About This Site

The Big Bang Theory postulates that the entire Universe is expanding from the enormous explosion of an infinitely hot and dense singular point of matter almost 14 billion years ago.  However this theory is based upon many assumptions.  The first of which is that the redshifts observed in the electromagnetic spectra of galaxies, quasars and other extragalactic bodies are the result of the acceleration of these bodies away from the observer.  It is also assumed that the higher the redshift of an object’s spectrum the faster its acceleration and the further its distance away from the observer.  It is thus further assumed that this acceleration is caused by the expansion of the Universe in all directions since the optical spectra of almost all extragalactic bodies are redshifted to some degree regardless of the direction in space observed.    For over 80 years this theory has grown in acceptance among astronomers and cosmologists to the point of ubiquity in the scientific community.  But what if all of these assumptions are wrong?  What if extragalactic redshifts aren’t caused by cosmic acceleration?  What if extragalactic redshifts  aren’t a true measure of distance?

There are hundreds of observable examples of two or more extragalactic bodies being connected to one another by proximity or visible attachments.  Of these examples, dozens contain objects with highly discordant redshifts.  In many cases these objects appear to be clearly connected by very short distances but the large difference between their redshifts supposedly indicates that they are millions and sometimes even billions of light years apart!   These discrepancies obviously preclude the possibility that the observed redshifts are a measure of distance based on acceleration.  The scientific community should be asking what is the cause of these discrepancies?  How do they affect the currently accepted Big Bang Theory of cosmic expansion?  But instead the discrepancies are being ignored or denied as even existing.

The purpose of the Discordancy Report is to report examples of discovered discordant redshifts to the public and the scientific community and present an opportunity to critically analyze the observations and hopefully nurture an interest in performing further observations.  Determining whether these discordant redshifts are indicative of distance or represent some other intrinsic value is critical to the future of the Big Bang Theory and could even threaten it with obsolescence.  But as they say, before you can disprove a theory you have to replace it with something else.

Shannon Sims

15 Responses to “About This Site”

  1. Johnnie says:

    Say – perhaps you should have a “support us” type button to donate you know ?? Good luck!

    • sbsims says:

      Hmmm…how much were you thinking of donating? 🙂 Thanks! Please see my reply to your other comment.

  2. D R Lunsford says:

    Hi Shannon,

    I have a comparison image of the Einstein Cross which is, by strange coincidence, exactly conformable to a tetrahedron in orthographic perspective. It is impossible for a lens to do that. A possible conclusion is that the four objects have separated from the core in a 3D symmetric way. Let me know where to send the image. Keep up the good work!


  3. colin says:

    Its all electrical see my website

    • sbsims says:

      I think I’ve visited fractaluniverse.org before. Have you just recently changed the look of the site?


  4. Hello,

    I am finishing off a series of posts on the topic of discordant redshifts which you might find of interest.


    • sbsims says:

      I am not sure why you are referencing the Discordancy Report on your blog. It is not a creationist site nor am I a creationist. But please allow me to correct a few assumptions you made in your post when referencing my post concerning NGC 4319 and Markarian 205. I am quite familiar with JPEG compression artifacts and would not perform analyses of images in that format. I used the uncompressed TIFF image from the Hubble site to perform my image analysis and saved the resulting images in PNG format to avoid any compression artifacts. Also the original image I used was taken several years after the first HST service mission though the bridge is still visible even in pre-SM1 images, as your own analysis shows. I have updated my post to include the information on image formats to hopefully avoid any future confusion.

  5. Jean Tate says:

    Have you had a look at “Galaxy Zoo: A Catalog of Overlapping Galaxy Pairs for Dust Studies” (http://data.galaxyzoo.org/overlaps.html)?

    There are a couple of thousand or so pairs of galaxies in that catalog, most discovered by zooites (the citizen scientist participants in the Galaxy Zoo project). Many have spectra, with two distinct redshift systems, or “discordant redshifts” as you call them.

    How can you tell a truly discordant redshift from a chance alignment?

    • sbsims says:

      Yes I am very familiar with the Zooniverse and have been a zooite for several years now! The majority of the SDSS images in Zoo 1 and 2 are of low resolution but there are a few gems to be found despite it being a catalog of overlaps.

