Quantized redshift anomaly

Tommy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i couldn't agree more with your approach in clearifing your own thoughts. i did this purposely when i was younger, and have NO regrets, it did not matter to me at the time whether i was right or wrong, i looked at mine and your perspective as a journey of your own understanding,imagination,intution and exploration of the self. i did NOT want to be influenced by others thoughts,ideas, understandings etc. at least NOT until i was ready.

therefore when you are ready, then you are ready, until then feel comfortable with your attitude.

north<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for understanding. I am perfectly comfortable saying that I know very little about cosmology, although I do know what the milky way looked like. I am also comfortable saying that I have read extensively all the literature of knowledge I could find, and have well developed notions of systemic behavoir. Systemic behavoir is the behavoir of working together as opposed to victory over the other.

I have my own ideas of how the Univese started, so I never paid much attention to that literature. However, I became fascinated by crop circles, and after trying to write an article about them, came to the point of having to explain the ZPE. That led me to Maxwell's correct incorrect displacement currents, and then to Guraiaev's phantom DNA imprint on the ZPE, and now the quantized redshift.

This is all new to me. I have read a little about the Big Bang the past few days, but I have major problems with it all the time. Inflation, a period where all physical laws are violated in order to catch the train, doesn't make sense to me. And this dark matter and dark energy seems to me to be a clever way of stealing the ZPE in a cloaking manuver. I read one page about the plasma Universe - the electric Universe where stars are big light bulbs. I liked the idea of galaxies that the standard theory explains are merging actually are separating off. That's cool. I haven't read about steady state yet. But I think my own noton is very steady state like. I see the Beginning of the Universe going on right now. I think that matter emerges from the Dirac Sea all the time, and the expansion of space is related or even the cause acting like a vacumm pulling in matter (sic).

I think that Thomas should start all over, <b>given the redshift anomalies, assume the Big Bang is gone,</b> list the actual observations, minus the redshift Doppler and see which theory explains what observation. I don't know what his MM theory is about, but I support it sight unseen. So maybe that is the main reason I don't ferret it out - I want to believe in it so much that I don't want to know if it is wrong or not. I can't believe I just said that. But that is how I feel at the moment,

I have read your principles and will have to look into the beginnings of beginnings. Did the chicken or the egg come first? I don't know how to answer that, I have a joke - two chickens came first...As far as cause and effect, well, there is emergence, which by definition is the creation of something new. Emergent wholes have properites that are not found in the elements, no meaning is found in the blackness of these letters. So what "caused" the meaning?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I think that Thomas should start all over ...”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears to be a reference to me. But I remind you that I don’t post under the names “Tommy” (that’s you) or “Thomas” (that’s somebody else).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now you are sounding different, combative.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I probably was subconsciously responding with annoyance at your words: “I want to get my ideas out first lest they be influenced by others.” I’ve just heard from too many thinkers who rationalize continuing their ignorance as “not wanting to be contaminated by the thinking of others”. Very often, that’s a conversation ender for me. But you probably didn’t mean that the way I read it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since when can't I make assumptions, everyone else does it in science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. And as often as not, they do so thoughtlessly. Assumptions need a solid foundation; for example, based on experiment, observation, reasoning, experience, or other good cause. Pure assumptions are no better than wishes, and deductions can be no more reliable than the premises they are based on. Life is too short to follow up assumptions hanging from a cloud. When I hear one, I may need to stifle a yawn.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When I said beginning, I was referring to a physical beginning. I don't think I have any doubts that at one time everything was hydrogen. I don't think "existence" had a beginning. I do think that physical existence did have a beginning. I do not think either one of them came from absolute nothingness.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see these positions as mutually contradictory. If everything was once hydrogen, was it that way forever, until one day when the hydrogen atoms decided to start hanging out with their neighbors? Will it one day be that way again, or does this change last for eternity and we were just lucky enough to catch it in the first 0% of its new state? How did the electrons and protons get together? Where did forces come from? What was its state of motion, and where did that momentum come from? The open (and seemingly unanswerable) questions that stem from your views are numerous. I am partial to positions that contain more answers than new questions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">this is playing a definition game. What about virtual particles? The standard explanation is that they can pop up from nothing only if they can pop back down before Heisenberg sees them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">IMO, you take QM too literally. In chapter 5 of my book, I mention other interpretations that, to me, make more sense. One thing that seems certain: If something can affect matter, it must be material and tangible. “Virtual” carries connotations rather akin to “magical”.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think the problem I am having with this paragraph is the word "substance". Is the ZPE a substance? Are atoms even a substance?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">“Substance” is just a generic name for whatever things are made from at the most basic level. ZPE and atoms are forms. They are composed of still smaller forms. Substance is the essence of all forms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I had no question about which came first the whole or the parts, I started out by making an assumption of starting with the whole instead of making the assumption of starting with the parts. I don't know what came before the Whole, and it is difficult to explain what we know about much less what is beyond what we do not know about.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The question you posed presumes a beginning. That assumption is what creates the paradoxes. Suppose there was no beginning. Then the “which came first, whole or parts” question has no meaning. Both always existed. You did not consider this possibility at all, and simply argued back and forth about choosing between two paradoxical possibilities.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Like I said, I am only trying to help, if I am not helping, good luck and so long.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Discussions come to a natural end when one of the parties has nothing more to teach and nothing more to learn. I didn’t think either of us was there yet. But your discussions have now taken on a metaphysical tone that is virtually meaningless to me. I prefer to deal with well-defined concepts and physical, material entities. Anything the least bit magical or mystical you are welcome to discuss with others here to your heart's content. However, those matters hold no interest for me.

