Another Aftershock for the Big Bang: Difference between revisions
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
Last year in this journal I reported evidence that the cosmological redshift of galaxy light may not indicate that the universe is expanding at all. Results from several cosmological tests favor instead an energy loss mechanism in a basically static universe. (Apeiron, January 1995, pp. 20- 24.) The past year | Last year in this journal I reported evidence that the cosmological redshift of galaxy light may not indicate that the universe is expanding at all. Results from several cosmological tests favor instead an energy loss mechanism in a basically static universe. (Apeiron, January 1995, pp. 20- 24.) The past year's research and discoveries have given mainstream cosmologists little consolation for shoring up the crumbling edifice of the standard big bang model. Much of the latest news concerns quasars. Here are the highlights of two of the most significant new findings reported in the series "Remarkable Papers in the Journals" in the Meta Research Bulletin, for which I serve as editor. | ||
Galaxies are extended objects, the closest of which are clearly resolvable into individual stars. Quasars, by contrast, are generally point-like objects, sometimes visible only to radio telescopes, whose true nature is still debated. | Galaxies are extended objects, the closest of which are clearly resolvable into individual stars. Quasars, by contrast, are generally point-like objects, sometimes visible only to radio telescopes, whose true nature is still debated. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:51, 22 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Another Aftershock for the Big Bang |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Tom Van Flandern |
| Keywords | cosmological redshift, big bang model, energy loss mechanism |
| Published | 1996 |
| Journal | Apeiron |
| Volume | 3 |
| Number | 1 |
| No. of pages | 2 |
| Pages | 17-18 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
Last year in this journal I reported evidence that the cosmological redshift of galaxy light may not indicate that the universe is expanding at all. Results from several cosmological tests favor instead an energy loss mechanism in a basically static universe. (Apeiron, January 1995, pp. 20- 24.) The past year's research and discoveries have given mainstream cosmologists little consolation for shoring up the crumbling edifice of the standard big bang model. Much of the latest news concerns quasars. Here are the highlights of two of the most significant new findings reported in the series "Remarkable Papers in the Journals" in the Meta Research Bulletin, for which I serve as editor.
Galaxies are extended objects, the closest of which are clearly resolvable into individual stars. Quasars, by contrast, are generally point-like objects, sometimes visible only to radio telescopes, whose true nature is still debated.