Big Bang Theory Dead? Good riddance

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet

More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic
redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

Caption for Crab Nebula.
Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its
counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The
intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is
impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies
not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

Mo
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet

More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift
is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

Caption for Crab Nebula.
Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its
counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The
intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is
impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies
not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

Mo
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

And a comprehensive list of his papers are he

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html

My god! Everything we observe and everything we know about Physics is
wrong!!!! Head for the hills!!!! Only this guy knows the TRVTH.

The good Doctor is a member of Natural Philosophy Alliance who presuppose
that anything after Newton is nonsense, and they seek to put Newton back on
top.
BY the way, Mad Fool, you realise Newtonian Physics is enough to explain
everything YOU DON'T KNOW about the Moon and it's effect on tides?
I don't have a problem with the Doctor. He's allowed to be wrong,
magnificently wrong, just like Velikovsky. He just won't get an experiment
on board a spacecraft though.





'Nuff Said

M S We can't go back to a steady state universe. Why would anyone throw
away the BB theory if he can't replace it with one that answers more
questions? Bert

Mad Scientist wrote in message le.rogers.com...
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet

More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic
redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

Caption for Crab Nebula.
Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its
counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The
intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is
impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies
not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

Mo
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html


You mean we are seeing the Universe through rose-colored gases?

Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes
Mad Scientist wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet

More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic
redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

Caption for Crab Nebula.
Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its
counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The
intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is
impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies
not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

Mo
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html


You mean we are seeing the Universe through rose-colored gases?

Double-A

Brilliant, which is more than I can say for the original.
If he can explain how his effect is independent of wavelength I'll be
impressed.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

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

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet

More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the
theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian
Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift
is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

Caption for Crab Nebula.
Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its
counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The
intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is
impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies
not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

Mo
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html


And a comprehensive list of his papers are he

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html

My god! Everything we observe and everything we know about Physics is
wrong!!!! Head for the hills!!!! Only this guy knows the TRVTH.


He says no such thing, what he really says is there is a 'new physics'
while misinterpretations and conclusions drawn from false theories are
wrong.


The good Doctor is a member of Natural Philosophy Alliance who presuppose
that anything after Newton is nonsense, and they seek to put Newton back on
top.
BY the way, Mad Fool, you realise Newtonian Physics is enough to explain
everything YOU DON'T KNOW about the Moon and it's effect on tides?
I don't have a problem with the Doctor. He's allowed to be wrong,
magnificently wrong, just like Velikovsky. He just won't get an experiment
on board a spacecraft though.


And here we see another attempt by Wally to smear and color science with
his inane ramblings.





'Nuff Said

Mad Scientist mumbled:
Wally Anglesea wrote:
BY the way, Mad Fool, you realise Newtonian Physics is enough to
explain everything YOU DON'T KNOW about the Moon and it's effect on
tides? I don't have a problem with the Doctor. He's allowed to be
wrong, magnificently wrong, just like Velikovsky. He just won't get
an experiment on board a spacecraft though.


And here we see another attempt by Wally to smear and color science
with his inane ramblings.

I thought you had no respect for "science." You really need to make up
your mind.

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument
on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me
at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite
me." -Dave Barry

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist mumbled:

Wally Anglesea wrote:

BY the way, Mad Fool, you realise Newtonian Physics is enough to
explain everything YOU DON'T KNOW about the Moon and it's effect on
tides? I don't have a problem with the Doctor. He's allowed to be
wrong, magnificently wrong, just like Velikovsky. He just won't get
an experiment on board a spacecraft though.


And here we see another attempt by Wally to smear and color science
with his inane ramblings.


I thought you had no respect for "science." You really need to make up
your mind.
Here is where Paul brings up one of his past projections on me and then
asks me to make up my mind about his own mind-game.

All you guys wish to do is have me argue incessantly and give evidence
showing why your projections and constant put-downs are wrong. I will
not involve myself in arguing why your ad hominem projections are wrong.

You only prove over and over again that you need help.

Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies,
'that's a crock of ****, where is your evidence'. Bob replies 'well the
proof is right here in this....', Al replies, 'the whole world knows
they were white, you are nothing but a pseudoscientist idiot'. Bob
replies 'well the proof is right here if you will only look...', Al
replies, 'there is no evidence there whatsoever, just because the Sphinx
has a nose which resembles all the black people of the day proves
nothing. Besides I asked for evidence, not 'proof'. So you know the
difference between proof and evidence? Probably not because you're a
quack.' Bob replies, 'If you will only look at the analysis and proof
done by experts in facial reconstruction, you will clearly see that the
face of the Sphinx is that of a black person' and this is the only truth
in the matter. Al replies, 'they aren't anthroplogists nor are they
experts, only quacks support idiot theories of Pyramids being built by
aliens, crop circles being made by aliens, polar shifts being caused by
aliens. You have no credentials, you are nothing but a quack and an
idiot'. Bob replies, 'who said anything about Pyramids or aliens or crop
circles?' Al replies, 'well you obviously believe in all kinds of
quackery to say the Sphinx depicts a black person and are going against
all of Egyptology and all of science proving that you rely on
pseudoscience and quack web sites for your proof.' Bob replies, 'who
said anything about relying on web sites? Will you look at the proof?'
Al replies, 'I don't have to, it isn't in any 'peer reviewed' paper is
it because it is pseudoscience. You obviously don't know the difference
between 'proof' and evidence because you are an idiot' Science has
nothing to do with truth.' Bob replies, 'but the proof is right here,
look at what the experts in facial analysis have said.' Al replies,
'what's next you are going to tell me aliens built the Pyramids and all
the science is wrong'. Bob replies, 'I said nothing about Pyramids nor
aliens, what are you talking about?' Al replies, 'You said aliens built
the Pyramids and are responsible for crop circles'. Bob replies, 'Is
this guy sociopathic or what?'

