"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do."
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Peace
:)
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do."
http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Peace
:)
Vastaukset 7
Vanhimmat
Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org
www.earthtech.org
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
...
Kerrotko mitä AVARUUSteleskooppi Hubblella tutkitaan? Nanomenninkäisiäkö?
Kerrotko mitä AVARUUSteleskooppi Hubblella tutkitaan? Nanomenninkäisiäkö?
Kappas vaan. Yksitoista vuotta vanha huuhaapaska ja ei vieläkään vahvistettu.
Tähän voisi todeta kuten Eisntein, kun natsit olivat koonneet sadan fyysikon allekirjoitukset paperiin, jossa todettiin suhteellisuusteorian olevan väärä.
"Miksi sata, kun yksikin olisi riittänyt?"
Oletko todellakin niin typerä, että uskot jonkun huuhaasivuston väutteisiin BB:n kumoamisesta etenkin, kun väite on esitetty jo toistakymmentä vuotta sitten, eikä tiedemaailma ole korviaan lotkauttanut.
Nuo "rensen" jutut ovat samanlaista huuhaata kuin sinunkin keksintösi.
Miten BigBang-uskovaiset kumoavat Robert MacKay'n ja Colin Rourke'n laskelmat , joiden mukaan pimeää ainetta tai energiaa ei tarvita minkään ilmiön selittämiseen ja galaksien näennäiset kiihtyvät etääntymisetkin voidaan selittää gravitaatiolinsseillä, jotka täten tukevat enemmän Steady State kuin Big Bang mallia?
Näennäiset kiihtyvyydet ehkä, mutta sekin on vain todistamaton hypoteesi. Laajenemista ja BB:a nuo laskelmat eivät kumoa mitenkään. Stedy State malli meni Hoylen mukana hautaan.
Eihän tavisten tarvii tollasia mitenkään kumota. Jos herrojen, Robert MacKay ja Colin Rourken, laskelmat pitävät paikkansa, ja faktat on kohdillaan, niin älä huoli, meillä on kohta kosmologinen malli ilman pimeää massaa, ja energiaa. Mutta vain jos herrojen laskelmat osoittautuvat oikeiksi.
Tieteessä pelkkä ilmoitus "laskelmani todistavat.." ei riitä.