4 ms·

WTF. I can only suggest this summery: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf If your model is corre

by poelzi 11y ago

WTF. I can only suggest this summery: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf If your model is correct, it must explain everything, not just some or most of it. Money Quote: Each of these sets of problems could be, and in fact often are, dismissed as mere “anomalies” in an otherwise well-supported theory. But taken collectively they contradict all the predictions of the theory, leaving no support at all. The response of supporters of the Big Bang theory has been to continually add “parameters” to the theory to account for new discordant data. For me, this hole theory is as logical as the flat earth theory. Compressing the hole universe, which is so huge (see hubble deep field) into a single point is just absurd.

skiffydiffy56 11y ago
http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternative-cosmologies.html http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternative...
- poelzi 11y ago
  He does not go into detail to the referenced articles. Those are peer reviewed observations that do NOT fit. For example the huge Quasar cluster found in the 90s where many astronomers clearly state: this thing is old, very old, 50 to 100 billion years old. How does this fit 13 billion years timeframe ? The Brightness Surface does not match the distance: pleas explain that. The Li concentration does not fit the age of the stars,... The list goes on. He does not explain any of the phenomena, just attacking unsubstantial. If the Redshift is a comsological phenomena, and the Background temperature a signature of the Zero Point Energy (exists an QM as well), absolutely nothing speaks for the Big Bang Theory anymore. I found BSM-SG the most logical model I have seen so far, so, I stumbled about nothing that does not fit into this model. We have a 2 major errors in our physical model that made the whole standard theory so utterly complex, non logical understandable (mathematical logic != classical logic) (common view under Theoretical physicists) and hardly explaining edge cases. From my experience nearly nobody sees it, because they work in a very narrow field...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by poelzi 11y ago

skiffydiffy56 11y ago

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternative-cosmologies.html http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternative...

poelzi 11y ago
He does not go into detail to the referenced articles. Those are peer reviewed observations that do NOT fit. For example the huge Quasar cluster found in the 90s where many astronomers clearly state: this thing is old, very old, 50 to 100 billion years old. How does this fit 13 billion years timeframe ? The Brightness Surface does not match the distance: pleas explain that. The Li concentration does not fit the age of the stars,... The list goes on. He does not explain any of the phenomena, just attacking unsubstantial. If the Redshift is a comsological phenomena, and the Background temperature a signature of the Zero Point Energy (exists an QM as well), absolutely nothing speaks for the Big Bang Theory anymore. I found BSM-SG the most logical model I have seen so far, so, I stumbled about nothing that does not fit into this model. We have a 2 major errors in our physical model that made the whole standard theory so utterly complex, non logical understandable (mathematical logic != classical logic) (common view under Theoretical physicists) and hardly explaining edge cases. From my experience nearly nobody sees it, because they work in a very narrow field...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]