Common interpretations of astronomical observations are presented here followed by divergent interpretations sympathetic to the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe Theory in italics. This is to demonstrate that sometimes what is initially assumed, may not always be correct. Frequently there are multiple possible expanations for phenomena.

Interpretation of the red shift of light from distant galaxies is the key issue in the strange origin of the universe debate. Hubble who found this in the 1920,s did not believe it was due to Doppler recession and expansion of the universe but to some 'hitherto unknown factor.' Nevertheless the Hubble Constant, the result of his labours, was expressed as kilometres per second of recessional speed, per megaparsec of distance to the emitting galaxy.

Observations can often be interpreted in two ways one by Doppler leading to recession and the Big Bang and one by loss of momentum suggesting a non expanding stable universe. Big Bang theorists devised esoteric theories which could not be argued. They even altered the facts to fit the expanding theory as in the Webb observations.

Ohlber's Paradox : The night sky would be ablaze with light as brilliant as the sun. Everywhere one looked there would be a star therefore the universe was finite. The band of the visible light is only one octave out of about 25. In a couple of billion years the visible band would be red shifted to the infra red, and EM radiation from higher energies red shifted would be of lesser density than the light it replaced.

The red shifting of light from distant galaxies is due to the Doppler effect and all galaxies are receding from a point in time and space which thus was an origin. It could also be due to loss of momentum of the photon. Once the speed of recession of a galaxy exceeded the speed of light it was then described as emitting light in an expanding space time which started expanding at the same time as the matter. If then it was expanding too fast was it expanding at all? Its resulting red shift gave a measure of its distance but it was not moving?

The Big Bang Theory has many problems. The kinetic energy of the receding galaxies which increases according to the square of the velocity makes the expanding universe theory ridiculous. Where does this enormous energy come from? What chance does gravity have of halting the expansion as the velocity increases with gravity decreasing as the square of the distance. There can be no eventual reversal of expansion and 'crunch' or is there some way of altering the facts? Or just ignoring this. A strong case for assuming a static stable universe theory.

The cosmic microwave background radiation, when discovered in 1965, was seized as the relic of the Big Bang and became the lynch pin of the theory. The creation was almost infinitely hot and dense allowing element abundance of helium and other elements to be explained to fit with observations. The hole left in the EM radiation spectrum created the insoluble problems of dark matter and then dark energy. The CMB is the image of cold matter we know to be there which is at the base coldness radiating at 2mms and kept warm by starlight. It is thus not red shifted.

The red shifting of light from distant galaxies discovered by Hubble in 1925 was assumed to be due to the Doppler effect which by extrapolation backwards in time gave an expanding universe accelerating in a distance related fashion from a creation. It suited Lemaitre an astronomer and priest who had earlier seen the universe arising from a primordial atom which was somewhat supernatural but acceptable where it has stayed until given the dramatic title 'The Big Bang' by Hoyle in 1952. There was always another interpretation of red shifting based on the Compton experiment where photons colliding with charged particles were deflected but were red shifted at the same time. This was described by the disparaging term as 'tired light'. It was abandoned since it did not lead to a beginning which was thought to be need. It implied an infinite universe and stable in matter, space and time. If the assumption that light could be red shifted by loss of momentum then no further insuperable problems were likely in cosmology. The Big Bang still needed a natural beginning and an expanding force.

The Sunyaev Zeldovich effect where the CMB is blue shifted where it comes from the region of galaxy clusters. The original paper considered the blue shifting was due to reversed Compton scattering but it was soon interpreted as ripples in the primordial cloud soon after the Big Bang confirming the origin of the CMB and was thus used to support the finite universe. The photons of the CMB are blue shifted (warmed) by higher energy photons, more where it is hotter. This could be interpreted as support for the notion that the CMB is isotropic while responding to heating and cooling effects. It is accepted that cosmic rays are absorbed on the CMB.

The Paradox of Professor John Webb.The light from distant quasars has spectral lines displaced requiring variation in the constant alpha, the fine structure constant which comes into the equation which defines the exact position of spectral lines. A group of identifiable metals' spectral lines appeared to be different 'earlier on in cosmological time'. The effect is minute and only visible in very distant galaxies. It is undisputed but unexplained except by assuming the constants (including e the charge of the electron and c the speed of light) making up alpha.

The differential frequency red shifting of non Doppler tired light would solve this: it could not happen with recessional red shifting. The paradox remains after 12 years. Ignoring this finding which goes strongly against an expanding universe is similar to the Cardinals declining to look in Galileo's telescope at Jupiter's moons.

The cyanogen proof of the origin of the cosmic microwave background radiation and its red shifting due to expansion, proving that the CMB radiation has decreased over cosmic time. The temperature of rotation of the cyanogen molecule from the spectra of distant quasars at Z=1.78 is accurately known and assumed to be the same as the CMB temperature at this epoch and 'calculated' at 7.4 degrees K. This shows red shifting over this time but the CMB being the temperature of cold matter is isotropic and is not red shifted, the calculation is wrongly made. It is made assuming the Big Bang which it is then used to prove. The nature of the CMB is a key to the theory but can be challenged using another analogy perhaps a little more apposite. The CMB can be likened to the bottom of a murky pool, all types of sediment eventually sink and cannot gravitate further. Here they form a definite layer which is stable and regular.

Elements as for carbon and the isotopes of lithium Li6 and Li7 is a problem and a radical solution has been called for.

Perhaps fragmentation of a neutron mass as from an exploding black hole could explain element abundance better, an exercise not yet conducted.

Concluding, loss of momentum implies a constant distance to a red shift a standard amount say Z=1=halving the frequency. It would be several billion light years, may not be a constant for all frequencies and could not happen for red shifting by expansion. The formula where the frequency of light is halved has been used for the value of Z. This is not the Steady State theory of Hoyle which accepts Doppler and expansion but requires matter to be constantly created.

The Hubble constant would be zero and there would be no cosmological constant. The distance which red shifts light by Z=1 could be calculated using the same findings used to estimate the Hubble constant.

The answer is in intergalactic space and not available to experiment, it would be better to assume non Doppler tired light than to accept a moment of creation of matter, space and time, and thus expansion at unrealistic velocities.

Challenge using only standard physics has a certain appeal. The Big Bang Theory has been so dominant and new observations are still being forced to fit new postulates – think of inflation, dark matter with no apparent image, dark energy, expansion of space time, the singularity and the whole zoo of hypothetical particles. It needs more rigorous scrutiny and it is holding up progress. It was always only a theory and its supporting theories are all outside standard physics. The laws or nature ought to be the same throughout.