But then, luminaries no less than Einstein and Bohr had to agree to disagree over essentially the same issue. [] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Reading the reasoning of the great minds that have gone before is the only way to get to the goal within a lifetime.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Of course on should be as aware as possible about the thoughts and writings of other people, but merely in order to help to find your own viewpoint. Unfortunately, most scientists today do not bother about developing their own thinking in this way but believe that quoting other authors is sufficient to render them experts in a given scientific field. It is this kind of 'parrot knowledge' (which obviously does not care about logical consistency) which is responsible for all the intellectual confusion that is apparent from many scientific discussions. The best strategy here is to read as much as possible about other ideas but then forget about everything that does not convince you sufficiently. I would say that in this sense up to 90% of all scientific projects and publications may actually be redundant. Obviously this would spell bad news not only for the reputation of science but also with regard to the money that can be squeezed out of governments for scientific grants, which is another reason why it is so difficult to challenge any established scientific view, whether it is one of the 'big' issues like Relativity or Cosmology or something completely secondary (I am speaking out of personal experience here because I have tried both in the past). The point is that much of todays research in science is only a house of cards and if you remove one card the whole house will collapse.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Your chicken-egg dilemma is resolved. You don't have to decide whether the whole preceded the parts or vice versa because there were other "wholes" and "parts" that preceded them ad infinitum into the past. And the same will be true into the infinite future. Would it not be a miracle to have all the substance of the universe pass out of existence? If that were possible, surely the next nanosecond is just as vulnerable as the next eon, because you don't need time for substance to cease to exist; you just need a miracle. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> All 'chicken and egg' dilemmas indicate that there is actually something logically wrong with the definitions for the given problem. The 'chicken and egg' problem as such disappears for instance if you do not wrongly refer to these words as generic expression but correctly as words associated with concrete objects to which a certain point in time can be assigned (in other words, if you take a particular chicken and a particular egg, you should be able to tell, after some research, which one was first).
With regard to the form of physical substances the same argument applies: it all depends on the logical consistency of your definitions; if you get it wrong you will run into paradoxes like the Big-Bang theory and questions like 'what was before the beginning?' etc. In this sense it is clear that the only logically possible form of the universe is one which is infinite in time and space and where an equilibrium of physical processes creates a kind of 'steady state' on a macroscopic scale. Of course locally there can be wide departures from this average equilibrium at times (which is why we exist) and here you may be able to apply the question 'what was first?' (for instance it makes sense to ask 'which was first, the sun or the earth?'), but not if you are only 'comparing' generic words rather then the objects associated with it.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Thomas writes at his web site

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The flaw with the particle picture of light (and Quantum Field Theory in general) is that the principles of Classical Mechanics are generalized to non-mechanical physical phenomena , i.e. it is assumed that a Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) function exists for the corresponding systems (and with it the laws of momentum and energy conservation). The above analysis shows that such a 'mechanization' of light is not only theoretically unfounded but also clearly contradicts experimental results. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

When I was a kid, I took a watch apart just to see how it worked. I couldn't get it back together tho. I always loved science, I have all the old Science Today magazines, and Scientific American too piled in boxes in the basement. I was cursed/blessed however by not liking mathematics. I never could remember the equations, or what I was supposed to be doing. That prevented me from becoming a nuclear scientist, opting instead for electronic technician.

I really believed in science, just as I was supposed to. To me science was the ultimate truth. I was 12, sitting in a church pew, looking out the window, a bad habit of mine, when I said to myself, "There's no God up there" I never believed the priests again after that.

