[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

If the Big Bang Theory and the Red Shift system have been discredited, is it time for scientists to rethink theories that they have accepted?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[PhysBang]

Yes, if that happened, then yes. But it hasn't happened. Not by a long shot. Indeed, if someone tells you that it has happened, that's a good symptom by which to tell not to trust such a person.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Yes, if that happened, then yes. But it hasn't happened. Not by a long shot. Indeed, if someone tells you that it has happened, that's a good symptom by which to tell not to trust such a person.

How long has it been you checked this out?  Some rather reputable people have suggested that the Big Bang is wrong and the Red Shift measurement is faulty.  I have no fixed opinion but I am questioning current knowledge.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Geezer]

Joe: In the past, many "rather reputable people" have come up with stuff that turned out to be wrong. I think it's great that people are bold enough to challenge "conventional" thinking. Without that, I don't think science would move forward.

However, until someone provides testable evidence, it is an opinion (science seems to have many different words for an opinion).

[PhysBang]

How long has it been you checked this out? 

Pretty much every day for the last decade.

[Bored chemist]

"Some rather reputable people have suggested that the Big Bang is wrong and the Red Shift measurement is faulty.  "
I believe the traditional reply is "citation needed".

In any event, if problems are found with the big bang then it's more likely that the theory will be modified, rather than slung out.
Some theories may need to be revisited but exactly which ones would depend on what had been shown to be wrong with the big bang idea,

[Madidus_Scientia]

Doesn't the wavelength of the cosmic microwave background radiation confirm the redshift measurement?

[Soul Surfer]

The current model of the early stages and subsequent evolution of our universe (rather badly named "the big bang" ) is far more than just a singe set of red shifts of galaxies and distance inferences.  It involves several sets of largely independent measurements of different types of object at different frequencies.  It also involves a consistent model  describing the quantities of elements in the universe and how they change with time, the sizes origins and and development of stars and galaxies and a great deal more besides.  It's just about as solid as it can be any different approach must cover all these aspects to gain any sort of credibility.

[yor_on]

And Wmap

[PhysBang]

And Wmap

Please, no wikipedia if it isn't necessary.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/