Galaxy Distribution

[RussT] " ... since only about 5% of the universe is baryonic matter ... "

[LB] "...This is a theory dependant interpretation of certain observational data. Meta Model theory does not need any dark matter to explain all that we see."

Okay...what % of the visable universe does the Baryonic matter represent? and although I agree that Dark Matter is a very bad term for the other stuff (because it has absolutely nothing to do with matter), changing the name of it to Elysium(sp), doesn't make it anything different!!! I have read alot of TVF's work, I just wasn't sure how he was saying the matter gets into our universe.
The simple fact remains, that a very small percentage of the universe is Baryonic Matter, and contrary to popular belief, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, super massive black holes, GRB's and a few other things, are not BB Theory dependent. In fact, they are huge thorns in their sides because they can't even come close to explaining them!!! In fact, since the BB "DID NOT" create the whole universe at once...it didn't even make the Dark Matter or Dark Energy, like it thinks it did, which is of course why they can't explain it, or galaxy birth and evolution!!!

S=G

[RussT] " .. I just wasn't sure how he was saying the matter gets into our universe."

In MM matter did not "get into" our universe. It has always been there. Something real (matter, energy) cannot be created from nothing, so the only way it can be here now is if it (or more accurately the <b>substance</b> it is ultimately built from) has always been here.

Not necessrily in its present configuration of course. A particular rabbit pellet, for example, is not going to be infinitely old. But the substance it is (ultimately) built from is.

LB

LB...Thanks for elucidating! Now I understand what you are saying.
Sorry to say that I don't agree. It may one day be shown that the universe is "Static" (Forever)...the problem is, when you say something has always been here, as proof(wheather you invoke the God concept or not), it is unfalsifiable. In fact, if you don't use God, it is really creation ex nihilo.

Thanks for your time on this!

RussT,

You are welcome. It pleases me to have helped you understand something. Understanding is necessary, agreement is not.

===

Hmmm. An act of creation must occur before you can claim that creation ex nihilo has occurred. There is only one scenario that can (logically) avoid an act of creation. MM don't need no stinking creation. (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)

Theories that deduce an infinite age for the universe can easily be falsified. All you have to do is find the beginning of time.

LB

Larry...so how did the littlest "stuff" get here to make the bigger "stuff"? Just to say it "always existed" is certainly insufficient.

S=G

[RussT] "Just to say it &lt;substance&gt; "always existed" is certainly insufficient."

The obvious alternative to this is that it suddenly appeared one day. That fits my definition of insuficient.

Do you see a third possibility?

LB