[WikiEN-l] Ha Ha Ha you are so funny Jimbo!! # 3A

[Thommandel at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/6/2006 2:08:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
wikipedia at philwelch.net writes:

I'll be square with you: we tend to be  
dismissive of people  who offer complaint #2 because most of them are  
kooks. Proving  you're not a kook requires calmness, civility, and  
refraining from  being as much of a prick as you're being right now.
 
Hi Phil;


In my preceding letter I presented the requisite evidence that Hubble  did 
not discover/believe/endorse/support the assumption that redshift means  
expansion. I presume that the necessary corrections will be made in Wikipedia  and 
other publications which depend on Wikipedia research.
 
Being regarded a prick in this situation is an  honor. Thank you for that. 
Very often there is a fine line between a kook  and a visionary. This is 
especially evident in cosmology witness Galileo, who  was blocked from the church and 
Bruno who was burned at the stake for  harboring views which have since been 
accepted. Keep in mind that Ptolemy was  once regarded as the supreme 
authority on cosmology, and at that time all  others were considered kooks. Indeed 
science is replete with visionaries who  when they first presented their ideas 
were regarded as kooks. 
 
The big bang cosmological model is extremely important as it forms the  basis 
of a vast amount of scientific research in the Western world.  But,  as 
stated therein, and supported by the observations of Thomas Kuhn in his  book "The 
Structure of Scientific Revolutions",  the viewpoint is based  on fear of 
retribution rather than pure science.  The details are in the  letter.
 
I would just like to add something not mentioned in the letter, or  Wikipedia 
for that matter.  While the entire scenario of the big bang  depends on a 
Doppler interpretation of the redshifted light coming from  galaxies,  the 
observation of periodicity or quantized (jumps) light is  definitive evidence 
falsifying the Doppler interpretation.  Much if not  alll science depends on 
interpretations.  In many cases there are two  interpretions available to explain an 
observation. In the case of jumping  light (my simple word) one interpretation 
is that the earth is at the center  of the Universe, and the galaxies are 
spaced in layers much like an onion.  Believe it or not this interpretation is  
often used by the  Creationists.  The other interpretation is that the redshift 
is an  intrinsic property of the photon/medium.  As I stated earlier, 
expansion,  if it existed, would blur out these jumps, and the fact that they can be  
detected is observational evidence that expansion is not a fact.  And  
without expansion, there is not need for a big bang, no need for a beginning  coming 
from nowhere, no need for an Inflation that suspends the laws of  physics, no 
need for the yet to be seen Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Black  holes.  
 
And I do realize that the impact on Western science would be profound,  
Professors would lose their jobs, texts would have to be rewritten, and in  general 
science would have to be retaught.  Not to mention Wikipedia  would have to 
be corrected...
 
 
I present here an excerpt from the letter to  be found at 
_http://www.cosmologystatement.org/_ (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/) 






    
An Open Letter to the Scientific  Community
cosmologystatement.org 
(Published in New Scientist, May 22,  2004) 
The big bang today relies on a growing number of  hypothetical entities, 
things that we have never observed-- inflation,  dark matter and dark energy are 
the most prominent examples. Without them,  there would be a fatal 
contradiction between the observations made by  astronomers and the predictions of the big 
bang theory. In no other field  of physics would this continual recourse to 
new hypothetical objects be  accepted as a way of bridging the gap between 
theory and observation. It  would, at the least, raise serious questions about the 
validity of the  underlying theory. 
But the big bang theory can't survive without these  fudge factors. Without 
the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does  not predict the smooth, 
isotropic cosmic background radiation that is  observed, because there would be 
no way for parts of the universe that are  now more than a few degrees away in 
the sky to come to the same  temperature and thus emit the same amount of 
microwave radiation.   
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we  have observed on Earth 
despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory  makes contradictory 
predictions for the density of matter in the universe.  Inflation requires a density 
20 times larger than that implied by big bang  nucleosynthesis, the theory's 
explanation of the origin of the light  elements. And without dark energy, the 
theory predicts that the universe  is only about 8 billion years old, which is 
billions of years younger than  the age of many stars in our galaxy. 
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no  quantitative predictions 
that have subsequently been validated by  observation. The successes claimed by 
the theory's supporters consist of  its ability to retrospectively fit 
observations with a steadily increasing  array of adjustable parameters, just as the 
old Earth-centered cosmology  of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of 
epicycles. 
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available  for understanding the 
history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the  steady-state model both 
hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning  or end. These and other 
alternative approaches can also explain the basic  phenomena of the cosmos, 
including the abundances of light elements, the  generation of large-scale structure, 
the cosmic background radiation, and  how the redshift of far-away galaxies 
increases with distance. They have  even predicted new phenomena that were 
subsequently observed, something  the big bang has failed to do.  
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that  these theories do not exp
lain every cosmological observation. But that is  scarcely surprising, as their 
development has been severely hampered by a  complete lack of funding. 
Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot  even now be freely discussed and 
examined. An open exchange of ideas is  lacking in most mainstream conferences. 
Whereas Richard Feynman could say  that "science is the culture of doubt", in 
cosmology today doubt and  dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists 
learn to remain silent if  they have something negative to say about the standard 
big bang model.  Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost 
them their  funding. 
Even observations are now interpreted through this  biased filter, judged 
right or wrong depending on whether or not they  support the big bang. 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.
 
The letter has been signed by over five hundred  (500) parties.
 
I am not the only one...
 
tommy mandel