Thacker Cosmology

  • Thread starter energia
  • Start date
  • #1
108
0
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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
163
0
energia said:
here is an alternative cosmology site I found on the net

the theories outlined here should keep you busy for a while
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.
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
energia said:
the theories outlined here should keep you busy for a while
Probably not, since after GRQC's ringing endorsement, I won't read it...
 
  • #4
108
0
Probably not, since after GRQC's ringing endorsement, I won't read it
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:

Related Threads on Thacker Cosmology

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
823
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
10K
Top