I apologize if I came across sounding too cynical about science or scientists. I only meant to be rhetorical to emphasize that I have a hard time believing that the MAJORITY view still supports something for which in my own scientific and philosophic mind has sufficient obvious holes in it and more simpler alternatives that my own imagination can easily conjure up. I'm still trying to resolve, for instance, how the prediction of CMB and its discovery properly and UNIQUELY justifies the Big Bang. To properly claim, for instance, that this represents heat from the early Universe they would have to prove definitively that their are NO OTHER existence beyond some certain point universe and that there is no such thing as higher wavelengths that matter can give off beyond which we are capable of measuring. Contrary, I constantly hear of a literal fixed guesstimate of matter from the scientific establishment.
Am I missing something? What is the implied assumption that the Universe is fixed in quantity by our observation of it? There is an understood limitation to observation due to the speed of light (a horizon). So what is the logic behind the claim, "There are X number of stars in our Universe" that most popular scientists claim, instead of, "We cannot determine whether there are a fixed number of stars or not"?
I don't presume the Steady State Theories as my preference either. Why are Hoyle's particular beliefs always presumed to be the only alternative referred to so heavily?
