• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Big Bang a "Big Loser"?

Pseudoscience --- All The Jargon Of Real Science But With 0% Predictive Content! Meanwhile, the predictions of the Big Bang theory --- for example, the hydrogen/helium ratio, the background radiation, anisotropy, etc, have been confirmed.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Pseudoscience --- All The Jargon Of Real Science But With 0% Predictive Content! Meanwhile, the predictions of the Big Bang theory --- for example, the hydrogen/helium ratio, the background radiation, anisotropy, etc, have been confirmed.
Click to expand...

Not to challenge the Big Bang theory, but what about where they say this:

For many years it has been known that the map of the universe acquires a bizarre appearance when you let redshift determine distances. Suddenly galactic clusters stretch out in radial lines absurdly pointing at the earth. The effect is called “the fingers of God,” and the earth-directed “fingers” span billions of light-years.
Click to expand...

Is this not true?
 
I am not an astronomer. However, it seems to me that in order to know whether galactic clusters stretch out in lines pointing at the Earth, the question of how far away any particular galactic cluster is is completely irrelevant. All we need to know is whether they do in fact line up as seen from the Earth: a question of angles, not distances.

I wonder if The Bad Astronomer has covered these people.
 
The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation—including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!
Click to expand...
Didn't find "in front of", but I did find "inside"
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1994/42/text/
Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) have found, to their surprise, that a relatively nearby galaxy harbors a powerful quasar. This active galaxy, known as Cygnus A, is the second strongest radio source in the sky.

[...]
Kinney emphasizes that it is probably more than coincidence to find a quasar embedded in the nearest extremely powerful radio galaxy to Earth. She says these results suggest that quasars might be common to radio galaxies and might explain their powerful radio emissions.
Click to expand...
Redshift can be caused by grav fields, so a nearby high redshift isn't impossible to explain.
Previous ground-based radio observations show that there is an elongated optical object in the Cygnus A's core. This is inconsistent with black hole models that predict a compact point source of radiation. Supermassive black holes are leading candidates for explaining a quasar's prodigious outpouring of energy.

The astronomers plan to use the Hubble Space Telescope to study the spectrum of other radio galaxies and look for fingerprints of other quasars.
Click to expand...

The other evidence sometimes put forward that the "redshift --> distance" may need adjustment is along the lines of http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010404.html "super bright" super-novas. Obviously, if it was closer it wouldn't need to be so bright.

I don't see anything that disproves an expanding universe. And, as Dr A has pointed out, there are other types of evidence backing up the BB.

But so what if the BB is wrong. It won't be the last time science corrected itself.
 
So yet another absurdly named “scientist” who can’t get his work published because the system is against him and has to flee to complete his work that will completely wreck all scientific theories and point to the truth that the scientific establishment has been conspiring to keep from the masses. That about right.
 
It's an aside but are there any other theories in science known by what was meant to be a derisively term for theory by its distracters?
 
Oh dear,
There are more recent threads on the "Against the mainstream" subforum. http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=1

They link to the threads I posted earlier. I had hoped to bring you in on the beginning of the topic, but it seems to be a very long standing debate! :D

I don't think the BA himself has done a summary or anything.


Damn, but there's a lot of reading to do!
 
I would only go as far as to say that the Big Bang is an idea supported by some observations (and their respective explanations). No more can be said, anyone who beliefs that the big bang is "a fact" is just doing that, believing it.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I would only go as far as to say that the Big Bang is an idea supported by some observations (and their respective explanations).
Click to expand...

I believe could be said about the coronation of Charlemagne, the English Civil War, the Gunpowder plot, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the 9/11 bombing, the election of Tony Blair to a third term, or yesterday's lunch. All we have is "an idea supported by some observations (and their respective explanations.)" I would in fact be interested to know if there is anything at all that we know other than as an idea supported by some observations (and their respective explanations).
 
But it's supported by a lot of observations, and there aren't any observations that are inconsistent with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom