shown shouldn’t have been there. It showed fully formed, mature galaxies, not a proto-universe. Galactic formation, just based on the fact that the speed of light is the max speed things can go at, says that there wasn’t enough time for the universe to coalesce into what we clearly observe today.
For that to not be front page news told me that there is either huge groupthink in the wider physics community or that people are holding on to the current concepts because they can’t believe guys like Hubble and Lemaitre might be wrong. There are too many anomalies.
As a physics “smatterer,” as Newton would put it, I don’t have the background to really back up any of my personal feelings on this. But I wonder now about dark matter, interstellar plasma, and gravitational lensing, and its effect on how we gauge the redshift of objects. Can we be so certain that the apparent redshift is telling us the truth? If electromagetic/electroweak forces hold much more sway over the universe that previously thought, and light itself is an electromagnetic phenomena, do we really know how to figure the effect on light by these forces over extremely large distances?
