Hello CFB

I know how many papers support redshift.

I know how many papers question redshift.

For your understanding, read both sides of the fence and understand that the intrinsic properties of compact matter influences the data.

Since our understanding of compact matter is limited, don't you think that redshift data is also limited.

 If you want some upto date papers on non cosmological redshifts

Try

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=non+cosmological+redshift&version=1

Search for

Non cosmological redshift

by date

Than look at how they collect redshift data.

You can have 1000,000 supporting redshift and yet one science paper with evidence can overide.

Please do not get me wrong, I'm not trying to be smart, its just that I want to know how, when, where and why? Because in a few years I do not want to be told,,,,,,,,,,oops they got it wrong. 

I must admit that 80% of the papers on both sides of the fence are worth 2 cents

Harry,

The abstract you quoted below suggests a test of non-cosmological redshift, but, if you read the paper, the authors found the test inconclusive.  Of the ADS abstracts that you suggested, the only article on the front page of abstracts was a 1987 Nature article.  All the current papers dealt with theories with cosmological redshifts.

Our understanding of compact matter is limited, but not as limited as you suggest.  Modern x-ray, gamma-ray and IR observatories are rapidly filling out our knowledge of the high-energy compact objects. 

Having one paper with "evidence" does not overide 70 years of observation and analysis.  To override requires extraordinary evidence and plenty of it.

Whether or not either theory is completely correct is not relevant.  The important issue is that we are still observing and trying to make sense of ALL of what we see.  Picking and choosing to fit a theory is not science.  Any theory developed is likely to be faulty in some sense. 

My biggest problem with non-cosmological redshift is that it violates physics that we know.  If anyone can show a local phenomena or laboratory test of intrinsic redshift, I would be more likely to accept such a possibility.  It is easier for me by the "Occam's razor" test of fewest assumptions, to believe the evidence I've seen can easily match chance alignments of high and low redshift objects.  It also matches testable physics.

CFB

G'day CFB

Hey! Just beacuse I express an opinion does not mean that I'm correct.

Knowing this when I read papers that sound quite interesting, I kind of want to share the paper.

More so to understand.

Like this paper

It is this intrinic property that affects the redshift data.

Harry Costas:

It is this intrinic property that affects the redshift data

Harry,

 The jet properties discussed in this paper do not reflect any intrinsic redshift property.  Jets are blue shifted when they point at us, but redshifted when pointing away.  However, since their spectrum is mostly a continuum and fit a synchrotron emission model, redshift factors can only be determined by relativistic motion of dual knots in the jets and not by looking at optical emission or absorption lines.  This has only been done for Galactic jets and never been done for cosmological jets, to my knowledge.

 CFB

G'day CBF

Just popped in for a sec.

I will get back to you soon.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I have been doing some other work. I will get back to intrinsic redshift soon.

Until than

The Big Bang theory is based on ad hoc ideas, a weak foundation for any theory.

If anybody thinks that the BBT is correct, than scientific evidence should support it.

Not just say so information from journals.


What do the actual images eg NASA tell us?

a) Of all the images that we see the common behaviour is clustering effect.

Matter is drawn into a gravity sink, such as stars and black holes.

Dwarf galaxies cluster around larger galaxies, these cluster and form local cluster of galaxies, these local clusters cluster to form super clusters of clusters of galaxies.


That compact objects such as Stars, neutron stars, the theoretical quark stars and black holes form jets that reform their surroundings even effecting the formation of stars and galaxies.

So what we actually see is at random a process that expands and contracts. This is simple enough and yet we try to complicate the observations.


and for further logic

The solar system formed from a star that went supernova leaving behind a compact core that evolved a solar envelope, the remaining debries remained in chaos for millions of years, it was the survival of the stable that acted as a gravity sink and grew into the planets and dwarf planets that we see today.

5 Billion years ago the Earth started to cool, still to hot for wate to condense.

4.5 Billion years ago water stated to condense and form running water, creating sedimentary rocks, that gives us an estimate of stable running water.

4 Billion years the oceans formed and for a billion years no life.

It took a billion years in water for the simple virus to form, its ability to duplicate gave rise to life on Earth it formed the bases and evolution of the modern cell of all life.


This all happened in a dust particle called Earth.

The question is how old was the Star that went Supernova. Its phase could be about 12 Billion years old.

The other question is how long did it take for the Milky way to form a spiral and in between that merging with other galaxies and having 40 odd dwarf galaxies rotating around it.


The other question is how long did it take the milky way group to form part of a large local group of galaxies.

