SkipCaptcha
708
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 128:
Line 128: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Big Bang theory (view source)
Revision as of 20:44, September 14, 2011
, 20:44, September 14, 2011→Correcting "scientific"
:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never clamed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).
::The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.
::This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by [[relativists]] giving up the checking what is the ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the ''redshift is a '''proof''' that the universe is expansding''. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse ''hypotheses'' that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a '''proof of their invalidity''' turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.
::[[Intrinsic redshift]] is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by=step derivation in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is
:::<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>
::where <math>dH/dt</math> is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time <math>t</math>, and <math>H_o</math> is the Hubble constant itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==
== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==