Edwin Hubble's observation about the spectral redshift from nearby ``nebulae'' (galaxy 10 Mpc), published in 1929 got interpreted in terms of an ``Expanding Universe'' and eventually the ``Big Bang Model''.
This interpretation however relied on the assumption that those redshifts were due to recession of the nebulae, and
z=v/c
In principle, redshifts could be of non kinemetical origin, and due to some tired light effect. Many ``tired light effect'' origin of cosmological redshifts have been proposed by noted physicists such as Max Born and Luis de Broglie;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1981NCimL..32..351C
But here my intention is not to discuss theories of ``tired light'' redshift; but on the other hand, I would like to share the Associated Press news that Hubble himself doubted the Big Bang Hypothesis:
``Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble says that after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory, according to the Associated Press. “The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.''''
http://ladailymirror.com/2011/12/31/hubble-no-evidence-of-big-bang-theory/
Incidentally, the question, whether the universe is really expanding or not, is very much alive particularly in view of the fact that the cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts, supposed to be one of the best probes of the cosmic structure do not show any evidence for the time dilation associated with the hypothesis of ``Expansion of Space''. In fact, static models fit the GRB data better:
``Is the Universe Really Expanding?''
