|New Universe Theory with Laws of Physics
What about the preponderance of overwhelming evidence that Big Bang supporters talk about?
Answer: The evidence is valid, but all of it better supports the New Universe Theory (NUT).
BIG BANG (BB)
Do your believe the Big Bang is real? I don't!
Neither did famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. Pioneer Radio Astonomer Grote Reber said the BB is bunk. First Chairman of the ESO, Sir Hermann Bondi along with Sir Thomas Gold searched for other explanations.
According to a survey by the National Science Foundation, 2/3 of the American people don't believe it either. (For various reasons).
The BB hypothesis is not in compliance with Laws of Physics. It is not physically possible to violate even one. The BB origin of the Universe requires postulated/supposed phenomena.
Being a Career Engineering Physicist, I always look for proof. My conclusion is: Red-Shift is a valid Doppler measurement of galactic recession velocities; Misinterpretation of Red-Shift is the BB's only primary evidence! Therefore the BB is not valid.
The scientific community need not, and should not waver from scientific principles to provide plausible answers for the universe's origin. Many specific reasons 'Why we need this New Universe Theory' are described in the
book. True scientists know the Big Bang never happened. Grote Reber, the pioneer radio astronomer, gave lectures on "The Big Bang is Bunk".
Higher education institutions should teach aspiring student astronomers to be open minded and scientific in their thinking. They should teach skepticism about 'accepted' theories and to look for alternative explanations that don't require preposterous postulations for support, as is required for the BB.
Who will become the first credential certified astrophysicist that will be respected by our descendants and future generations for having had the courage and credibility to speak out to their peers and acknowledge the laws of physics are universal, and the BB must be superseded with a new theory?