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 5 Apr 2010 11:34 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-question-Big-Bang-theory/articleshow/5761894.cms
From: dlzc on 5 Apr 2010 12:02 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... David A. Smith
From: bert on 5 Apr 2010 12:07 On Apr 5, 11:34 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... Lots of theories need more thought. Like these Earth flipping its polarity. Photons changing speed Infinity Timelapses Age of planets,and nebular Age of universes. Africa Eve Oort cloud Electron cloud. Quantum gravity. Singularities Wave length of black. Gluons Charge Just to name a few TreBert
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Apr 2010 12:28 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! > > 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: Benj on 5 Apr 2010 12:49
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! |