The questions keep on going and going to the "N" degree.

Is it possible for all this to form in just 13.7 Billion years.

OOPs I forgot to mention the odd 100 billion galaxies that we can observe in 13.2 Gyrs deep field images that are expected to form in just 500 million years. Compared to life such as the virus took one billion years to evolve.

Am I missing something?

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This is quite interesting

 SOURCE: What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

So what now? 

G'day from the land of ozzzz

The Mecahnism for the formation of jets is a key issue in the formation of stars and galaxy formation. By researching observable jets we may alock the secrets that make and explain the cyclic process.

There is no such thing as an "argument" against the BB without citations referring the reader to the sources of one's information so that she may judge for himself the validity of purported facts. It is no use to cry "NO JOURNALS" if the effect is to attempt to invalidate all the work of good men and women who have just as high an allegiance to Truth as do you. Nobody gives a rat's *** about the origins of the universe anyway. It makes absolutely no difference to us in any real terms.

So then, what motive do scientists have to misrepresent the data or to deliberately misinterpret it, as is implied by some individuals and even whole sophisticated websites? They sound a lot like Kevin Trudeau who disses everyone and gives nobody but himself any credit at all.

The suspicion is that detractors cannot actually support their skepticism with references to refereed journal articles that have passed the commonly acknowledged tests of scholarly and professional work. One wonders what the motives of some people are when they seem to be indissolubly wedded to purported alternative theories to the BB like intergalactic plasma interference. Are their egos that large?

There are obvious critical experiments that can be done to confirm or deny plasma effects on red-shifts and brightness when determining cosmological distances. What are the results? Why can results not be stated? If there are results, why are they ignored by the consensus other than for incredibly cynical reasons?

Could it be that those people who represent themselves as scientists are really as "fringe" as they sound? Indeed there are crackpots, after all.

I am no fan of the BB. But, I think that the array of evidence in its favor is very hard to beat. The only things that I object to are Dark Energy and Dark Matter. These are not consequences of the Big Bang model, but are ad hoc inventions to explain certain so-called observations that have become associated with it. This is because the "hot BB" has indeed become the current "standard model" of the origin or the universe.

Dark Energy depends on the "observation" that expansion of the universe is accelerating in the modern epoch. This interpretation of the observations is wrong, I think. It is wrong and it "works" because it is precisely backward. And I have my own personal observation to help show the truth of what I say. See http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/ for more.

There now, I have given a citation and it contains other citations so that the reader can follow it all the way.

I shall post a rebuttal to the idea of Dark Matter as well. It will affirm the notion of modified Newtonian (gravitational) dynamics, MOND, but will solve its main problem of its lack of theoretical underpinning by invoking the strongest theoretical underpinninig there is in physics: quantum mechanics. It will provide another bridge between relativity and quantum dynamics.

Clearly there is such a thing as dark matter, however. Recently it has been found that there are most probably billions of rogue planets in our galaxy alone that have been ejected from their solar systems and that almost every star likely has planets, giant planets at that. These planets, in their aggregate, compete with stars for total mass. If there are planets that have been ejected from their solar systems, then there are stars that have been ejected from their galaxies. Perhaps no search is underway to find them, though. 

Brown dwarfs are another source of unseen and unseeable matter unless special effort is made to uncover their existence. These have not yet been included in the inventory of matter and energy in the universe. You can search Scientific American for references on these and on MOND too, for that matter. SA will give you citations to the original authors and their work.

I trust the basic good faith of scientists and of editors both the various scientific journals and of the popular magazines like Discover, Science, Popular Science, The New Scientist and Scientific American. I do not believe that they would all be part of some sort of conspiracy to deceptively refer to the HBB as the beneficiary of a world wide general consensus of most (almost all) scientists.

This is the most decisive omission of the detractors of the HBB. How can they possibly explain the lack of support for their position unless they invoke unbelievable nefarious motives to literally thousands of good people without besmirching themselves, by implication, at the same time?

Gary Kent

GaryAKent:

Nobody gives a rat's ***

OK, I must at least point out this is not allowed.

(Nobody cares) about the origins of the universe anyway. It makes absolutely no difference to us in any real terms.

And to this I disagree ... rather obviously some people care very much. Whether they care is not the same thing as whether it matters to someone else, just as obviously.

...

Recently it has been found that there are most probably billions of rogue planets in our galaxy alone that have been ejected from their solar systems and that almost every star likely has planets, giant planets at that.