      The simplest way to detect truly discordant redshifts is by spotting interaction between the objects via bridges of material or disturbances such as the entrainment of material. Also objects that exhibit high redshifts but whose brightness or size require energy outputs far greater than anything possible in known physics are discordant redshifts by their very description. If you want to see something truly interesting check out pages 158 and 194 of the overlap catalog rejections at http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/observe/PDFcharts/OverlapRejects.pdf. It is a real shame the majority of the rejections contain only one redshift or no redshifts at all. I am sure there would be many more interesting examples if all the redshifts were included for all the objects.

      I hope you have a chance to browse the objects I’ve posted here on my site. I’ve tried to show some of the best examples of discordant redshifts through a wide range of methodologies. Thanks for visiting!


      • Jean Tate says:


        Which are the top ten (say) examples of “objects that exhibit high redshifts but whose brightness or size require energy outputs far greater than anything possible in known physics”, would you say? I have a particular interest in objects which might fit your definition.

        Also, what is the “material” (“interaction between the objects via bridges of *material* or disturbances such as the entrainment of *material*”)? All we have is an image, so what we are seeing – in those images – is just light, isn’t it?

        • sbsims says:

          Unfortunately I do not have a top ten list nor have I found one, though having one would be quite convenient. However simple web searches yield several good examples. I myself have only posted one example, ULAS J1120+0641, to my website because it is easier to demonstrate discord between two redshifts than redshifts that are in discord with known physics and accepted cosmological theory. I have been studying an object that you might find very interesting: PKS 0637-752. It’s supposed distance of 6 billion light years, length of 2 million light years, and brightness of 10 trillion suns may place it at number one on the list and earn it a place on my website.

          As for the material, the light has to come from somewhere. Barring artifacts and aberrations that leaves stars, dust and plasma as likely sources.

          • Jean Tate says:

            Thanks. I’ll read your ULAS J1120+0641 page carefully, and look forward to you posting something on PKS 0637-752.

            The association ‘light implies stars dust and plasma’ (if I may summarize it that way) also leads to ‘which are all composed of atoms and molecules’ (again, a summary; a longer version would add ions and electrons). Do you accept that these atoms (etc) are just the same as those which chemistry and physics students study in labs? My guess would be that you do – it’s hard for me to see how your research would make much sense otherwise – but I thought I’d check, just to be sure.

          • sbsims says:

            Yes of course when I refer to stars, dust and plasma I assume they are made out of real matter.

  6. James says:

    Hi There,

    I’ve just found this site after doing a search for NGC 1097. I remember watching a BBC program called ‘The Sky At Night’ back in the late 80’s that featured the great Halton Arp. Being a complete novice at astronomy what he said on the program about measuring distances in the universe possibly being wrong made a lot of sense to me. He used NGC 1097 and NGC 4319 amongst others as an example of how super distant quasars appear to be connected to active galaxies on our own cosmological doorstep.
    Since then I’ve become interested in Egyptology also and here too I came across someone who thought “out of the box” his name was David Rohl. He suggested that the dates we have for events that occurred in the Levant during biblical times could well be wrong. He like Halton made a very good case for things to be looked at again sighting several periods that just didn’t fit into our current understanding of ancient Egypt and Israel.
    After several well known and well publicised Egyptologists casually dismissed his ideas he suggested that there was a hierarchy in the profession and that if you “rocked the boat” you were ridiculed unfairly.
    I believe this to have happened to both men, both of who were willing to accept that their suggestions may not be totally correct but enough doubt existed to look again at the facts.
    I believe we are missing something about quasars that could completely change our understanding of the universe and our place in it.
    I guess here is as good as any to ask a question (theory) that I have to someone who has the right knowledge.
    Could it be possible that Galaxies like NGC 1097-4319 are like gateways from other galaxies on the far side of the universe, and quasars are matter that has been highly compressed by super massive black holes in those distant galaxies and ‘shot through’ a type of wormhole only to appear at the end of jets from active galaxies closer to home? That might explain the huge red-shift AND the physical connection to the nearer parent galaxy? We’d be seeing something that was originally 11 billion light years away, but because it was instantaneously transported that distance to us we still see that huge red-shift as a type of fading image?

    It seems to me to make sense of what we’re seeing but could it be even possible?

    All the best, James.

Leave a Comment