I was very very surprised when I very recently read an article By Michael Goodspeed
(Thunderbolts.info) 12/2/07. I didn't particularly like the attitude of the article, but it came to a very very interesting point:
{Carl Sagan warned of this problem more than 25 years ago in his iconic book, Cosmos. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the question of whether the Doppler interpretation of galactic redshift is a reliable indicator of an "expanding universe," Sagan wrote: "There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...."
Sagan continues, "If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars -- supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like -- would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space."
Sagan's acknowledgment here revealed both a candor and humility no longer found in popular scientific media (and the electrical theorists can't help but note the irony of this). It's also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been settled.}
Ok: I admit I can be very naïve, but I have never heard of a very solid *scientific* opposition to the Big Bang Theory. Also, this wasn’t even the big point of the article! Why is this issue apparently being ignored?? Every book I read seems to just point to the Big Bang Theory, but doesn’t mention any flaws or anything in it. If the redshift is apparently not that reliable, why is this never mentioned? Do scientists’ egos just prevent them from being open to the fact that they may not have the answers to the behavior of the universe? I mention the ego only because when they were “perfecting” string theory in the 1980s they were “ready to study the mind of God” or something egotistical in that sense.
Please give me your ideas on why this is ignored(or is it?) !!
-
Let's not jump to conclusionsI admit to being not entirely convinced by the Big Bang. Yet I also readily accept that the methods for working out the necessary physical equations are beyond me. Scientific theories are challenged and are subject to peer reviews, but with such complicated and convoluted theories I cannot comment with any authority.Voted for by petethemeat.
-
Where's the beef?If the big bang theory is based on the fact that the universe is ever expanding, and was once an infinitly dense atom, that would mean that the universe is still an infinitly dense atom. And if Einstien was correct, and the universe is rounded in shape, doesn't he disprove the two previous statements because outerspace has no central pit it could, in theory, detract back into? But then again I dont understand any of the math involved.Voted for by Hardhittn63.
-
SoPeople questioning new theories is normal. Years later when people stop questioning them so much, it is usually because it has since been proven more. Just because two smart people pointed out potential problems at one point 20 years, doesn't mean they were ignored and the problems persist.Voted for by Weydon.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
December 4, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free