I think "found" is a bit strong, but it's certainly now suggested to be the case.

These planets, in their aggregate, compete with stars for total mass. 

Now that to my mind is a bit of a stretch. I'm not aware of any published information supporting that. Certainly if you take our own Solar System as a typical case (I did say "if"), it's clearly wrong. The Sun accounts for more than 99 percent of the total mass in our Solar system. If everything else were considered "dark" and "matter" there would need to be more than 100 times more of it to equal the mass of the Sun, right? That would argue against the above statement (again, I said "if" we take our case as typical).

If there are planets that have been ejected from their solar systems, then there are stars that have been ejected from their galaxies. Perhaps no search is underway to find them, though. 

Again, taking our case as typical, we know of comets that are ejected from our system (based on their observed orbits) and we suspect there may have been planetary-mass objects ejected much earlier in our system's history. I do a great deal of reading about planetary science, in particular, and am not aware of a reliable estimate for the amount of such system mass loss ... so I think it's risky to over-generalize here ...

Brown dwarfs are another source of unseen and unseeable matter unless special effort is made to uncover their existence. These have not yet been included in the inventory of matter and energy in the universe.

I think what is correct about the estimates of the amount of "missing matter" that might be accounted for by brown dwarfs is that they are included in estimates of the total inventory. How accurate those estimates are is a different question.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Sometimes people use words to degrade another, something like a smoke screen. Than go and say there is evidence supporting the BBT.

What evidence is there that can be EVIDENCE that can be proven?

The existence of the cosmic microwave background is solid evidence for the HBB and that the universe is expanding and has been expanding for 13.7 gigayears.

This background has exactly the right distribution of high and low intensities, its power spectrum, and it matches that predicted for not only the HBB and but what is expected from the inflationary version of the HBB. This is proven evidence. If you don't agree that this is evidence for the HBB, what is it evidence for? Sophistry and hand waving are not allowed

Hubble expansion is measurable from relatively nearby galaxies as well as from very distant ones. If one takes the midpoints of the ranges of distances to galaxies that were used in these studies and uses this data to compute H naught as a function of these distances, one finds that the Hubble "constant" is not really constant. These values for H naught follow a straight line relation reaching from about 370,000 years after time = 0 to near the present. H naught values determined from nearby galaxy recession are very unlikely to be affected by interferences like intergalactic plasma. But, they lend credence to the values that have been determined from very distant galaxies, supernovae and the CMB.

The power spectrum of the CMB will also be affected by the overall geometry of the universe. The spectrum matches what is predicted by a "flat" universe, that is, one which is neither spherical in polydimensional space nor hyperbolic. This means that there is no strange geometric distortions of our measurements because the geometry of the universe is Euclidean.

The upshot is that the measurements are accurate and they are not being misinterpreted. Except that the data regarding accleration in the present era are being misinterpreted, I think, because they got it exactly "backward". See http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/. So, I dispute the existence of dark energy.

Not only are there billions of rogue planets and billions of brown dwarfs - they are like roaches - if you find a few, there must be a huge population of them somewhere. There are also "dark galaxies" consisting of uncondensed or unconsolidated clouds of hydrogen/helium, enough to make very large galaxies if only they had had more time to contract enough to form stars. These are another class of cosmic roaches.

The population of brown dwarfs has yet to be determined so they cannot be part of the inventory of matter and energy in the universe. Likewise rogue planets, rogue stars or dark galaxies.

When these adjustments are made, the amount of dark matter that may still exist outside of these estimates will be amenable to a quantum treatment of the universe. The amount of matter and energy that is sufficient to account for the "missing mass" in the universe in order to "flatten" it will derive from the universe's nature as a quantum particle, just as was suggested by Guth when he postulated the "inflaton". If the universe began as a quantum particle or wave then it is still exists as such.

Quantum physics is statistical in nature and it is incorrect to apply statistical probabilities to individual cases like our poor universe. But, we can suppose that there are uncountable numbers of universes more or less like ours. So then, statistical probabilities may apply.

As a group, these universes may exist as quantum particles or wave forms. Quantum waves commonly interefere with themselves so that an interference wave exists for each of these universes. See Wheeler's work.

Call the initial waveform A. Its interference wave form is B. In order to completely describe this system one may suppose that the hybrid sums of these waveforms also exist: A + B and A - B. The hybrid A - B may be just the null state, but it is still a real state. Thus, A and B are antistates. One is matter, the other is antimatter. This may be where all the antimatter in this statistical ensemble of universes has gone. It exists in parallel universes.

