Recent content by Think twice

How was Olber brilliant? He either wasn’t smart enough or he was dishonest. He pretended the reason why the sky was black was proof that a non expansion model was invalid. (False) Yet he arrived at this conclusion by ignoring the fact that in a non expanding model more distant light was...

I would like to see a citation to back up your claim that galaxies do not exhibit BB profiles. And secondly we are not talking about a trillion apples. Each star is different Are you trying to suggest a red giant has the same spectra as a blue white dwarf? Prove it. Did I say YOU weren’t...

You don’t even read your own posts Lieman. Heres a direct quote from you on Thursday 10:47 pm when you replied to a post of mine. So now it looks like you did smear me with your gibberish insult,... Im still waiting for you to actually answer the question you were unable to answer. Where...

The greatest tragedy in modern physics was the person who decided that the “ether” was ruled out by MMX! Not only did it give rise to the ills of the orthodox Relativity cult, it prevented those who didn’t agree with the nonsense of spacetime and relativity to come to the understanding that...

Your response is illogical and unscientific. You and other BBT supporters claim that “no star in a non expanding model can reproduce the observed near perfect blackbody spectra of CMBR”. I responded by saying this is a fallacious and disingenuous argument as in a non expanding model the...

This statement is a good example of how erroneous claims are made by BB supports to disparage any competing model. Fact is stars at z=1023 in a non expanding universe can model about as perfect a blackbody spectrum as that observed in the CMBR. The fallacious argument presented by big bangers...

Not true. The BBT very specifically predicted that there would be no old Large metal rich galaxies in these deep field images. And incidentally, blaming galaxy formation theory isnt good enough. Considering BBT supporters already blamed Galaxy formation theory decades ago when Hubble back then...

In that case why doesnt Blondin use a few real spectra? And you still haven’t answered why doesn’t he actually even show any examples of his falsified spectra comparisons to his hi redshift sample. Why? He knows if he did he would prove his own argument wrong. So far you have avoided answering...

Obviously you haven’t read the latest on JWST. In one tiny speck in the sky a deep field study has shown many massive, old metal rich galaxies. None of which are allowed to exist in the BBT version of the universe. Of course you could pretend follow up spectra will show they are not that far...

Exactly. It’s not a real spectrum. Let’s see a couple of REAL low redshift spectra. And compare them. Blondin only resorts to a featureless mishmash of a template. Because he knows I he compares real with real...he will end up showing no expansion. Why would I want to make my own falsified...

Depressing to have to listen to a lecture by Ed on how god created the universe and all its divine laws. Pretty well every point he made is at best misinformation and worse...outright fantasy. For instance ...Edward pretends Einsteins theory Of relativity somehow explains the Mercury...

Nonsense. You like to ignore facts. Fact: Mckellar made a much more accurate prediction for the CMBR in a steady state universe of 2.8K whereas for the BBT we had Gamow‘s prediction, which you forget was way out at 50K And you also ignore another fact which is that in a non expanding model there...

There is an unfortunate thread in physics perpetuated by those on both sides of the argument (relativity vs emission) in that somehow an emission theory cannot include what is sometimes referred to,as an undulatory theory of light. Even in 1878 this unscientific view was held. Pg 179 point 3 ...

There's a certain amount of misinformation going about to date that should be pointed out. First of all if one is using precedence for various theories a non Big Bang model made the best prediction of temp of cmbr. Mckellar predicted 2.8K in 1949, when Gamow and the BBT community predicted 50K...

Sort of. But it’s all part of discussing the pros and cons of the BBT. And if you look at the latest news...the arguments against the mythology of the BBT are looking pretty good. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm