Comment: If you really look into it with objective eyes ...

(See in situ)


If you really look into it with objective eyes ...

... you just might come to the conclusion that mainstream astronomy is dogma, not science.

The Big Bang Theory rests on one assumption (not proven fact, but assumption) that observable redshift is caused by a similar thing as doppler effect in sound.

This is an assumption. The problem is, over the years just about everything the BBT should predict is not found in the evidence.

Things like dark matter and dark energy are NOT observable. They are THEORIES that came into being precisely BECAUSE the BBT has NOT accurately predicted what astronomers should find.

IOW: astronomers figure that, based on BBT being true, they SHOULD find x, y, and z. But when the look for x, y, and z, then ALWAYS find something different -- something that DOES NOT fit the BBT.

So, rather than questioning their assumptions, they come up with NEW theories, such as dark energy, etc. to "explain" why the BBT did not produce expected results.

When MOST of the evidence does NOT conform to a theory, do you create new theories to "save" the existing theory, or do you consider the possibility that there is a false premise in your theory?

Today's astronomers, funded directly or indirectly by government, just churn out more and more theories to explain away why their main theory (BBT) does not explain the evidence.

So, this news is to be expected. It should not be a surprise.