Difference between revisions of "Is the Big Bang for Real?"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | Many people have been questioning whether the so-called Big Bang theory of the Universe is a physically realistic proposition or a product of man's apocalyptic disposition. The following discussion weighs this explosive Big-Bang proposition against the less spectacular tired-light hypothesis by focusing on global options of Universe structure compatible with Mach's Principle. | + | Many people have been questioning whether the so-called Big Bang theory of the Universe is a physically realistic proposition or a product of man's apocalyptic disposition. The following discussion weighs this explosive Big-Bang proposition against the less spectacular tired-light hypothesis by focusing on global options of Universe structure compatible with Mach's Principle. |
| − | [[Category:Cosmology]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|big bang real]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Cosmology|big bang real]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:39, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Is the Big Bang for Real? |
| Author(s) | Evert Jan Post |
| Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |
| Published | 2002 |
| Journal | Galilean Electrodynamics |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 109-112 |
Abstract
Many people have been questioning whether the so-called Big Bang theory of the Universe is a physically realistic proposition or a product of man's apocalyptic disposition. The following discussion weighs this explosive Big-Bang proposition against the less spectacular tired-light hypothesis by focusing on global options of Universe structure compatible with Mach's Principle.