I believed in the American Dream, and worked for it. But after thirty years, the dream ended when I put the barrel of a carbine to my throat and pulled the trigger. It didn't go off. The first thought I had was "Oh my god, I could have hurt someone upstairs! That was the first time I thought of someone else...

I started all over, went back to college, and almost immediately figured out the operating principle of the Universe. There is one, ya know. Then I started a lifelong prior research project, beginning with the Eastern philosophies, I love Zen stuff, and moved with Capra to quantum physics. This is when the popular science magazines flourished. I eventually ended up with General Systems Theory, because that is the scientific version of what I had figured out 22 years earlier. There is a system to the Universe.

Recently, I began a survey of all science, and not just philosophy, There is a philosophy. I thought that I was embarking on a beautiful journey reading the "book of knowledge" as Einstein put it. I studied and studied. But soon problems occurred. I had already learned from my study of consciousness, that there are two kinds of thanking, but it was a complete surprise to experience it first hand. There are two different ways to think.

I learned from Zen that there is living and then there is the concept of living. I learned from Quantum Physics, (It should be quanta physics guys) that there is a "classical" way of formulating theories. I learned from systems, what I figured out myself long before, that the classical thinks in terms of entities (Which James and almost everyone else too says we make up)while the state of the art knowledge thinks in terms of relationships, what the entities are DOING. (See Relationship Theory)

But it has only been recently that I discovered hoax science. I discovered that not only are there two ways of scientific thinking, there is also the outright lie. Deception. The house of cards that science has created today, the house that is being taught to our children by means of standardized force, is a lie.

It is difficult to assign blame. The difference between thinking in terms of parts and in terms of wholes (read interaction) probably is the difference between materialism and idealism, in a way, but that doesn't seem to me to be a banner I would like to carry around. I think Tom is a materialist, but a honest one. There are very few honest materialists, and I am grateful to whatever led me here for allowing me to find Tom's honesty, I had given up on everyone else.

But it is Thomas that gave me the best clue, in his statement above. It isn't so much the materialism (unless one assumes that the material is ALL there is, that is delusion)or the classical way of thanking in parts, but the attribution of the MECHANICAL to Nature.

What bugs me is that the mechanics do not think their models through, and when they rum up against the non-mechanical, they dismiss it rather than figure it out. Case in point - Maxwell's displacement currents, which, because it was wrongly assumed that empty space was empty, and Einstein didn't need it, are considered to this day as "error" So what the mechanics came up with is this idea that E&gt;M&gt;E&gt;M&gt;E&gt;M as if that explains everything.

Here is the sad part. Thomas Bearden, usually regarded as a crackpot by conventional scientists, read about this in Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and is promoting the notion that Maxwell's equations are incomplete, that his reference to the ZPE (called ether back then) had been removed by Heaviside as a simplification. Well, if one reads the rest of what Bearden is saying, he claims that the Russians got together, reviewed all the literature, and are now capable of producing scalar waves that can travel through the earth and disrupt our weather patterns. I sure hope he is wrong about that. The sad part is that because of his wild claims, if they are wild, his correct claims are disregarded and ignored.

That is a lie by omission.

I can't believe any scientist anymore. It has become no different than I can't believe any priest anymore. But the priests are easy to deal with, their problem is simply "misplaced concreteness" as Whitehead said about some science. It is extremely difficult to tell is a scientist is telling a lie or not. It requires knowing enough to be able to tell. That is the sad part - our children aren't there yet, the future is becoming a lie.

It could be argued that the entire Western explanation of our evolution is <s>a lie</s> err, incorrect.

I think this Big Bang thing is all bull****. I think it is an explanation of how it could happen if the Universe were a mechanical Universe. There is nothing wrong with that, freedom of speech is good, but the idea that it is the prevailing and correct view is an outright deception. And those that promote it only to obtain grant money or any other personal reason are lairs in my book.

I think that red shift quantization will be the little flick of the finger that brings down the whole house of cards. I sure hope so because I have been unpleasantly surprised before.

I was surprised, Tom, that quantization is not at the head of your list. I am not surprised that mainstream science has not heard of this either. That is a good example of the lie by omission. For a scientist to ignore the truth tells me something about how much he regards the truth.

Let me say again, Tom, that I can honestly say that I believe you are a honest scientist. It is just an intuition of mine, but I have learned to pay attention to my intuitions. Not all of them turn out the way I intuited, but most of them do, enough to trust them.

Too bad I can't find your MM theory yet, to see what you think. So I really do not have any basis for trusting you, I don't know why but I do.

