Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

Ken S. Tucker a écrit :
srp wrote:
Ken S. Tucker a écrit :
Greg Hansen wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
PD wrote:
but that's irrelevant to whether others feel comfortable
with the evidence for it.
That's religious, there is NO evidence for a BB.
Ken

I'm surprised that you've missed this stuff. Big Bang theories are
based on general relativity. You know, that "greatest blunder" can't
get a static universe stuff? Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that
if stuff is moving away from us, then it was a lot closer in the past
(cite redshifting versus distance as evidence). Structure of the
background radiation, every once in a while rags like Physics Today
publish new comparisons of measurement with theory. Gravitational
lensing apparantly caused by clumps of the dark matter that some wrote
off as fiction. Theories of Big Bang nucleosynthesis correctly predict
ratios of primordial isotopes.

There's actually quite a bit more than zero evidence there.
Let's be careful, there is no evidence that the
so-called "Red Shift" is of Doppler origin, that's
an assumption.
Very good point. There is no evidence whatsoever that
the Hubble red shift, the main argument supporting the BB idea,
is _entirely_ due to Doppler effect, if at all.

Hubble himself doubted it.

Yup...

Back to geocentrism again.

Yup, hope Feddifizzx get's a view of Weinbergs
pg 523. After-all the speed of the Solar System
(Eq.(15.5.27) is only 300 km/sec, wrt the CMBR
placing us back in the middle again.
My thrust is to call a conjecture a conjecture,
it's not promoted to a theory until it's based
on testable and well defined postulates, and
NO MIRACLES!!!!.
Regrads
Ken S. Tucker

Quite refreshing to see plain common sense raising its head
again Ken.

Although apparently unrelated, I have a view that separate
confirmation that the pioneer axial spin so-called "anomaly"
(that I have just heard about) is not an anomaly at all,
may go a long way to do away for good with the Doppler
interpretation of the Hubble red shift.

Unfortunately for the time scale, there is no way for my
own views to be formally published.

I am positive however that reason will ultimately prevail.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Emerging UFT (kst)
    ... Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... the velocity of light is retarded. ... is no experimental evidence, moreover there is evidence to the ... the speed (Shapiro's measurements) and direction are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?
    ... Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... 'evidence' one way or the other. ... Ah, that is contrary to the Principle of Equivalence, ... the principle of equivalence needs to be generalised to allow for ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... there is NO evidence for a BB. ... Big Bang theories are based on general relativity. ... Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that if stuff is moving away from us, then it was a lot closer in the past (cite redshifting versus distance as evidence). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... | Ken S. Tucker wrote: ... there is NO evidence for a BB. ... it's just an accepted part of an empirical science for no reason ... shithead? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... Big Bang theories are ... (cite redshifting versus distance as evidence). ... so-called "Red Shift" is of Doppler origin, ... the Hubble red shift, the main argument supporting the BB idea, ...
    (sci.physics)