🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "ITH" == Indestructible Truth Holder <nospam@mindspring.com> writes:

ITH> "Mark Folsom" <folsomman@prodigy.com> wrote in message
ITH> news:v47nmfjb1fhke9@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com> wrote in message
>> news:JJQ0a.42784$jM5.108252@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>> 
>>> 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?

ITH> The problem is all of the assumptions which for some reason or
ITH> another aren't presented as assumptions but taken for granted.
ITH> For one thing, BB theory completely ignores that time is not
ITH> independent of the motion of matter and energy, which makes the
ITH> notion of the "age" of the universe a ridiculous one..

The BB model rests upon general relativity.  GR certainly predicts
that different observers, with different velocities, may measure
different rates of time.

>>> 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...?

ITH> The fudge factors.

That's not very specific.  The fudge factors appearing where?

>>> 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.

ITH> Why does BBT assume the speed of light is and always was constant
ITH> and independent of gravity?

Because observations, particularly many in the solar system, indicate
that the speed of light is independent of the depth of the
gravitational potential.  Can you cite any observations that suggest
otherwise?

-- 
Lt. Lazio, HTML police   | e-mail: jlazio@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape.  | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html