Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:42:42 +0200
Greg Neill wrote:
This theory doesn't say that *every* big galaxy must be accreted. Surely, if an initial concentration of matter were high enough, it might form a large galaxy without need for accretion of smaller units. A large knot of matter with relatively little angular momentum could suffice to allow condensation to proceed quickly.
Yeah... then that galaxy makes all its stars in only 300-400 million years, and then suddenly it stops...
Why not believe a much simpler theory?
This galaxy is a normal, quiescent galaxy. No weird explanations. It is just that the BB theory is wrong!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- References:
- Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: In Fo
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: J. Scott Miller
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- From: Greg Neill
- Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Prev by Date: Re: How does this galaxy change formation theories?
- Next by Date: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Previous by thread: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Next by thread: Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|