Big Bang Dogma

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This has nothing to do with "internal consistency", and is certainly not "ad hoc". On the contrary, it makes a specific prediction. Some people have always believed that the size of the universe and the divisibility of matter known to them were all that exists, but until now they have always been mistaken in such beliefs. The Meta Model predicts that ever larger structures in the universe and ever smaller entities in the quantum world will continue to be discovered for as long as we look for them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Although I have long assumed that this makes sense, present observations in phycis and cosmology present us different facts.

For instance, large scale structure. When we go from structures, like the solar system, galaxy, galaxy cluster, galaxy super cluster, we then have (at present observation) reached an end in structures in the universe.

On the other hand, whem going down on the length scales, we come to structeres that are not any more divisible. We can't see for instance individual quarks, but only pairs or triplets of quarks. If we add energy to break them, the only thing that happens is that we create new quark pairs or triplets.

And then we have the physical notions of Planck length and Planck time and Planck mass, as being the smallest units of measurement for length, time and mass.

How does your theory deal with these facts?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I don't think that the big bang theory will go away. There are only two basic ways to go here ... either it's eternal ... or it has a beginning.

Casting one option as being "religious" and therefore false is some very wacky reasoning. I personally think it's going to prove correct by reason of thermo-dynamics, entropy, etc (reasons which cannot be satisfactorily explained by the "eternal - no beginning" alternative) ... and ... NO one would call me "religious".

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

1. A no beginning of time universe is the ONLY rational explenation, all other are inherently religious.

2. I do call you, and your EBTX fixious idea of "embodyment of logic" intrinsically a religious idea (just explained in "abnormal" wordings, using pseudo science).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I don't think that the big bang theory will go away. There are only two basic ways to go here ... either it's eternal ... or it has a beginning.

Casting one option as being "religious" and therefore false is some very wacky reasoning. I personally think it's going to prove correct by reason of thermo-dynamics, entropy, etc (reasons which cannot be satisfactorily explained by the "eternal - no beginning" alternative) ... and ... NO one would call me "religious".

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

1. A no beginning of time universe is the ONLY rational explenation, all other are inherently religious.

2. I do call you, and your EBTX fixious idea of "embodyment of logic" intrinsically a religious idea (just explained in "abnormal" wordings, using pseudo science). And the reason for that because you assume that on the bottom of reality there is some form of "Absolute Idea", which to me is just another name for God




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

heusdens

its to bad we can't keep religion out of science period!!

i have never been comfortable with the big bang theory,for instance when we observe from Earth and see that things seem to be moving away from us,for the most part,i often wondered if i was on one of these planets,stars etc. would i not get the same impression and think that stars etc. were moving away from me? and then i concluded that these two perspectives would in a sense cancell each other, which leaves us with what does the "red shift" really mean?

i think this is part of why i like HALTON ARPS theory on red shift,it just seems to make alot more sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[North]
... when we observe from Earth and see that things seem to be moving away from us ...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Just a minor nit pick ...

Please note that we do not OBSERVE things moving away from us. What we actually observe is an increasing red shift of EM radiation as we look farther into space. Most scientists INTERPRET this observation as being caused by an increasing speed of recession with distance.

I too suspect Arp is right. There are a number of other possible causes, and it seems likely that only a portion of the observed red shift is related to relative velocities. And that this portion is not the same for all objects.

Regards,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[North]
... when we observe from Earth and see that things seem to be moving away from us ...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Just a minor nit pick ...

Please note that we do not OBSERVE things moving away from us. What we actually observe is an increasing red shift of EM radiation as we look farther into space. Most scientists INTERPRET this observation as being caused by an increasing speed of recession with distance.

I too suspect Arp is right. There are a number of other possible causes, and it seems likely that only a portion of the observed red shift is related to relative velocities. And that this portion is not the same for all objects.

Regards,
LB


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

larry

i guess my point was about being on another planet far from here,would we not find that earth would be now being moving away from us?

what other causes do you mean? also what do you mean by only a portion of the red shift maybe caused by relative velocities?