Mad Scientist wrote:
Paul Lawler wrote:
I thought you had no respect for "science." You really need to
make up your mind.

Here is where Paul brings up one of his past projections on me and then
asks me to make up my mind about his own mind-game.

All you guys wish to do is have me argue incessantly and give evidence
showing why your projections and constant put-downs are wrong. I will
not involve myself in arguing why your ad hominem projections are
wrong.

I did not make any ad hominem projections. I observed your behaviour and
commented on it. You, on the other hand, have made constant ad hominem
attacks against people who made NO such attacks against you. I have
repeatedly asked you for ONE post where Jay Windley insulted you and you
have failed to provide it. Perhaps you would also like to deny your
statements about puppet scientists who have no interest in doing anything
but arguing with your new theroies?

Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies,
'that's a crock of ****, where is your evidence'. Bob replies 'well the
proof is right here in this....', Al replies, 'the whole world knows
they were white, you are nothing but a pseudoscientist idiot'. Bob
replies 'well the proof is right here if you will only look...', Al
replies, 'there is no evidence there whatsoever, just because the

*snip*

the Pyramids and are responsible for crop circles'. Bob replies, 'Is
this guy sociopathic or what?'

If the conversations went ANYTHING like you are describing then you would
be justified in taking this attitude. However, if you read back over the
threads involved, the conversation is much more along these lines:

Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies, 'That
has not been proven, where is your evidence?'. Bob replies 'It's out
there on the web, go look it up.' Al replies, 'why should we look up
your evidence for you?' Bob says, 'You stupid sociopathic usenet kook,
all you know how to do is bark like a dog and fart.' Al say, 'I'm still
waiting for your evidence.' Bob says, 'I will not involve myself in
arguing why your ad hominem projections are wrong, you psychopathic
idiot'

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an
argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer
clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they
don't even invite me." -Dave Barry

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote:

Paul Lawler wrote:

I thought you had no respect for "science." You really need to
make up your mind.



Here is where Paul brings up one of his past projections on me and then
asks me to make up my mind about his own mind-game.

All you guys wish to do is have me argue incessantly and give evidence
showing why your projections and constant put-downs are wrong. I will
not involve myself in arguing why your ad hominem projections are

wrong.

I did not make any ad hominem projections.


You do all the time hypocrite. I won't bother being polite to you
anymore, it is pointless.


I observed your behaviour and
commented on it. You, on the other hand, have made constant ad hominem
attacks against people who made NO such attacks against you. I have
repeatedly asked you for ONE post where Jay Windley insulted you and you
have failed to provide it.


Liar. It was provided. Add me to your kook list, vote me onto your
kook list, and then killfile me, PLEASE, because you aren't interested
in debate or discussion, just smearing. Believe me, you and Wally
retard won't be missed.


Perhaps you would also like to deny your
statements about puppet scientists who have no interest in doing anything
but arguing with your new theroies?


Hardly, many scientists quoted by me already know they are right and
they aren't the puppet scientists of NASA that Wally retard was pointing
out.




Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies,
'that's a crock of ****, where is your evidence'. Bob replies 'well the
proof is right here in this....', Al replies, 'the whole world knows
they were white, you are nothing but a pseudoscientist idiot'. Bob
replies 'well the proof is right here if you will only look...', Al
replies, 'there is no evidence there whatsoever, just because the


*snip*

Don't you wish you could delete my post which shows how you and the
other retards in here operate? Too bad you can't.



the Pyramids and are responsible for crop circles'. Bob replies, 'Is
this guy sociopathic or what?'


If the conversations went ANYTHING like you are describing then you would
be justified in taking this attitude.


That is exactly how the conversations with you and the other retards go.


However, if you read back over the
threads involved, the conversation is much more along these lines:

Example: Bob says, 'The ancient Egyptians were black', Al replies, 'That
has not been proven, where is your evidence?'. Bob replies 'It's out
there on the web, go look it up.' Al replies, 'plagiarizer and a fraud needs to quote website

' Bob says, 'hardly, you asked me for a web site as evidence, why dont
you look at it?
Al say, 'you're a kook, killfile him, ignore him, he has nothing to say'

Bob says, 'insult me some more and you will get it right back' retard.


Twist what I wrote to back up your puerile claims and smears against me.
Its more like 'where is the evidence' Oh, well here is one web site
with evidence and analysis on it'. That website is quackery