🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205–211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/H1-Article1-527242.aspx
"An Indian and an American scientist have questioned the Big Bang
theory, saying it does not serve as a viable explanation for the
origin of the universe. The research papers of Ashwini Kumar Lal of
India's Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and Rhawn
Joseph of Northern California's Brain Research Laboratory have been
accepted for publication in the April issue of the peer-reviewed
Harvard journal, Journal of Cosmology. The research papers come even
as scientists at Geneva's European Organization for Nuclear Research
(CERN) are in the midst of experiments on the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) recreating conditions of the beginning of the universe. "The two
scientific papers cast shadows of suspicion over the efficacy of the
Big Bang model. The scientific community may have to ponder afresh
over the issue relating to the origin of the universe," Lal told IANS
in New Delhi. He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw
a theory which fits the conditions of the Big Bang model". "The Big
Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added. In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal
says: "There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the
Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago.
"Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a Big
Bang and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at
how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted
by so much contradictory evidence," he adds."

Bravo, Einsteinians! The Big Bang money-spinner is getting too
schizophrenic and dangerous (although we all live in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world) so now it is time for you to extract more career
and money from the "growing body of evidence which demonstrates the
Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years
ago".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com