—– Original Message —–
From: John Hartnett
To: Hilton Ratcliffe
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2011 4:12 AM
From your investigations for your book and since, what would you say are the best lines of evidence for a static universe?
Professor John Hartnett
School of Physics, M013
University of Western Australia
On 14-Apr-11, at 08:17 PM, Hilton Ratcliffe wrote:
My position is that universal expansion is an extraordinary hypothesis (we do not observe expansion), and that therefore the burden of proof lies with those who propose it. Both redshift (Hubble Law) and CMBR are specious. We have a situation that is analogous with the proposal of Copernicus – from Earth, we observe that the Sun passes around the Earth, which appears to be at rest and central. Copernicus made an extraordinary proposal, that the Earth in fact rotates about its polar axis and creates the illusion that the Sun passes overhead. The burden of proof rested with him, and those who supported him. They succeeded, and now we have a proper understanding of the dynamics of the Solar System. No such verification of the expansion theory has been forthcoming and we therefore must continue to believe what we see (a static Universe) until we are shown otherwise.