Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thacker Cosmology

  1. May 24, 2004 #1
    here is an alternative cosmology site I found on the net

    the theories outlined here should keep you busy for a while

    since the site is copyright protected I will only post the link and not the actual text from the site

    Reinventing the Universe


    take the time to read each theory before discussing it
    and then do your best to outline the faults (or evidence if any) of each theory


    Disclaimer ~ the opinions stated in the above link are not the opinions of physics forums nor the author of this topic
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2004 #2
    Probably not, since the author seems to show a lack of understanding of modern cosmology and particle physics. Also, with webpages entitled "Outrageous things astronomers would have us believe!", the sense of 'conspiracy theory' is evoked.

    Of the many things I found objectionable, a few stand out:

    He mentions in several places that "astronomers won't tell you X", where X are such things as "gravitational lenses create multiple images!". In fact, this is quite well known to anyone who understand gravitational lenses.

    On the cosmology side, he doesn't seem to understand that there is more than just special relativistic redshift. He makes statements like "According to Big Bang theorists, the universe is about 15 billion years old. But it is utterly impossible for the various structures in the universe (galaxies, galactic clusters, etc.) to have formed in this short time. This alone should invalidate the Big Bang theory!", which is an (unjustified) opinion and not a failure of modern theory.

    He states "The Cosmic Background Radiation is used to "prove" that the Big Bang occurred. But the radiation should be "clumpy", to match the clumpiness of the universe. Instead it is extremely smooth." , but this is completely the opposite of current CMB research, which shows a background riddled with temperature anisotropies (i.e. NOT isotropic) which are believed to have seeded the large-scale structure of the universe.

    Finally, "Astronomers have absolutely no idea where ultra-high-energy cosmic rays come from. ". So what -- there a lot we don't know. It doesn't mean everything we do know is wrong.

    One last final statement: the fact that the author consistently refers to "astronomers" (instead of cosmologists, astrophysicists, relativists, or just plain physicists) is indicative of something.

    It's my experience that ground-breaking theories tend not to be found on copyrighted websites.
     
  4. May 25, 2004 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Probably not, since after GRQC's ringing endorsement, I won't read it...
     
  5. May 25, 2004 #4
    then you have a closed mind

    scientists are objective not bigoted - in which case you're not qualified to have an opinion anyway

    this subject is best left to scientists
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Thacker Cosmology
  1. Cosmological red shift (Replies: 5)

Loading...