"Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328534.700-blame-dark-matter-underdog-for-mystery-missing-lithium.html#.UegKOI3viSo On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com > wrote: > The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple > lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of > empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 > billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the > universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. > As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the > universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill > an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article > doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a > possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being > consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves > without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't > address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays > perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. > Giovanni > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> They are like weather guys... >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? >>> They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
