1. The CMBR is portrayed as a 'clincher' evidence in SUPPORT of the BB.
Using their own data, I can show that this is ludicrous.

The CMBR is supposed to be at a redshift of 1000 from the time of its origin to our current period in time. That is over a time period of 14x10^9 years.
The BBU is expanding at a 'uniform' rate.

So if we take this age and 'divide' it by 1000, we get a redshift of one for every 14x10^6 years.
Transforming this age into light years and applying it to the Virgo Cluster distance of 54x10^6 light years. we get a redshift of 3 (54x10^6/14x10^6).

Yet we know that the current redshift for that cluster is in the range of
.0035 to .004. This is just a PARTIAL redshift.

NS

2.

3. Originally Posted by Mike NS

NS
Nope.

4. Originally Posted by Mike NS
The CMBR is portrayed as a 'clincher' evidence in SUPPORT of the BB.
Using their own data, I can show that this is ludicrous.

The CMBR is supposed to be at a redshift of 1000 from the time of its origin to our current period in time. That is over a time period of 14x10^9 years.
The BBU is expanding at a 'uniform' rate.

So if we take this age and 'divide' it by 1000, we get a redshift of one for every 14x10^6 years.
Transforming this age into light years and applying it to the Virgo Cluster distance of 54x10^6 light years. we get a redshift of 3 (54x10^6/14x10^6).

Yet we know that the current redshift for that cluster is in the range of
.0035 to .004. This is just a PARTIAL redshift.

NS
Mike, you are obviously forgetting the galvonizing thrust factor Omega Epsilon in your calculation. If you divide the 5x10^6 megaseptoid by pi/c^2 then the resulting polymono flimsiphosphoton interference will balance out the expansion integral.

Hence, your argument is refuted once again.

5. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Mike, you are obviously forgetting the galvonizing thrust factor Omega Epsilon in your calculation. If you divide the 5x10^6 megaseptoid by pi/c^2 then the resulting polymono flimsiphosphoton interference will balance out the expansion integral.

Hence, your argument is refuted once again.
What kind of 'double talk' is that?

NS

6. It's called technobabble....

7. Let's cut to the chase...what's your alternative to the BBT Mike NS?

8. Originally Posted by Steve H
Let's cut to the chase...what's your alternative to the BBT Mike NS?
I just found my article on the Steady State Universe on page 5. Will bring it back on page one.

NS

9. Originally Posted by Mike NS
Originally Posted by Steve H
Let's cut to the chase...what's your alternative to the BBT Mike NS?
I just found my article on the Steady State Universe on page 5. Will bring it back on page one.

NS
In retrospect, I probably should have looked at your posting history and spared a re-opening of that can of worms. I had you pegged as a creationist!

Regarding what you posted here, what's a "partial" redshift?

10. Originally Posted by Steve H
In retrospect, I probably should have looked at your posting history and spared a re-opening of that can of worms. I had you pegged as a creationist!

Regarding what you posted here, what's a "partial" redshift?
I have this argument on another thread as to the 'choice' of words.

Granted, I should have used the word 'fractional' that implies a part of 'one' since the redshifts are given in integers or transalated into 'recessional' velocities.

NS

11. Mike,I think you have had one fly agaric too many :wink:

12. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Mike,I think you have had one fly agaric too many :wink:
It just happens that I am a member of a mushroom hunters club and am familiar with Mycology and mushrooms. Ha ha.

No, I know better to leave these Fly Agarics alone.

NS

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement