Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:04:08 -0400
"jacob navia" <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:433d011f$0$984$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BB theory looks QUITE shaky now. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun
> that completely disproves that theory.
>
> An old mature galaxy at 800 million years of the supposed Big Bang is
> impossible.
Other than the lack of new star formation, what
indicates that the galaxy is old and mature?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- References:
- Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: In Fo
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: J. Scott Miller
- Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Prev by Date: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Next by Date: Re: How does this galaxy change formation theories?
- Previous by thread: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Next by thread: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Index(es):