I think you are wrong on one point though, You say you want to deal with the concrete. That is fine. Then you say that the metaphysical is meaningless to you. What do you mean? Do you mean by implication that the metaphysical is meaningless? Or do you mean that ;lack of concrete thought does not allow you to "touch" the metaphysical? If it is the former, that the metaphysical is meaningless, then I call your error in scientific reasoning. Because the metaphysical is meaningless to you because it has not been put into your concrete terms and thus does not allow to pass judgement based on concreteness. That's all. Your error, if you assume this, is in assuming that because it is meaningless to you it therefore does not exist. You cannot, as a honest scientist, say anything about that which you do not know. You cannot, as a honest scientist say that because you see nothing there, nothing is there. And that is precisely what the Easterners mean by "Void." The ultimate wisdom is to know when you do not know. It is also called honesty.

So I take exception to your implication that the metaphysical is meaningless. It could be that meaning is found in the metaphysical. As an analogy, these black and white marks are physical, but is their meaning physical or metaphysical? Is the meaning of this sentence beyond the physical constituents of this sentence? Well, there you are.

I am not going to bring in magic. I too abhor magical explanations.
Instead I will bring in General System Theory. There is a general system of the Universe. A system is not about a part, it is about all the parts. So you can't take a system apart and expect it to still work. It would be like taking up/down apart. This is what is meant by the "Whole." A system is first of all a Whole. A whole atom is a system.

The primary difference between classical science and systemic science is where the emphasis is placed. In classical science the emphasis is placed on the object. In systemic science the emphasis is placed on the relationships among the objects. Classical science has tried to catch up by stating that they study objects and their relations, but the emphasis is still on the objects. Systemic science looks at the relationships as they form the whole.

An example of this is the water molecule. Water is made of gases. But the study of water is not the study of gases and their relations. The study of water is about the study of the emergent relationships of the gases - the meta gases if you will. And it is this emergent relationship that we experience as the whole - the wetness we feel is the emergent relationship of gases. which by themselves do not have wetness.

This system principle is the principle Nature uses in all its endeavors. It can be easily seen at work in embryonic development. The operating principles are differentiation and integration. Differentiation is the severing of relationships, and integration is the establishment of relationships. So the sperm and ovum join together and form one whole, which then divides and divides and divides, forming wholes along the way, integrating and dividing over and over until, until we die actually.

This is not something new that I invented. Almost every significant thought system incorporates this concept albeit in the cultural language of the particular recorder. I have hundreds of quotes to back me up if you are interested.

Now, I couldn't agree with you more that we need to acknowledge prior research. The so-called new sciences of complexity and chaos are actually complex systems. Chaos is an instance of a system, it is not all systems. The problem with the science of complexity is that they ignore prior research and tout their science as the new science, rediscover basic system principles such as self-organization, rename them in their own language and pretend they found them for the first time. To me that is a lie.

It is interesting however, that many if not most complexologists believe that the beginning was randomness, yet they appear to have noticed a design and are looking for fundamental principles. Finally.

The Universe is a designed Universe. It was not designed by an external designer, as some would have it, but by the principles by which it developed. This principle was established by the first event, or shall we say the first cut of the pie. An instance of this principle is positive and negative charges. The entire Universe can be seen as the interplay of positive and negative charges. Not saying that they are all of it...Just that they are an example of the principle of the system.

So now we come to the Big Bang. Well, I don't believe them.

So now we come to what I think. I can't talk about things, Tom, that would be meaningful to you about cosmology. This is all new to me. But I can talk in a general way, a philosophical way. Doing so is a feature of General Systems Theory, know one system, and in principle know all systems. That's because there is an inter penetrative system, so different systems at different levels of interaction, operate the same way.

So I can make an assumption about the Universe that is based on more than just hopeful wishing. It is no mean intellectual feat to surmise that because systems tend to integrate into greater systems, or more encompassing systems, that at some point all the systems integrate into one Whole system. System theory predicts that. Got plenty of quotes if necessary. I can also assume that this whole existed prior as well as after. Kinda like assuming that the chicken is in the egg.

So we have, maybe not the beginning, but a starting place, instead of the mechanic's "nothing", a Whole. I can imagine that this whole is actually the emergent relationship of something, and even if we knew the somethings, we could not imagine what that relationship is. I do not think, because we cannot say anything about it, that it is meaningless, and especially that since it is meaningless it does not exist. The only think I can say for sure is "I don't know." I call it "No-Thing"

So we begin with the assumption of the Whole, what's next? The rest is rather straightforward. Remember that we got this far by depending on the system principle, it would not be too risky to assume that a system principle would be involved as the first differentiation of the whole.

Well, I want to stop here. From here on is the physical in the ordinary sense. And I don't feel that I know enough to speculate about how the physical evolved, at least in the particular sense that Tom wants to hear. In the general sense, the process is that of working together, (electrons and protons)R as atoms, (atoms and atoms)r as molecules, (molecules and molecules)R as DNA. That was fast...

