B B

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks LeoK,mostl likely the age of the BB will be pushed back even farther,so that
eventually it will marry up with with the night and day of Brahma,which is around
a hundred billion years I think!


regards michael.

[LeoK]

Don't they (the scientific community) have any guts?
(Do they believe in Santa Claus, also..???)
You just don't adjust the BB like that.

The BB MUST be scientific - with math, theory(ies) and measurements.
If you, mkirkpatrick, or anyone else think or say different you also must be
slaves or brainwashed (programmed) in your thinking.

I'm NOT rude in this opinion, merely objective.
Uhu, hey wake up. (Snapping my fingers.)

LeoK

[LeoK]

I really do not want to be rude.

But I do stand my writing because I do have knowledge that
I myself have been "digging out of the soil of science".

And I'm old enough to have noticed that people do have rather
strong tendencies to want to be programmed in their thinking.

OK, if that's the way that people interact. So fine, OK.
But someone has to say the right things also.
If you see my point?

May the scientific light be guiding you.
LeoK

[mkirkpatrick]

Well there Leo,what is it that you would say then,besides saying wake up that is?
regards michael.

[LeoK]

Hi, mkirkpatrick

Yes, I got a discrepancy concerning the BB of a rather great magnitude.

Data shows on the oldest star(s) to have an age of 14 billion years.
And the BB spokesmen say their calculations gives a BB to 13.7 BY.

Any then you say that; Well then the BB advocates just adjust up (or down)
the BB to fit the data concerning the oldest star-age.

If this is BB, I do not want even to be a part of any scientific community.
You must got to have PROOF. Theory(ies) and data to fixate such a
major physical statement that BB seems to be in modern physics.

You see, one doesn't just state: BB is for real. And BB is 13.7 billion years.
Science isn't like that. Or at least it wasn't like that when Einstein and other
physicists from that period were active.

The BB resembles of some kind of self programming of the scientific
community. This is my, not only opinion but also, view by my physics
experience, education and knowledge.

OK, so when I did read about the measurement of a very old star to 14
billion years. I said; Yeah, the BB is a fraud, this is the proof.
And what happens?

The BB advocates just adjust the BB to fit the measurement of this older star..!!!
You can understand my indignation. But still not, when you, and others, just
follows the BB folks in an almost astonishing no-scientific manner.

And to this behaviour I can only notice that folks in general do not think by
themselves but follows the stream. That, in this matter, do lack scientific logic
in a major degree. I'm astonished over peoples lack of self awareness and self
criticism concerning objective facts.

OK, I think I've said it for now.

May the logic and intuition be with you.
LeoK

[mkirkpatrick]

Most thankful for your reply LeoK,you have made a very valid point,but will anybody
listen?

regardsmichael.

[neutralino]

OK, so when I did read about the measurement of a very old star to 14
billion years. I said; Yeah, the BB is a fraud, this is the proof.
And what happens?

This is not proof that the big bang is a fraud, whatsoever. Firstly, there will be errors in the measurement of the supposed age of this 14b year old star. Secondly, the big bang theory can never be precise enough to pinpoint exact values for the age of the universe. If one worked out the error in both measurements, then one would find that both are consistent with one another.

Perhaps we should have a thread aimed at discussing the big bang theory, and why it is the standard cosmological model-- its pretty firmly substantiated!!