All these states may be superposed, a common condition among quantum states. This way, gravity, being the only force that might "leak" out of our universe, can be shared between them all. Here is the missing mass. All the universes in the ensemble will appear to have missing mass until all the states are considered.

Since there is a statistical distribution of universes similar to our own, each doing about the same thing, there may be parallel versions of each galaxy superposed upon one another and seperated by some polydimensinal "distance". Each would be oriented somewhat differently however, so that the superposition displays gravitational properties consistent with Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).

This is the theoretical tweak of MOND that makes it consistent with relativity, or at least, not contrary to it.

Just who and what qualifies you to substitute your own wisdom for the judgement of most other scientists, Mr. Costas? I suppose I could look up your profile, but that would not really give me the information that I need. What, specifically, annoints you as another putative pope of cosmology? Why do you think that you can condemn the work of others, directly or indirectly, while mouthing platitudes like "It's just my opinion."? You do not have an open mind, this is clear.

This is not the place for personal attacks. But you are attacking the good will and good faith of almost all other scientists who acknowkedge the HBB as being the current "standard model" of cosmogony. In effect, you are accusing them of being stupid.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Gary Kent said

 Quote:

Just who and what qualifies you to substitute your own wisdom for the judgement of most other scientists, Mr. Costas? I suppose I could look up your profile, but that would not really give me the information that I need. What, specifically, annoints you as another putative pope of cosmology? Why do you think that you can condemn the work of others, directly or indirectly, while mouthing platitudes like "It's just my opinion."? You do not have an open mind, this is clear.

Rather than attack the person, look at the topic.

Do not worry about my opinion for now, but take time to read through this link.

That's if you really want to understand.

 http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm

If you just want to feel that your opinion is correct, than what can I say.

In time, when I know that you want to learn more, then I will let you know who I am and the scope of reading that I have completed. 

As for the BBT and the evidence supporting it, if you have any knowledge of science and upto date reading you would understand the weak foundations of the BBT.

Imagine stars lifes may range about upto 15 Gyrs. Lets say 10 Gyrs just for the life of one star or should I say phase and or rejuvination.

You have billions of stars in our MW galaxy. The complexity gets even better when we look into deep field images 13.4 Gyrs and observe about over 100 billion galaxies . The BBT states that the age of the universe is 13.7 Gyrs, this tells us that the 100 billion galaxies were just formed in 300 million years. This must be the greatest joke in science history.

I have not even mentioned the Stars rejuvinating and the galaxy merges that occur as an ongoing processes.

What actually is so extremely anoying is: How on earth did he BBT become the standard model?

Maybe you may get to read some of these papers.

Search on NASA ADS

Harry Costas:

As for the BBT and the evidence supporting it, if you have any knowledge of science and upto date reading you would understand the weak foundations of the BBT.

Then I take it from this statement that none of the thousands of currently working astronomers and physicists who believe in the Big Bang are really scientists, or are up-to-date on their reading?  With one sentence you attacked no just one person, but everyone who dissagrees with you.  Very efficient.

Harry Costas:

What actually is so extremely anoying is: How on earth did he BBT become the standard model?

Because it best fits the evidence.  As has been explained repeatedly in these threads.  What I find annoying is that so many people flit around the edges of of the BBT looking for inconsistancies and touting those varriations from prediction as "proof" for the failure of the BBT.  If re-cycling is the alternative then please show me where these new galaxies are being formed as a result of jets.  We have an excellent example of a mature galaxy producing a powerful jet right here in the area; M87.  Where are the new galaxies it is forming?  Heck, if I remember correctly there isn't even much star formation occuring in M87.

Believe as you will, but please don't insinuate that if I choose to believe differently that I have no knowledege of science, or that I am not up to date on my reading.  I just choose to get my information from sources other than "Alternative Cosmology.com" or "Niburu is comming.com" or "Bigfoot stole my lunch.com".

Zachstad has got it right. Evidence in favor of the hot big bang is extremely cogent, consistent, integrated, unified and relevant. It does not depend on ad hoc interjections for it is truly a well developed theory supported by numerous seperate lines of argument, not just a few.

Detractors have to knock out all the legs supporting the HBB while remaining self-consistent and avoiding self-contradiction. This cannot be done. There are always some questions. But to build a competing "theory" solely on discrepancies that stem from the incomplete nature of our observations and the limited number of man-hours that can be devoted to this endeavor is lame. We cannot have answered every question because we just have not got enough time and manpower.

But, just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. Just you wait! 

