I’ve thought along those lines for a while, Moose.
I know little of Hubble, nothing of Tyson, nor of de Monet, but every time I
hear a physicist talking of Big Bang as if it were proven I turn off. There
seem to be way too many assumptions on which the theor(ies) is/are based for
any other reaction.
We have a rock star physicist in the UK called Brian Cox. He is entertaining,
but his explanations (for the ‘common man”) irritate me quite quickly, not
least because of his over use of the word ‘amazing”.
Mind you, I’ve just had a short chat with a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies,
mother and daughter, about whether or not the Bible is the Word of God. I
agreed that it was, but mother wanted me to know that it was so because of
factual accuracies in the Bible. That’s way too contentious for me to want to
discuss, nor do I need to, but the idea that years mean years (for instance) in
the Bible is a useless distraction.
Chris
> On 16 Jun 2017, at 22:42, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> You know, our whole cosmology, Big Bang and all, depends on unproven theory.
> Edwin Hubble showed that redshift is a good measure of the distance of
> galaxies. He did not believe in the quick assumption by others of a
> Doppler-like effect causing the redshift, and that the galaxies are therefore
> receding from us at speeds that increase with distance. As I understand it,
> current theory isn't Doppler-like, but an effect of the space through which
> the light is passing expanding as it passes through, thus stretching it..
> (Yes, Virginia, the æther does exist in current physics theory, they just
> don't call it that, out of embarrassment.)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|