BB wrong again....and again ....and again.

They seem to be going with B, "Galaxy evolution is more rapid than suspected", from the tone of the Hubble Press Release that is the basis for all these identical stories in the media. I find it frustrating to see how skewed the press release is toward the Big Bang theory in its current form. It's now routine to quote the 13.8 billion year age figure as if it is a proven fact. It saddens me to see astronomy going down this path, when they could have just as easily reported the findings without all the pro-Big Bang spin.


Gordon J. Hogenson

Perhaps, William Shatner said it best at the end of one of his Cosmic Odyssey narrations 01,2005…”maybe, just maybe, one day the Big Bang will become as quaint as the idea that the earth was flat”.

S=G

Also add this

www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-05n.html

"It's out, it's in, it's out, ..."

Note at the bottom of the article there is another link, which describes a test for dark energy.

Metagirl

The more I know, the less I know

If you remember the BB model of the universe is just a model-nothing else. It makes very little sense to get worked up over a model. If you don't like that model find another one that suits you. The flat world model has a few good points and so does the BB model. There are a lot of good plastic models that can be of use too.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />If you remember the BB model of the universe is just a model-nothing else. It makes very little sense to get worked up over a model. If you don't like that model find another one that suits you. The flat world model has a few good points and so does the BB model. There are a lot of good plastic models that can be of use too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The question always is if a model is conceptually and logically consistent. This is simply not the case for the BB theory as the concept of an expanding universe is a logical paradox.
When I was 15 years old or so, I found the idea of an expanding (may be even oscillating) universe quite attractive as well, but since then I have convinced myself that this is merely children's philosophy which is conceptually and logically flawed. The point is that the universe is not a physical object itself, but merely a collective name for all objects (whether factual or potential). Because of this, it can by definition not have any limits, neither spatially nor temporally. If it had limits (which obviously would be implied by the idea of an expanding universe), it could by definition not be called the universe as it would have to be contained in something else.
Of course, nobody questions the existence of the redshift of galaxies, but logical paradoxes like an expanding universe are not acceptable as a scientific explanation for this. As I have mentioned on my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm there could be other physical mechanisms than the Doppler effect that could produce the redshift. This may be difficult to prove theoretically or experimentally, which should however not be an excuse to adopt ad-hoc theories that are logically flawed.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

The redshift data seems real enough but how to read it is a puzzle. Those who believe in the BB model claim to know how to read this data. It seems to me this is the really big problem. The model twists the data. But, don't all models do that? How is one model any better than another? Most of what is being posted here is wrong too so why single out one silly model over another one? Use them all as best you can.