Oh, I forgot, the ZPE. I call it the INSIDE of empty space. The basis for this assumption is not something I read, but the outcome of actual experience, an explanation I came up with to explain what I had experienced. There has to be, I thought a long time ago, something inside everything. I think of it as a Pure Energy, defined as an energy not doing anything. You won't like that Tom, I know, because it is not saying anything. But that is my point if I said something it wouldn't be what I was trying to say. Like the Tao te Ching says, The tao that is explained is not the Tao. The infinite made finite is not the infinite.

So what is going on? Well, now I don't know. You managed, Tom, to get it into my head that there is no beginning. I haven't resonated with that yet. But it won't go away. So, if there was no beginning, then clearly, all the evolutionary processes of the Universe must be going on as we speak. All of them.

But WAIT! Tom, didn't you say that the red shift is due to increasing ZPE energy? Doesn't that imply a rate of change? And doesn't a rate of change imply a beginning point? But you said there is no beginning...

oh boy...

tom

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />You managed, Tom, to get it into my head that there is no beginning. I haven't resonated with that yet. But it won't go away. So, if there was no beginning, then clearly, all the evolutionary processes of the Universe must be going on as we speak. All of them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In my view, bits of the universe are always evolving and changing in different ways. But for the universe as a whole, there can be no evolution. The existence of evolution for the whole infinite universe would make some point in time fundamentally different from the infinity of time that preceded it, which requires a miracle.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But WAIT! Tom, didn't you say that the red shift is due to increasing ZPE energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nope. I suggested that redshift is caused by lightwave friction with gravitons. There is, of course, no expansion. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Doesn't that imply a rate of change? And doesn't a rate of change imply a beginning point? But you said there is no beginning... oh boy...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There can always be local change, where "local" means a finite region on any scale that includes us. (Scale is infinite too.) The change that causes redshift is not simply a one-way street. It is part of a cycle I call the "meta-cycle" that preserved energy, momentum, and the number counts for each type of entity. See details for that particular piece of the puzzle at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/meta_cycle.asp
-|Tom|-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

So, if there was no beginning, then clearly, all the evolutionary processes of the Universe must be going on as we speak. All of them.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In my view, bits of the universe are always evolving and changing in different ways. But for the universe as a whole, there can be no evolution. The existence of evolution for the whole infinite universe would make some point in time fundamentally different from the infinity of time that preceded it, which requires a miracle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't like evolution, the word. But at the same time I can clearly see how simpler became more complex - this is how a system works. But I don't think that a hygrogen atom, for example, evolves into a helium atom, or better yet, that three helium atoms evolve into carbon. I think I agree with you about the evolution of infinity, that infinity does not "evolve" but there are changes, just as there are changes from the embryo to to adult. We can't say that the embryo evolved. Someone suggested that development would be a better word. At the same time, if I think in terms of systems, systems emerge. So maybe a better term to use is the emerging Universe. Take an atom, or take the table of elements as a whole, can we say that elements evolved? Not really. But we can say the they emerged. I can understand how someone could misleadingly call that a miracle...

I guees I need to know your definition (how you use) evolution, development, emergence.


I am reading your stuff. I suggest strongly this time that you should place the parameter in the center and the alternatives to each side. Also you could show if the agreement is direct or requires a addendum. Has anyone thought of assigning points to the various points of interpretation and then add them up to see which side wins?

Oh look what I found...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the field of astronomy were not presently over-invested in the expanding universe paradigm, it is clear that modern observations would now compel us to adopt a static universe model as the basis of any sound cosmological theory. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You know, why static? Why not stable? Let's go all the way and use our own words, words that are supposed to have generic instead of esoteric meanings. Static sounds so frozen while stable sounds smooth. How about it, can you use stable instead of static? That way you won't have to argue about the static view. Besides they like to play that change the name and say it is ours game a lot, we can do the same thing, but cite prior research honestly.

Is red shift a correct determinate of distance? Does this pose any problems for a stable Universe?

Also, why not just throw the whole Big Bang Theory away and not even try to compete with it? Why not simply take the observations, and show how a stable Universe would produce them. I mean, we never hear about Big Bang theorists comparing thenselves to us, so who says we have to compare to them? **** them. Or, if that is a bit harsh, do both. Do a comparison analysis like you have done with the columns, and do one with just a stable Universe.

What does it sound like if we stop talking about the Big Bang? That's how we will talk in the future, right? Well, if you think about it, there is only now, forever now. (I have Schroedinger quote if you need to see it.) Let's do it now...