<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br /> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -Arthur Schopenhauer
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The problem is that hubble's law is false.
A lot of observations show this. For instance, if the distance of supernova 1987a is computed by triangulations, the result is 168000 light-year; the redshift of the lyman alpha line observed in the disc inside the "pearl necklace" is so large that the distance would be, by use of Hubble's law, of the order of 2 billions of ly.
The argument that it could be a quasar behind the supernova (argument used for the quasars in a galaxy) does not work because the source is not a point, but a disk.
There are always discrepancies in the use of Hubble's law when light comes to us through excited atomic hydrogen. Elementary spectroscopy explains this result well: light is redshifted (without blurring of the source and the spectra) while it propagates through excited atomic hydrogen.
This elementary explanation makes useless the introduction of a lot of new laws of physics, such that a variation of the fine structure constant, dark matter, ... It shows that the quasars are the "accreting neutron stars" which should be observed but are not...
We are at the stage where the simplest theory "is violently opposed" probably because simple is not marvellous (and maybe because people who worked on big bang do not want that their work be lost). Could the astrophysicists learn a little spectroscopy in place of developping mad, complicated concepts? When they will, the use of spectroscopy involving a rejection of the big bang will be "accepted as being self-evident".
