Are you sure that it's 200,000 years? That is a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things ... perhaps the number is missing six or more zeros?

Do you have a scientific citation for this extrapolation from Hubbell?

And what if Hubbell was wrong? There are reputable physicists who believe that other phenomena may be responsible for Hubbell's observations. Many Plasma physicists discount the whole idea of the Big Bang and an expanding universe.

Well. Fine. If we start with "What if" it's the same as saying "hypothetically." So, if the hypothesis is, "Hubble is wrong." Then, what tests would be used to test it? Another hypothesis is, "Hubble is correct" ... which ultimately is the conclusion of an earlier hypothesis concerning the data collected by Hubble. So ... there we are.

But still the question remains, "Are you sure that it's 200,000 years? That is a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things ... perhaps the number is missing six or more zeros?" Assuming that our sun is a star ... there are reliable reports that it is, and assuming that it contains fuel enough to continue its current rate of "burn" for 4 or 5 billions years (give or take) ... there are reliable estimates that this is the case ... then, why would we assume that other stars, especially those larger and younger, would not "burn" longer?

If an argument assumes "what if" as if it were fact and not as hypothesis, then anything can be proposed as if it were fact. It then becomes a GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) discussion ... ultimately not verifiable or reliable.

What if cows could jump over the moon? Well, IF they could, THEN what would that say about our understanding of the universe?? Well, then our understanding would be wrong ... BUT, the fact is, cows can't ... so, GIGO ...

Ok. WHAT IF you try reading "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J. Lerner, which discusses the theories of Plasma physicists. They propose different theories for many of the observed phenomena, based on experiments which they are able to perform and replicate in the laboratory. Far different from many of the current theories proposed by strictly Theoretical physicists. Combine that with the fact that many of their theories about electromagnetic currents existing at the galactic level have been substantiated after years of being discounted by other physicists, it would seem that they may have something to offer on the subject. But I guess the fact that I asked a simple question starting with the words WHAT IF, means that their entire lifelong careers of study and research amount to Garbage. Using that logic, I could blow the Global Warming lie out of the water simply by asking, what if it is true.

You must have read my first sentence and then gone blind from self righteousness. Are you so wedded to the current interpretation of Hubbell's observations and the idea of a finite expanding universe that you have to trash even the idea of a different explanation?

And can cows jump over the moon? I guess that depends on your perspective, and exactly what you mean by "jumping over."

Hmmm.... and thank you for the sermon ... uh ... what church is that?

Errors in "The Big Bang Never Happened"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

This is from the UCLA Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Fairly reputable, I would think ...

Thank you for the reference. I'll be more than glad to look at it. However, just because there may be errors in the book, doesn't mean the theories themselves don't have merit. As for myself, I am open to the possibility that the most accepted theories could be wrong. Surely they aren't completely correct. What theory ever has been? Besides, they are theories, not proven fact. But I guess you've made up your mind.