Harry Veeder wrote: >I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang >theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? > >Harry
Actually, the prediction of the the big bang theory was a 25K background, but what's a 20-odd K discrepancy between friends? I have long believed that the big bang theory is utter B.S. In a recent post I pointed out that the observation of galaxies at between 8 and 11 billion light years away revealed that these galaxies looked to be the same age as those much closer. To me, this was just the final nail in the coffin of this nonsense theory, an attempt by drama-inclined scientists as an alternative creation myth. In other words, it's just a religion substitute. How about this for a probably not-too-original alternate hypothesis? As light travels through the recently discovered dark matter/energy, it loses energy, therefore red shifting its wavelength. The energy is given up to said dark matter/energy which is then re-radiated as microwaves. This also explains a little-discussed problem with the the big bang theory, that of a slight doppler broadening of the red-shifted spectral lines. Of course, scientists are hardly ever dissuaded of their pet theories by inconvenient facts. They just usually die first. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
