4 ms·
The previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high ene
by Steuard 11y ago
The previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high energy theory (with some research experience in relativity and cosmology), and I've never heard of that model. (Most physicists I know are also hesitant to flat out contradict widely accepted and observationally verified models without at least a bit of caution in their language, too: just saying "the universe does not expand" without qualification is unusually bold. To my knowledge I have never met a professional physicist who doesn't buy into at least the basic framework of the Big Bang model.)
- poelzi 11y agoI linked the newsletter, go through each of those papers and you will see, that those come from the peer reviewed process. It's hard to believe that those scientists will still think that the Big Bang happened. Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings: https://vimeo.com/97608525 https://vimeo.com/97608525 If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified. Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.