Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused

jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 22 Jan 2005 20:49:23 -0800

Sam Wormley wrote:
> jgreen@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> > What a hoot! If the "old data" is WRONG, or WRONGLY diagnosed, as
you
> > here clearly imply, then the whole basis on which expansion, BB,
> > redshift, Hubble's constant etc is a CARCASS!
> > If the goal posts need shifting, in this case about 13 billion
Light
> > years, you would do better calling the ground staff.
> >
>
> Don't be so stooopid Greenfield... The old data wasn't wrong...
> The new data looks back further in time and distance because of
> new technology. Don't be so stooopid Greenfield!

And when it looks back 40bly, what then?
The groundsmen are so busy redrawing the lines, they are back in the
stands!
Don't be so stupid Wormley! How the *** do they know how
"far" they are looking, if they don't use the old data, which you say
above is crap (despite your claim here to the contrary). They use
Hubble redshift as distance markers, right? Now we have a "distance
marker quasar" which according to you should be at billions of years,
just up the road!!!!!!

Jim G
c'=c+v

Quantcast