G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Opinion without science is like doodling in the wind.
Boerseun said
Quote:
|
For instance, stuff like the large-scale statistics of the universe only makes sense in the Big Bang paradigm. It's not to say it is so, however. It's merely currently the theory that fits the data best.
|
Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).
=======================
Hello
Maddog
Centre or center to me is the same, being a dislexic is does not matter.
=============================
This link is quite interesting, it was emailed to me:
[0812.0537] Sociology of Modern Cosmology
Sociology of Modern Cosmology
Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))
Quote:
|
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.
|
At the end of the day I just want to know which theory is backed by science evidence and not by ad hoc evidence to support what ever.
Yes I do read the papers that I post, yet I hold back to express their meaning for the simple reason that it expresses its own meaning.
