Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Richard A. Schumacher (email@example.com)
18 Apr 1995 18:57:04 -0500
In <D77pLt.JJ7@crash.cts.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Roosen) writes:
> Definitely, interpreting the redshifts in this way led to various
>expanding universe theories, including the big bang.
> This is an example of people discovering their assumptions and
>treating them as something new.
And what are your undiscovered assumptions?
If you have a competing theory which is simpler than a Big Bang
theory, and which explains cosmological redshifts, the cosmic
background radiation (including temperature, spectrum and isotropy),
primordial elemental abundances, and for which the Sagdeev-Ze'eldovich
effect is not a problem, please describe it.