🚀 go-pugleaf

"Indestructible Truth Holder" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b20u0b$pe8$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com> wrote in message
> > news:JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > hmmm...
> > >
> > > I have no problem with the POSSIBILITY of big bang theory...
> >
> > You got a better one to replace it?
> >
> > > I do have a problem with the way it is tought in schools as "factual",
> >
> > Other well supported theories are taught in much the same way.  Do you
> have
> > similar problems with gravity and the periodic table?
>
> The problem is all of the assumptions which for some reason or another
> aren't presented as assumptions but taken for granted.  For one thing, BB
> theory completely ignores that time is not independent of the motion of
> matter and energy, which makes the notion of the "age" of the universe a
> ridiculous one..

Where did you get this fabulous notion that the age of the universe is a
ridiculous concept?  Couldn't be from some Creationist literature, could it?

>
> > > and the way scientists insist on "cooking the books" to prop it up if
> > > observations don't quite fit...
> >
> > Maybe you can offer some specific examples instead of just bullshit...?
>
> The fudge factors.

Which fudge factors are those?  Please be very specific.

>
> > > and how scientists who are open-minded enough to persue alternatives
are
> > > ridiculed.
> >
> > The ones ridiculed are those who cling to alternatives that don't
account
> > for the facts.
>
> When somebody's searching for an alternative, they don't need to account
for
> the assumptions of theory they're trying to refute.  Try again.

Which are your favorite alternatives and what *evidence* supports them?
(the Bible doesn't count)

>
> > > BBT is at best a "best-fit" theory to some early observations, but the
> way
> > > it has influenced interpretations of subsequent observations has
reduced
> > > current theory to a tenuous "stack of cards" where the destruction of
a
> > > fundamental idea will bring the whole lot crashing down.
> >
> > The basic idea of the big bang seems entirely bullet-proof--a hot,
> > high-density beginning with subsequent expansion is in perfect accord
with
> a
> > large number of very careful observations.  It's very unlikely to be
> > overthrown completely, and with good reason.
>
> Why does BBT assume the speed of light is and always was constant and
> independent of gravity?

Because there isn't any evidence that the speed of light changes, and there
are lots of experiments that seem to show that it doesn't change.  How much
do you think the speed of light has changed--just enough to make the
universe less than 10,000 years old?  There are other kinds of evidence to
refute that.

Mark Folsom