<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tommy
after all these quotes, what i''m more interested in is, what is YOUR conclusion? NO quotes, just what YOU THINK for a change.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What do I think? I think that if the Big Bang were real, we would see it. I don't buy the "expansion" explanation because if space expanded, then all space would expand, even the space inside the atom.
But apparently we do not see that happening because I keep hearing that while space is expanding, matter isn't. But if matter is expanding too, then it would have a momentum away from the initial beginning point and this momentum would far exceed the gravitational attraction between the plasma>atoms and we would see that. But if that happened we wouldn't be here.
I think they are asking me to believe that the Universe expanded with such great intensity they call it inflation, and then the expansion slowed down to the point that the expansion can hardly be seen, whereupon the atoms are randomly lumped together so as to form stars which then form galaxies.
I find it more than interesting that the Big Bang comes from General relativity. I think to falsify the Big Bang will also falsify relativity. That tells me that the Big Bang is a product of that theory, and not the result of an observation.
I find it interesting that the mathematicians can come up with any mathematics they need to justify their theory. Tells me something about the mathematics that can say anything we want it to say...
There are, after all, two major assumptions we can make about the "creation" of the Universe. We can assume that it all began with parts, or it all began with a whole. Another way of saying this is that the beginning was randomness or design. If randomness is the initial asumption we make, then the parts is all we have to work with. If we accept that matter had evolved from the simple to the complex, and that there was nothing else involved, then it is reasonable to assume that the beginning was a simple creation of parts. But "design" does not have to mean that there is a "designer"
imagine the designer who designed a Universe designer... Design can also mean intrinsic design. Self-organization could account for a Universal design. If the initial assumption started with a whole, let's say a Pure Energy, then a differentiation of this Pure Energy into a physical energy would constitute a process and thus a principle. However, if there were such a first principle constituting the principle of the Universe, it too would be seen today. So is there a principle that is obcious all over the place? Not in Western science, but the Chinese have the Yin/Yang galaxy thing...Oh, sorry I didn't mean to bring up that metaphysical ancient stuff.
My conclusion is that I think the Big Bang theory is a joke, but not very funny, and I know it is an insult to my intelligence.
I think the beginning is going on right now. I think the galaxies are making stars from the inside out, and not the other way around. I think that the so-called ZPE prevades all of space, empty or not. And that this whatever it is is the source of all the electromagnetic energies. All matter is, after all, an electron wave. When atoms join with atoms, it is their EM fields that interact. All atoms have electrons, all atoms join by means of their EM fields. There would be no need to have a Big Bang when any galaxie would accomplish the same thing.
I think that this Pure Energy cannot be detected, so it is wrong to call it the ZPE and assign it a place. However, I do not think we won't be able to see it forever, we can see it by how it interacts with our side of the Universe - it's shadow, so to speak. I think that when we detect the CMBR, we are detecting it's interaction with matter in the Universe.
I think that the only evidence in support of the Big Bang is a theory which calls for a singularity. I know nothing about this theory, or a singularity, but I wonder if that singularity-as-a-point only happens to be an artifact of the theory. For example, correct me if I am wrong, but the equations dealing with gravity assume a center point, but that center point only exists in the equations, not in reality.
BTW, I read a little about Plasmas. Seems that when a plasma is created in the laboratory, it has a spirial component. That's all I know about that. Is there any evidence of spirialing going on?
