Historical and current astronomical theories have much in common with religion-based beliefs. Similarly to religion, astronomy has high priests that are privy to knowledge in the form of data and imaging from their 'eyes in the sky', from which theories are extracted and presented to acolytes that then disseminate the pertinent 'facts' to the general layperson as gospel.What is the deal with ''Neil deGrasse Tyson (bullshit theories, imo)''?
Here are the titles of a few of NdGT's published papers:
These papers (are supposed to) sound fantastically intelligent and far beyond the intellectual reach of most. But that's the idea - blind them with science - so I call bullshit. This does not make me a flat-earther."On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest"
"uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789"
"Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge"
"The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s"
The standard model of the Big Bang does not hold water. The credibility of the Big Bang is dependant on one premise alone - that we exist in an expanding Universe. This has been proven false by Halton Arp, amongst others.
I've started this thread as a placeholder for discussion about the problems with modern astronomy, to be continued when I find the time (because some fundamental alternative premises need to be established and explained first, which take time to explain in a fairly simple manner), or if anyone else has input to share.