I have to say that evangelists for particular positions seem a bit out of place here. I don't like the HBB theory because it requires too much suspension of disbelief, like a bad science fiction movie. It is truly "far out". But arguments against it, like plasma interference, for instance, are even harder to take.

All these objections are easilly dismissed. Plasma interference that affects light in such a way as to produce a sort of red-shift is no exception. If there is enough intergalactic plasma to produce this effect, then it should be producing hydrogen and helium emission. The required levels would be easily detectable and they would stretch from the visible way down into the microwave region because this emission would be red-shifted too. The sky would be literally aglow with this light. It is not detected because it is not there.

It is tantamount to the accusation that the majority of scientists are being ignorant, stupid, incompetent or worse when it is insisted that  many fundamental discrepancies are going un-noticed or are being deliberately ignored. Said discrepancies are wholely imaginary and are simply being pulled out of thin air.

Why do we not focus on some of the implications of the HBB instead of belaboring it? If Allan Guth's inflaton particle makes any sense and inflationary expansion really did occur, then the universe has a huge foundation in quantum physics. What does this imply?

Let's move on!

Ahhh! But the sky IS literally aglow with this light. It is called the cosmic microwave backround, the CMB.

This is nonsense. The CMB follows a particular distribution of frequencies that is not like that which would be expected from intergalactic plasma. The CMB follows a distribution law similar to that of a "holraum", a black body, an emitter that is presently a shade over 3 degrees kelvin in absolute temperature. Its emission maximum is in the microwave region. The envelope of a plasma emission would be of a completely different shape with a maximum in the visible range.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Gary if you have evidence that can support the BBT, and I mean evidence then supply that evidence.

You have not even read the links that I have posted.

You speak of closed minds and yet you have already closed yours. 

Where time is nonexistence will be the Origins of existence. Science is somewhat at lost and confuse about how the very first particle or element came into being. We must first try to imagine SPACE by itself with nothing anywhere, that is complete emptyness. In our sense of time we must them moved to imagine how long it took for that first particle or element to appear and of course this will be an impossibility given that we do not know what that first particle or element was. At any rate, we can still continued with an analytical approach an arrieved at the thoughts that whatever that particle or element was it POLLUTED SPACE. My question will be -- WHAT IS SPACE. The second question: How did such element or particle come into being from something that is nothing, this is to say: nothing producing something. Therefore, SPACE must be something which is or may be a living thing. This leads to another question - What kind of living thing -- organic or nonorganic. The Origins of the Universe will be our Origins and not of the whole of existence but to know our origins we must first find the origin of SPACE -- the Origin of NOTHINGNESS. Do not try to answer these questions by speculations cause the answers are not within the reach of any living existence. Don't confuse the word SPACE with the word UNIVERSE. ALL THINGS OCCUPPIED SPACE and not the other way around.

Harry Costas:

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Gary if you have evidence that can support the BBT, and I mean evidence then supply that evidence.

You have not even read the links that I have posted.

You speak of closed minds and yet you have already closed yours. 

Harry:

MANY times you have been provided with the evidence that is accepted as the basis of the Big Bang Theory.

Please refrain from challenging others this way. Several of us HAVE read the posts you've provided.

If you do not consider the evidence that is provided in support of the Big Bang Theory to be "evidence", then you obviously do not agree on the rules of evidence that working scientists follow.

I do not object to your posting alternative observations and theories here, but I do object to your failure to allow those of us who do support the Big Bang to consider what we have as valid evidence.

I will provide two specific lines of evidence here one more time: the CMB and Hubble Flow redshift.

Whether you agree with the conclusions drawn by others on the basis of those lines of evidence is up to you. It is not up to you to decide they do not constitute evidence.

If you continue with your current position (that they do not constitute valid evidence) then I am forced to conclude that your presence here is trollish.

 Again, we can agree to disagree about conclusions.

Harry Costas:

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Gary Kent said

 Quote:

Just who and what qualifies you to substitute your own wisdom for the judgement of most other scientists, Mr. Costas? I suppose I could look up your profile, but that would not really give me the information that I need. What, specifically, annoints you as another putative pope of cosmology? Why do you think that you can condemn the work of others, directly or indirectly, while mouthing platitudes like "It's just my opinion."? You do not have an open mind, this is clear.

Rather than attack the person, look at the topic.

Harry makes a good point here. Let's not challenge others personally; rather, challenge the data or the reasoning.

I have reminded Harry in the previous post, and am reiterating his reminder here to be fair.