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: Yousuf Khan on 6 Apr 2010 08:54 dlzc wrote: > Dear Yousuf Khan: > > On Apr 5, 8:34 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> 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. > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > This is just posturing for the "camera". Have to wait for the paper > to come out to a place we can see it. > > So far, observations only get us close to being a problem for the > Standard Model. > > All the better for my pet theory... Which is what? Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 6 Apr 2010 08:55 Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/5/10 10:34 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. >> >> 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. > > This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not > a scientific one! Exactly what my point is, there is a penchant towards flowery language here. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 6 Apr 2010 09:01 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. There are a number of different measurements that result in different ages for the universe, but I thought they were all converging around the 13.7 Gyr average. At 14.7 Gyr, that would be quite a bit higher than the average. Yousuf Khan
From: dlzc on 6 Apr 2010 10:33 Dear Yousuf Khan: On Apr 6, 5:54 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > dlzc wrote: > > Dear Yousuf Khan: > > > On Apr 5, 8:34 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> 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. > > > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups> > > > This is just posturing for the "camera". Have to wait > > for the paper to come out to a place we can see it. > > > So far, observations only get us close to being a > > problem for the Standard Model. > > > All the better for my pet theory... > > Which is what? We are inside a black hole. The "glow of the CMBR" is what the distorted light from our container Universe looks like. Entire galaxies could have been swallowed, whatever metalicity desired if multiple BHs in the container Universe open up into this one, small ones to shred atoms into subatomic particles. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html .... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that he is describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours, then realize that there is a "black curtain" in our own past... David A. Smith
From: Brad Guth on 7 Apr 2010 01:51
On Apr 5, 8:34 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> 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. > > 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-questio... I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10 fold older. ~ BG |