Michael Foster at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
Sounds plausible. You could call it the the Big Warming. ;-) Harry
