is there a center to the Big Bang cosmology?

Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team
of astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.
(something the Big Bang does not support) [The Hubble notion of
'everything' receding away from us (a proposed center) is a cute
concept, but unsupported by the evidence since the earth is inside of a
galaxy and all the stars inside our galaxy are by no means 'moving away
from us', and many celestial objects have been observed colliding. The
theory of an original starting point - translates into the universe also
having a center - which has never been found, and is generally dismissed
outright from the theory; despite all the counter evidence.]

Einstein gives us the cosmological constant to account for the expansion
even though he despised such a notion (his life work almost based on
trying to understand gravity) and called it his 'greatest blunder'.
Others than come along and add to the model seen already in Red Shift
data. Others then use the second law of thermodynamics which suggests
that the universe is increasing towards disorder to measure the
temperature and predict the origin of the beginning as well as to
predict the existence of a remnant signature which doesnt quite work out
because more distant objects get discovered and as per the rules of
Relativity - the 'beginning' date gets pushed back further and further.

Hoyle then comes up with the terms Big Bang meaning 'spontaneous
explosion' and/or 'spotaneous expansion' (depending on who you listen
to) and argues with all sorts of math to account for how the expansion
takes place using Einstein's theoretical cosmological constant and Red
Shift information as the backdrop. CMBR at this point had not even
entered the picture because they were talking about galaxies as
structures moving away from the earth, as if our solar system is the
center is the universe. Today CMBR is considered one of the 'main
tenants' of the theory and do you know why? Because the current math
dating back to the 60's is still in use today. This math employed
Planckes constant to predict CMBR, which has nothing to do with Hubble's
constant. As a matter of fact, the discovery of galaxies in the early
universe originally was a blow to the Big Bangers who had predicted the
wrong dates for the beginning of the socalled expansion. Since the
correlation between CMBR and the 'heat signature' of the Big Bang
occurred entirely by accident, clearly the astronomers and cosmologists
who first proposed a remnant heat signature didn't even know where to
look, thus it was obviously math pulled out of a hat. A best guess
scenario which got updated, discarded, updated, discarded, and yet
remained the 'big bang' theory ever since it got started.

Anyhow enough said, clearly the 'big bang' theory existed before Hubble
or Hoyle and discoveries merely get retrofitted into the theory rather
than the other way around. Another thing which confounds the theory is
the fact that the so-called 'hubble constant' (which is based on a very
shaky measuring stick) is speeding up. This speeding up was never
predicted to occur. In fact understanding of the big bang theory
proposed that the expansion would ultimately slow down, and stop and
then reverse into the 'big crunch'. Entropy rules here. The uniformity
seen in CMBR (COBE) is unaccounted for with large scale structural
implications in terms of massive order instead of disorder since the
CMBR (as per Big Bang theory) is considered the last gasp or entropic
final rest of the universes heat signature. This remnant heat signature
should according to the original big bang theory suffer a long lasting
but inevitable heat death. If Hubble is right, then the earth is the
center of the universe because 'everything' is receding away from the
earth according to the Big Bang theories evidence, and interpretation of
the Red Shift data. But we all know deep down inside that is patently
ridiculous right? Thus cosmologists when asked where is the center,
will tell you we don't know or there is no such thing trying hard as
they do, to escapse the inevitable logic of their own science.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team of
astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.


Not at all. The Magellenic clouds, for instance are gravitationally bound to
our own Milky Way.
Plenty of pictures abound showing galaxies interacting.

However, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU, the large scale expansion of the
universe is correct.

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...

Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team of
astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.



Not at all. The Magellenic clouds, for instance are gravitationally bound to
our own Milky Way.
Plenty of pictures abound showing galaxies interacting.

However, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU, the large scale expansion of the
universe is correct.

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Nope, just like fractals, astronomy and other parts of cosmology, I know
more than you ever will. Don't try to argue with your betters.



Please be consistent. Earlier you said you would not reply to me. That's
typical of kooks



Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...

Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team of
astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.



Not at all. The Magellenic clouds, for instance are gravitationally bound
to our own Milky Way.
Plenty of pictures abound showing galaxies interacting.

However, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU, the large scale expansion of
the universe is correct.

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

I couldnt help it when I saw your ignorance of the Big Bang theory. Had
to show the newsgroup how much of a fraud you are.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.


Nope, just like fractals, astronomy and other parts of cosmology, I know
more than you ever will. Don't try to argue with your betters.



Please be consistent. Earlier you said you would not reply to me. That's
typical of kooks



Wally Anglesea wrote:


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...


Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team of
astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.



Not at all. The Magellenic clouds, for instance are gravitationally bound
to our own Milky Way.
Plenty of pictures abound showing galaxies interacting.

However, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU, the large scale expansion of
the universe is correct.

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
I couldnt help it when I saw your ignorance of the Big Bang theory. Had to
show the newsgroup how much of a fraud you are.

Dance for me kookboi




Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.


