Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 21 2012 09:26pm)

So apparently as long as the data of a global cooling keeps pouring in while the data of the global warming is being refuted then we can rest our eyes in peace, even though this already happened and we now support the global warming model. Thank you for clarifying that.

Quote (novocane @ Mar 21 2012 08:32pm)

its a good thing thats not what actually happens

Quote (novocane @ 20 Mar 2012 22:27)

First of all, great job plagarizing

secondly, great source. www.haltonart.com

and thirdly, uh oh...

"The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist"

Quote (novocane @ 21 Mar 2012 21:22)

thats actually not true, scientists dont reject everything against the big bang. when there is actually legit evidence that doesnt agree with the current big bang model, they try to adjust the model to accommodate it or offer some other explanation.

one example of this was when they found out the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. The previous model predicted the expansion should be slowing because of gravity. So, they adjusted the standard big bang model and worked in dark energy


scientists dont really pay antention to the stuff aetheric is posting for several reasons:

1) the things he posted arent that big a deal or can be explained
2) the things he posted are bullshit like in the case of arp and lerner

Quote (Torm1 @ 21 Mar 2012 20:32)

Hows this for a third way.

We can't know yet how the universe came into existence.

Its hard for man to accept that though, because he's too self-proud and wicked.

Quote (Torm1 @ Mar 21 2012 09:32pm)

Hows this for a third way.

We can't know yet how the universe came into existence.

Its hard for man to accept that though, because he's too self-proud and wicked.

Quote (Aloysius @ Mar 30 2012 02:03pm)

Ah, would make sense. seems clear cut. I'd like to ask to the op, if the big bang didn't happen, what did happen? Is the whole point of this theory i've never heard, the universe isn't expanding at all? I thought it was proven the universe is expanding.



Interesting info, thanks!

Quote (Derkaderk @ Mar 31 2012 07:12pm)

For what it's worth, the big bang theory isn't speculation on how the universe came into existence



The OP is making the claim that redshift does not necessarily entail an expanding universe. In other words, he's claiming the proof doesn't demonstrate what physicists claim it does.