Dear Hilary,
I'm very interested in your ideas about the Big Bang, as I am also a sceptic, or on the fence so to speak. Unfortunately I don't have the scientific training to understand all your arguments. I've therefore sent this article of yours to a friend of mine, who is a Professor of Physics at Cambridge University. His reply follows. I'd be extremely interested for your thoughts about this, whether there is anything to disagree about, and so on.
Looks like the author is not quite at peace with the Theory of Relativity. She speaks of space as if it was an absolute thing. In Relativity there is no space as a solid object (albeit a vacuum), there are only distances between material objects, and each object has it's own local "space" and "time", which are Newtonian and hence nonrelativistic, i.e. "classical". Objects interact with each other by gravity and radiation, from which we infer these distances and the relation between their local times. This problem of z, if calculated using classical, ie nonrelativistic formula, is solved by the relativistic formula. But of course, other conceptual problems remain, like the "edge" of "The Universe" and its supposed expansion (and even supposed acceleration!).
She mentions Halton Arp - and if you remember, I sent you an article last May, with some analysis of his stance toward this sort of problems, in view of the newest NASA's James Webb telescope data. Here's it again (look up the section titled "NASA’s James Webb Telescope Threatens Big Bang Cosmology"):
Also, she complains about a circular character of theoretical concepts, but that is a well known thing in science and mathematics (hence the need for axioms). Uhh! A popular limerick comes to mind! Feynman would have a lot of work to do here.
