Dusting off the steady state theory?
- Thread starter TJSwoboda
- Start date
There have always been scientists who were not in accordance with the Big Bang Theory, and they may yet turn out to be right. I don't mean fringe cases, either, but major heavy-hitters. Edwin Hubble himself did not propose, or accept the idea that the cosmological red-shift he documented was defacto evidence the universe is expanding. He didn't do anything to disprove it or otherwise fight it, but he never actually signed on to that interpretation.
Even the cosmic microwave background is not accepted by all as echoes of the Big Bang. I'm not sure, I think it's Halton Van Arp, who has proposed the idea that the CMB is just the sort of black-body radiation you would expect to see in a closed universe filled with stars, quasars, black hole accretion disks and everything else out there pouring out radiation.
There is even a growing number of astrophysicists trying to make the case that electromagnetism played a much larger role in the early formation of the universe than gravity. Ultimately, gravity wins out, but it is also the weakest of the four fundamental forces, by a huge margin.
Even the cosmic microwave background is not accepted by all as echoes of the Big Bang. I'm not sure, I think it's Halton Van Arp, who has proposed the idea that the CMB is just the sort of black-body radiation you would expect to see in a closed universe filled with stars, quasars, black hole accretion disks and everything else out there pouring out radiation.
There is even a growing number of astrophysicists trying to make the case that electromagnetism played a much larger role in the early formation of the universe than gravity. Ultimately, gravity wins out, but it is also the weakest of the four fundamental forces, by a huge margin.
Users who are viewing this thread
