ultra red galaxies and my question on age of universe, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 12:32 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
I consider Big Bang theory as half-cooked and wrong. Many scientists do. Even their Hubble didn't buy this.
OK you can dismiss the big bang theory, and who knows, maybe it's wrong.

But where's your evidence for your next two claims:
"Many scientists do" Evidence?
"Even their Hubble didn't buy this." Evidence?

If you don't accept the big bang I don't suppose there's much point in explaining how the big bang theory answers your question.

But in case I'm wrong about that, here's an article on Wikipedia about some of the complexities involved, which the average person isn't equipped to comprehend without a lot of math skills and conceptual understanding:

Distance measures in cosmology
Distance measures are used in physical cosmology to give a natural notion of the distance between two objects or events in the universe. They are often used to tie some observable quantity (such as the luminosity of a distant quasar, the redshift of a distant galaxy, or the angular size of the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum) to another quantity that is not directly observable, but is more convenient for calculations (such as the comoving coordinates of the quasar, galaxy, etc). The distance measures discussed here all reduce to the naïve notion of Euclidean distance at low redshift.


Also, see:
Observable universe

If you understood big bang concepts, and then dismissed them, that would be one thing. But to dismiss them without even understanding them, is a pretty disappointing position to take.


reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 07:45 PM by PapagiorgioCZ
reply to post by Arbitrageur



Well I think there's nothing I can strictly say I don't understand this or that in that theory. All you need is imagination.
You are calling for evidence in two points so here is something from my OP link you didn't bother with:

The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference
Port Angeles, WA, USA, 8th to 11th September, 2008
professor Andre Assis:
In 1929, Hubble accepted a finite expanding universe in order to explain the redshifts of distant galaxies, but soon relinquished that position as a consequence of observational constraints for a spatially infinite, non-expanding cosmological model. The authors show, by quoting his works, that he remained cautiously but steadfastly against the Big Bang version of events until the end of his life. His initial interpretation was that he was seeing in the apparent (but subsequently falsified) redshift-luminosity relationship in local galaxies the so-called “de Sitter effect", a representation of a materially scattering Universe.

conference link
edit on 3/1/2012 by PapagiorgioCZ because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 10:16 PM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ


Holy toledo!

You're giving me something from 1929?

I thought you were talking about something recent like the Hubble telescope!

Do you have any idea how much cosmology has advanced since 1929? Maybe not, if you're citing Hubble's 1929 beliefs.

Heck why not just go back to 1600 and say you're not convinced the Earth revolves around the sun if you want to disregard all the recent advances in cosmology? You can find scientists back then to support that position too.


reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 08:47 AM by PapagiorgioCZ
reply to post by Arbitrageur



It's not so long ago. Einstein could be fossil for you as well but this is the time it all started and it goes on. So when it became one theory proved and accepted by everyone? There was not such a point. Instead of cathing me per word try to read the first link to see contradictions.


reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 09:58 AM by usernamehere
I do not agree with BB either but really it was the below quote that caught my attention, I understand the intended question but I cannot help but wonder....

Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
Let's stay on topic - light travel time. Do you have an answer?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe you will maybe you don't.


As for the actual question I suppose I should offer my own insight. Light travel time is akin to measuring the coast of a continent and its inherent issues.

en.wikipedia.org...

EDIT: I probably have to mention the way in which measuring a coastline is akin to measuring space.

The medium of space through which electromagnetic radiation travels is subject to distortion or can be warped creating non-uniformity, light also is subject to distortion it does not necessarily travel (Very basically) in straight lines. Knowing this it is not that large a leap to apply the findings of Benoît Mandelbrot.
edit on 4-1-2012 by usernamehere because: (no reason given)

Pages:     ^^TOP^^