Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Zero Point Energy examples around Ball Lightning, Comets, Spritesup to Quasars
Next: Connect the 9-11 Dots to Israel
From: Mahipal7638 on 5 Apr 2010 13:10 On Apr 5, 12:49 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Apr 5, 12:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> 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/india/Indian-US-scientists-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,,,
From: Surfer on 5 Apr 2010 12:34 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.
From: Sjouke Burry on 5 Apr 2010 14:04 Benj wrote: > On Apr 5, 12:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> 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/india/Indian-US-scientists-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.
From: J. Clarke on 5 Apr 2010 17:33 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/india/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/articleshow/5761894.cms >
From: eric gisse on 5 Apr 2010 18:50
Surfer wrote: > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan > <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> 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. What % of your posts reference Cahill? Guess. |