Glad to hear it.
How can the scientific establishment keep promoting the big bang when their
Hubble constant is just (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/(mass of
electron) in each cubic metre of space?
Consider this:
Just forget, for a moment, what these Big Bang Codsmologists have been
telling us and lets look what the experimental evidence says.
The Hubble constant is found by measuring the redshift in light from distant
galaxies.
The redshift is found by measuring the shift in absorption lines in the
spectra of this light.
These absorption lines are caused by electrons in atoms in the space around
stars etc. taking this light and absorbing photons of certain energies.
The energy of these absorbed photons is proportional to their frequency and
the constant of proportionality is the planck constant.
Ashmore's paradox tells us that measured values of H are exactly equal to
the (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/(mass of electron) in each cubic
metre of space.
Where does this all this expansion come into it.
Visit my website at www.lyndonashmore.com
wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Ed Conrad wrote:

The Big Bang, the Scientific Establishment's theory of the birth
of the universe, is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense
in another of its vain, arrogant attempts to display its omnscience.

Just a minute, there Ed old boy. While I'm in total agreement
that the Scientific Establishment's theory of the Big Bang birth
of the universe is completely in error, I would hardly call it
"pseudoscientific nonsense"! It simply arises directly and
obviously out of a misintpretation of the Red Shift as being
due to a Doppler shift.

And while there are many examples of establishment science
being vain, arrogant, and attempting to show it's omniscience
with "plausible" explanations for any anomalous data rather
than making a serious attempt to get at the truth, I think
your broad brush goes way too far. That makes you little
better than them!

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!