Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de)
25 Apr 1995 18:55:37 GMT
Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:
: The "tired light" hypothesis, so beloved of creationists, hasn't been in
: use by anybody except them since the 1950s or thereabouts.
Is David Crawford a creationist? (I don't know.)
Crawford published his QGEL (quantum gravity e... losses) model in
D. F. Crawford Ap. J. 377 1 (August 1991) and D. F. Crawford AP. J. 410
488-492 (June 1993). Basically, it is a way for photons to lose energy to
"excited electrons" in curved spacetime. The notion of what an "excited
electron" is, is not specified. To me it seems a bit contrived, as if many
things which are hard to explain are reduced to one thing which is just
hard to swallow :-) [I've seen a lot of this in plasma physics, actually].
But Crawford does not strike me as a creationist. His model is serious,
certainly more serious than the one given by Tom van Flandern, in my
opinion (it does not, or at least tries not to, violate known physics,
especially not known features of general relativity). It is a proposal
which is intended as an alternative to the standard model, and to show that
a steady-state cosmology is not ruled out by observations. I am not an
advocate of it, but I did think it deserves mention here.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
|