Big Bang theorists cheat

Tommy, The big bang is a model not the universe. They or you and I can do anything with models that can or can't be done in real events without cheating. Bigbang modelers are attempting to learn about the universe and the same can be said about other models you say about these guys.

Well, either the authors of the below are correct, or they are cheating...

Redshift quantization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Redshift quantization, is the hypothesis that the redshifts of cosmologically distant objects (in particular galaxies) tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value. Since there is a correlation of distance and redshift as expressed in Hubble's Law, redshift quantization would either indicate a quantization of the distances of galaxies from the Earth or a problem with the redshift-distance correlation either of which would have serious implications for cosmology. In particular, many opponents of the Big Bang including Halton Arp [1], a number of creationists, and even geocentrists have referred to such observations as reason to reject the standard account of the origin and evolution of the universe [2].

The first researcher who claimed to observe such a clustering was William Tifft. Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence of quantization [3], and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to galaxy clustering.

The authority you have choosen as your rock to build upon has feet of clay. Everything they have is donated by people who are working from models. The models have some value but people confuse models with real things all the time.

You are missing my point. Let me say it again --

Not saying that Wikipedia is any kind of authoritative source, but it is a good indicator of the state of the art of deception.

"...and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to galaxy clustering."

You know, it is hard enough to ascertain what the scientific position on any subject is, but much of that so-called science is an outright lie. And it isn't the originating scientist who is lying, it is mainly those who leap to their own conclusions and then twist the originators comments around to fit thosew conclusions.

Science is not democratic at a time. A long time is necessary certify the validity of a new theory, the scale of time being given by the decrease of the number of sceptics.

"New theory" is ambiguous; It may be used for:
- a theory resulting from a combination of old theories (by mathematics for instance), with possibly a change of the parameters in a generally allowed field. In this case, "new theory" should not be used.

- a theory which needs new hypothesis.

It seems like there is general agreement about how things are. Its just too bad science is so dogmatic about really dumb things. The BB is a classic example and so is the fusion theory. How come no body questions the fusion theory sinne nothing has come from it despite the untold billions of dollars spent chasing the dream it promises. Why is it assumed stars are powered by fusion? There are lots of other examples of dogmatic behavior in science.