"Big Bang(TM)" Signal...

Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 02:40 am
From the pen of Stephen Crothers:

Cosmic inflation: Confidence lowered for Big Bang signal
Professor Marc Kamionkowski of Johns Hopkins University says that the criticism of BICEP2 claims are "science in action"; "If it was not such an exciting result, you would not be hearing so much about it"; "We're going to need confirmation by independent groups. That's the way things work in science. We don't believe things because somebody says they're true; we believe them because different people make the measurements independently and find the same results."
However, as is usual for astrophysical scientists, Professor Kamionkowski has not considered all the facts; far from it, and neither has Professor Clement Pryke of the BICEP2 team,
Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background
Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, ‘On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law’
Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
Robitaille P.-M.
The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets
BICEP2 Fallacies
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,712 • Replies: 5
No top replies

Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 04:23 am
Good for them. All theories need to be confirmed by robust peer review. The basic theory already has been, but each detail must pass the test as well.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 10:36 am
The Big Bang idea is flagrant BS and should have been rejected on day one on purely philosophical principles. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Big Bang was based on the idea of an expanding universe and the expanding universe idea was based on a misinterpretation of cosmic redshift, which Halton Arp has since debunked. There's something basically dishonest about going on with a theory which has been debunked.
mark noble
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2014 07:22 am
Are we not still in that singularity-event?

Size is irrelevant - If you are within the event.
0 Replies
Nark Mobble
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2014 10:23 pm
Watching you and Gungadork talk is like watching my two dogs "talk" after giving them peanut butter. Why don't you two girls give a rest!
0 Replies
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 11:57 am
Hypothesize that at the beginning of time (which some people call the Big Bang), there was a fundamental change in the space time continuum such that space time abruptly was warped such that the clump of matter that then existed was at the top of an inverted gravity well and would accelerate "down" from where it was at this "top". This would explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate as the effects of this change would mimic gravity and all the matter would accelerate "down". And, if this could happen, perhaps many other warpings of space time exist to explain dark energy and matter in localized areas. This is a very simple explanation, and Occam's razor would support thinking aboutt it.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Where is the center? - Question by TomTomBinks
Cosmic microwave background wmap - Question by Linax13
Life on Mars - Discussion by gungasnake
Safire - Discussion by gungasnake
galaxy pairs: colliding or separating? - Discussion by gungasnake
Universe not expanding - Discussion by gungasnake
comoving volume - Question by sarahf60
Galactic Maelstrom - Discussion by gungasnake
More strings of galaxies - Discussion by gungasnake
  1. Forums
  2. » "Big Bang(TM)" Signal...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2021 at 07:47:30