The forum discussion centers on the validity of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and the challenges faced by alternative cosmological models. Participants argue that BBT is supported by substantial observational evidence, including cosmic microwave background radiation and galactic redshift, while also acknowledging the need for further exploration of alternative theories like the freely coasting model and cyclical theory. The conversation highlights the tension between established scientific paradigms and emerging ideas, emphasizing the importance of open discourse in cosmology.
PREREQUISITESCosmologists, astrophysicists, students of astronomy, and anyone interested in the debates surrounding the Big Bang Theory and alternative cosmological models.
May I humbly suggest SCC?Chronos said:Explain the cosmological model you think is more consistent.
In fairness (to me), as the word "dogmatic" is pretty emotionally charged and unhelpful (like "ridiculed"), I want to make it clear that that isn't my word. The quote I was referring to was this one (the sentence after the one you quoted):Garth said:For example russ watters said, "In the letter, they go so far as to call support for the BBT dogmatic.
in fact the passage in the statement reads,
"So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."
This does not sound so unreasonable to those of us who have had reasonable papers ignored or ridiculed. As I have said below the landscape looks different on the other side of the fence.
Lets all keep open minds on the subject.
Garth
This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Actually I did quote that sentence! Indeed in order to show it wasn’t your word but to put it in context in the statement.russ_watters said:In fairness (to me), as the word "dogmatic" is pretty emotionally charged and unhelpful (like "ridiculed"), I want to make it clear that that isn't my word. The quote I was referring to was this one (the sentence after the one you quoted):
Oops - didn't read closely enough. Sorry.Garth said:Actually I did quote that sentence! Indeed in order to show it wasn’t your word but to put it in context in the statement.