In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...
[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top Ten problems with the Big Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

Well, his first one is just wrong. A static universe isn't stable.

His sixth one is no longer valid. See
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...94n1/36650/sc0
..html for instance.

I'm no expert, so I'll just ask if dark matter (point 8) has anything to
do with the big bang. AIUI, it's something you need to stop galaxies
falling apart in any model.

Two (or three) out of ten is pretty good for an amateur in 5 minutes :-)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.