🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 12, 11:24 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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-...
> "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".
>
Right.
Light goes forever using no energy.
Electrons orbit forever using no energy.

How can anyone believe a science
that teaches shit like that?

john