An interview with someone who tried questioning the basic premises of modern physics;
http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html
Those whom the establishment can't refute or insult, they ignore.
As for Big Bag theory, when it was originally realized that redshift increases proportional to distance in all directions, it either meant we are at the center of the universe, or redshift is an optical effect. Since "tired light" was the only known optical cause at the time and the light didn't seem otherwise disturbed, the argument became that it's an expansion of space, not an expansion in space.
Because "spacetime!"
Which totally ignores the central premise of Relativity, that the speed of light is measured as a constant in any frame. So if relativistic space were to expand, the speed of light would have to increase, in order to remain constant.
Since this would negate the shifting of the spectrum, it means that two metrics of space are still being assumed, based on the same intergalactic light. One based on the speed and one based on the spectrum.
Since they are being related to one another, as explanation for redshift, the question should be, which is the numerator and which is the denominator?
If the speed were being used as the numerator, it would then be some form of "tired light" theory, but since it is an "expanding space" theory, the speed is still being treated as the denominator. The ruler against which this expansion occurs. Which makes it the actual determinant of space.
So basically, the theory falls apart on basic logical terms.
One way light does redshift over distance is as multi spectrum "packets," as the higher frequencies dissipate faster. Here is a paper, making that point;
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
Yet this would mean we are sampling a wave front, not observing individual photons that traveled billions of lightyears. Which raises the issue Mead discusses, whether quantification is fundamental, or an artifact of our devices.
Here is another essay, as entry in an FQXI contest, making that point;
