|
Media release
Friday, September 12, 2008 -
For immediate release
For more information contact
Tom Van Flandern, 360-504-1169 (Sequim, WA), tomvf@metaresearch.org
Port Angeles, Wa – This week,
dozens of leading astronomers, researchers and other scientists from around the
globe met for a Cosmology conference.[1]
The conference provided eight panels composed of experts in every facet of
cosmology including the reality of expansion, quasars, dark matter, dark
energy, “black holes”, and the true nature of the microwave radiation from
space. One astronomer made his presentation live from Germany using video-link
technology.
Organizer
Tom Van Flandern said “This was a thrilling success. We heard and discussed three
new mechanisms explaining redshift and a new equation modifying our
understanding of gravity. If any of the redshift proposals passes experimental
tests that would mean we do not have an expanding Universe; that the Big Bang theory
would be without its strongest foundation.”
Physicist
John Hartnett from the University of Western Australia said “It’s amusing that
our conference occurred just as they fire up the Hadron Collider in Europe.
Most of our presenters showed the deep problems with the Big Bang while a 40
billion dollar project starts up to trying to find an elusive particle to keep
the Big Bang story from collapsing.”
Redshift
in the light from galaxies led to the belief that the universe is expanding,
and this belief has persisted for 80 years. But modern observational evidence,
especially from NASA European Space Agency space telescopes and satellites, has
clouded the picture and raised many doubts. In 2004, an open letter was
published in New Scientist magazine, and has since been signed by over
500 endorsers. It begins: “The big bang today relies on a growing number of
hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark
matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this
continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging
the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious
questions about the validity of the underlying theory.” (http://cosmologystatement.org)
From the many
lines of evidence presented at the conference, It now appears that those
concerns were justified. Presenters also outlined the principles that a good
cosmology should be based on. Chief among them is that it should not require a
series of miracles to remain viable.
[1] Cosmology is the study of
the largest structures and dynamics of our universe.
|
