Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory

Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5761894.cms

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 5, 8:34*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what
they say makes sense, such as the fully formed
galaxies in the early universe, and their metal-
richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language
like crackpots usually have.

snip link now broken by Google.Groups

This is just posturing for the "camera". Have to wait for the paper
to come out to a place we can see it.

So far, observations only get us close to being a problem for the
Standard Model.

All the better for my pet theory...

David A. Smith

On Apr 5, 11:34*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-US-scientists-questio...

Lots of theories need more thought. Like these Earth flipping its
polarity. Photons changing speed Infinity Timelapses Age of
planets,and nebular Age of universes. Africa Eve Oort cloud
Electron cloud. Quantum gravity. Singularities Wave length of black.
Gluons Charge Just to name a few TreBert

On 4/5/10 10:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not
a scientific one!

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5761894.cms

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

This paper obtains an older age for the universe:

".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe
of some 14.7Gyrs...."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569

Maybe that can resolve the issue.

On Apr 5, 12:28*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not
* *a scientific one!

Exactly! Which is why these Heretics all need to be burned at the
stake for heresy! (or it's modern scientific equivalent)

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ntists-questio...

Of course, one reason for the "growing body of evidence" might be that
the stooopid "big bang" theory is entirely wrong and bogus! But the
establishment shall prevail!

On Apr 5, 12:49*pm, Benj wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:28*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not
* *a scientific one!

Exactly! *Which is why these Heretics all need to be burned at the
stake for heresy! *(or it's modern scientific equivalent)

Exactly? As much as I enjoy a nice fire, barbequed yumminess,
vegetarian or otherwise, your it's should be its. Do not commit
Linguistic Heresy. Please. Some of Hindus actually comprehend the
Languages. Not me, but we do our have moles.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ntists-questio....

Of course, one reason for the "growing body of evidence" might be that
the stooopid "big bang" theory is entirely wrong and bogus! *But the
establishment shall prevail!

I like the timesofindia website. Even when Racists -- who've lost all
their local jobs to outsourcing to said India -- post, it merely
requests a REPLY, not a REPORT or BLOCK. Indians, what you going to do
with them? Zero? Nada? 0?! Go ahead.

Not many Westerns realize 0! is 1. It's in their lack of being
educated brains washedness-ism.

If Westerns project their religious believings onto Science, than can
you really stop the Hindus, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mayans, from
doing one better? After all, this is Usenet, not C-SPAN, BBC, or NPR.

From Kudh to Kudha
From Self to Kudha...

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
I love my India/Earth...
I love|hate my Indians/Earthlings...
Notation is more relevant than spellings. Because I wrote so....Duh,,,

----- ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
message ...
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say
makes sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early
universe, and their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details
in their statements and a penchant towards flowery language
like crackpots usually have. --- Yousuf Khan

*** cit: ***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
- India - The Times of India "He also noted that CERN scientists
"are trying to jigsaw a theory which fits the conditions of the
Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years.
But there is evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there
were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been
billions of years old at the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says:
"There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the
Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion
years ago." -------- See: http://tinyurl.com/ye64gew

hanson wrote:
.....Yossy, Yossy, Yossy, when you mention "crackpots"
you should clarify that this terms is relative, 'cuz what is a
crackpot to some is a revered cult leader to others. Like
in case of Einstein who is to physics what Picasso is
to Painting. Both, Albert and Pablo, are crackpots to folks
in the real world, except to/for kikes & goyim kikeophiles
who prop them up & worship them as their cult leaders.

OTT, Yossy, you may be looking in the right direction
with your notion about this article. Indeed the CERN
folks will do anything to accommodate the data from their
experiments to placate and to woo and coo the hordes
of Einstein Dingleberries. It's the right PR and good for
funding. All religions, cults and ideologies work like that.
Your faint objection to such MOs is commendable, for it
shows that you are more than a bird in a flock of parrots.

With your notion of doubting the BB.... (whose adherents
never tell you what that "growing" space is expanding into,
& much less about what is left behind from that expanding
space when it contracts again)... you, Yossy, have joined
the growing number of folks who're abandoning the cosmic
expansion story... & you've returned, not to a static but, to
a tale, well, a theory, that likens the universe to a dilute
"gas" with regions of "evaporating and/or "condensing"
matter domains. The cosmic size is unknowable, as we
can only get info from as far away as the light walls do allow
us to, some 13.5 BLY away, from anywhere in the cosmos.
That view presents a cosmology that is, ....... well, Yossy,....
you finish the sentence... (It takes balls, Yossy, BALLS!)

It's your call now.. and thanks for the laughs. You are always
good for a chuckle, Yossy... ahahahanson

Benj wrote:
On Apr 5, 12:28 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not
a scientific one!

Exactly! Which is why these Heretics all need to be burned at the
stake for heresy! (or it's modern scientific equivalent)

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ntists-questio...

Of course, one reason for the "growing body of evidence" might be that
the stooopid "big bang" theory is entirely wrong and bogus! But the
establishment shall prevail!

No, we should instead listen carefully to slogan yelling dofus.

On 4/5/2010 11:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

Don't appear to be crackpots exactly, a couple of guys working outside
of their field acting like the obvious is some profound revelation.

Note where they are publishing.

Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5761894.cms