![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CMBR? Not in the Big Bang Universe. | Max Keon | Astronomy Misc | 10 | November 17th 03 08:32 PM |
Most Distant X-Ray Jet Yet Discovered Provides Clues To Big Bang | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 17th 03 04:18 PM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |
Big bang question - Dumb perhaps | Graytown | History | 14 | August 3rd 03 09:50 PM |