Nope, just like fractals, astronomy and other parts of cosmology, I know
more than you ever will. Don't try to argue with your betters.



Please be consistent. Earlier you said you would not reply to me. That's
typical of kooks



Wally Anglesea wrote:


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way.
(even though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble
then 'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a
team of astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that
Andromeda is headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his
main theory.



Not at all. The Magellenic clouds, for instance are gravitationally
bound to our own Milky Way.
Plenty of pictures abound showing galaxies interacting.

However, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU, the large scale expansion of
the universe is correct.

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)


"One of the most amusing examples involves the determination of the
presence of a background radiation that is uniform in all directions in
the heavens. Some few years ago a couple of scientists, at Bell
Laboratories as I remember, received the Nobel Prize for the discovery
that there was an absolutely uniform level of radiation to be found in
the sky, regardless of which direction you happen to look. Homeostasis.
A flat, constant coldness at around 3 degrees Kelvin. The fact that
it was both smooth and exactly the same in every direction was the
killer observation that finally provided the ultimate proof of the Big
Bang origin of the universe. Or so they said."

"And then, a few years later, some super detectors were put up in orbit
with orders of magnitude greater sensitivity. You know what they
observed? That flat background radiation wasn't really flat, but had
undulations and unevennesses in it. The fact that it was, in its fine
detail, uneven and variable was then advanced as the ultimate proof of
the Big Bang."

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
news
Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)

When you plagiarised the following, where did you steal it from?



"One of the most amusing examples involves the determination of the
presence of a background radiation that is uniform in all directions in
the heavens. Some few years ago a couple of scientists, at Bell
Laboratories as I remember, received the Nobel Prize for the discovery
that there was an absolutely uniform level of radiation to be found in the
sky, regardless of which direction you happen to look. Homeostasis. A
flat, constant coldness at around 3 degrees Kelvin. The fact that it was
both smooth and exactly the same in every direction was the killer
observation that finally provided the ultimate proof of the Big Bang
origin of the universe. Or so they said."

"And then, a few years later, some super detectors were put up in orbit
with orders of magnitude greater sensitivity. You know what they
observed? That flat background radiation wasn't really flat, but had
undulations and unevennesses in it. The fact that it was, in its fine
detail, uneven and variable was then advanced as the ultimate proof of the
Big Bang."

Leave it to you to insult what is otherwise a deliberate lack of quoting
the source on my part, just to watch your stupid knee jerk reaction.

Plagiarizing refers to publishing, and Usenet is not a publishing forum.
There bucko. But if you insist on wanting to know where it came from,
it is a quote sent to me taken from who knows where, but puportedly by a
teacher at the University of Berkely.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
news
Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Wally Anglesea wrote:


SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)


When you plagiarised the following, where did you steal it from?



"One of the most amusing examples involves the determination of the
presence of a background radiation that is uniform in all directions in
the heavens. Some few years ago a couple of scientists, at Bell
Laboratories as I remember, received the Nobel Prize for the discovery
that there was an absolutely uniform level of radiation to be found in the
sky, regardless of which direction you happen to look. Homeostasis. A
flat, constant coldness at around 3 degrees Kelvin. The fact that it was
both smooth and exactly the same in every direction was the killer
observation that finally provided the ultimate proof of the Big Bang
origin of the universe. Or so they said."

"And then, a few years later, some super detectors were put up in orbit
with orders of magnitude greater sensitivity. You know what they
observed? That flat background radiation wasn't really flat, but had
undulations and unevennesses in it. The fact that it was, in its fine
detail, uneven and variable was then advanced as the ultimate proof of the
Big Bang."

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Leave it to you to insult what is otherwise a deliberate lack of quoting
the source on my part, just to watch your stupid knee jerk reaction.

Plagiarizing refers to publishing, and Usenet is not a publishing forum.
There bucko. But if you insist on wanting to know where it came from, it
is a quote sent to me taken from who knows where, but puportedly by a
teacher at the University of Berkely.


Liar, you lifted it from the Millennium Group pages.






Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
news
Ignorance of the Big Bang theory noted.

Wally Anglesea wrote:


SNIP, as everything following was a fallacy)


When you plagiarised the following, where did you steal it from?



"One of the most amusing examples involves the determination of the
presence of a background radiation that is uniform in all directions in
the heavens. Some few years ago a couple of scientists, at Bell
Laboratories as I remember, received the Nobel Prize for the discovery
that there was an absolutely uniform level of radiation to be found in
the sky, regardless of which direction you happen to look. Homeostasis.
A flat, constant coldness at around 3 degrees Kelvin. The fact that it
was both smooth and exactly the same in every direction was the killer
observation that finally provided the ultimate proof of the Big Bang
origin of the universe. Or so they said."

"And then, a few years later, some super detectors were put up in orbit
with orders of magnitude greater sensitivity. You know what they
observed? That flat background radiation wasn't really flat, but had
undulations and unevennesses in it. The fact that it was, in its fine
detail, uneven and variable was then advanced as the ultimate proof of
the Big Bang."