Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum An alternative theory to the big bang

The universe was at one point some sort of explosive on another level of perception, then it exploded.

Why not?

If you are trying to explain the Big Bang with Inflation to a school child K-8 your explanation might be a way of approaching the subject.

But from a serious science perspective nothing exploded and there are no known other levels of perception.

Sure there are, you can zoom right in so that everything is atoms, or right out so that everything is stars and planets. My theory is that when you zoom out further you will actually realise that planets and stars act like atoms for another universe so-to-speak.

Robert your theory, to use the term in the loosest possible sense, holds no water and it hasn't for more than 100 years.

http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Schools/what/atoms/quantum/duality.html

The two-slit experiment works with atoms. It does not work with planets or marbles.

What was the source of the energy that caused the big bang? For instance, would the same effect have occurred if there was an implosion as would if there were an explosion, or a collision? Explosion coming from internal sources; collision coming from two objects meeting; implosion coming from matter being compressed to the point of saturation (?) and sudden energy release.
Mafuskey

Mafuskey asks:
"What was the source of the energy that caused the big bang?"

There is no known need for energy or a cause. The vacuum energy is more than sufficient.

There was no implosion. There was no explosion. There may or may not have been a collision. What is essential is the following:

"There is no difference between space growing larger and the speed of light in a vacuum growing smaller."

If instead we phrased the Big Bang as a change in the value of the speed of light ... no one would ask: "Where did the energy come from."

Does this help?

Thanks. It answers my question. Does it help? Not greatly as I have to now take on board and process the new perspective of objects shifting in space without an energy propelling them, and the idea that the speed of light is variable. I knew that it was when measured in a vacuum, as opposed to outside under normal circumstances, but did not know that the size of a vacuum made any difference (if it's empty, it's empty). Thanks anyway.

Nothing is shifting in space. Space, itself is expanding. There is no actual movement ... just something we describe using common-day terms and seems like movement.

Consider this. Lets say a trains is ten miles from the station. If the fastest speed possible is in the universe is 10 miles/hour then the station is 1 hour away. Lets assume that over time the speed at which the train can travel gets slower and slower. Such that after a year the fastest the train can travel is 1 mile/hour. Now the station is 10 hours away.

The distance didn't change. Not one angstrom. But the time it takes to get there has changed. That is essentially what we describe as the universe getting larger.

No one is measuring distance with a stick. They are measuring the amount of time it takes light to get here. And it keeps increasing.

D.A.,
We consider time as constant. We have to, (having
no other 'measuring stick` than C).
I admit to difficulty in 'space/time` vs 'space
thinking, but in your 'speed limit change` model,
wouldn't we see a 'blue` rather than a 'red`
shift in our astronomical observations?
Pragmatist

"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

According to Richard Feynman who I put this question to back in the 1960's ... no.

It is impossible to tell the difference between space expanding and the speed of light (or if you prefer time) changing.

They are just two different descriptions of the same thing.

But what I prefer about the alternative descrition is that it points out the "where did the energy come from" argument is without basis in science but is rather based upon common human experience.

D.A.,

It's nice to know I'm in good company.

Did Feynman, by any chance, say why?

Pragmatist

If he did I wasn't old enough at the time to put it all together. I just remember being an awe-struct teenager who actually got to talk to "him."

I remember nothing else from the seminar except his answer to my question.

"No one is measuring distance with a stick. They are measuring the amount of time it takes light to get here. And it keeps increasing."

Can a wave decelerate? So you don't avoid my question on account of it not being 'properly defined' I will include an example for which you should base your answer on: use a water ripple as a wave.

Secondly, this is nonsense;

"It is impossible to tell the difference between space expanding and the speed of light (or if you prefer time) changing"

If space were to expand the distance between objects would remain exactly the same because the objects, that exist in the expanding space, would expand with it. Now what have I over-looked or not defined properly?

Lastly, tell me why scientists think that the speed of light is the ?speed? of time as is apparent in the last quote I used. Surely scientists, who are so very careful about how they define things, would realise the difference between something happening and light-waves carrying information of that something happening -entering an eye. Or is this not true and there is something I don?t know on the matter? I there is, and it?s not common-knowledge, you have only yourself to blame so spare your cheap shots on my education.

Robert Miller wrote:
"If space were to expand the distance between objects would remain exactly the same"

No it wouldn't. Look again at the definition of length.

Length: the meter (m) defined as the distance traversed by a wave of light in a vacuum over 1/299 792 458 s (This definition fixes the speed of light at exactly 299 792 458 m/s).

If light traveled at a different speed in the past then distance, by definition, has changed but nothing has actually moved.

if i understand the theory correctly (im not a god after all), before the big bang, every thing was inside a black hole. while reading up on black holes i found that there was a reference to the fact that the stability of a black hole has something to do with the amount of matter near it and the ability to draw it in. now if all the matter of the universe was to be pulled into black holes which were then pulled into a single black hole, there would be nothing left to feed it. eventually it would become unstable and evaporate. since all matter had been shrunk to a space the size of an atom (one explation of it i heard) there would be no matter only energy, then as it expanded some of this energy "congealed" into matter. the time between the expansion and the congealing resulted in much of the energy being much farther out and moving away faster than others. since mass "creates gravity" (according to that same theory) gravity wells were created in many places which caused stars to pull in the matter.

im not really sure if i understand the theory that well, so dont jump me for misstating it, or not having it down perfectly

dehammer wrote:
"if i understand the theory correctly (im not a god after all), before the big bang, every thing was inside a black hole."

You don't understand it correctly. The theory does not say anthing about before the big bang. It doesn't even have anything to say about what happened in the first instants after the big bang. We can't see back that far into the past.

apparently you've not read much about the subject.

the theory states that all matter was in a small area different theories about as to the size of it. i believe it was Georges Lema?tre that first proposed a primeval atom. (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

here's another

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

why don't you stop making statements that are so easy to show the idiocy of it and do a little research before claim to have any knowledge of something. its very tiring to see you try to claim to be an expert on everything when the only thing you have shown any knowledge of is political mud-slinging.

dehammer wrote:
"apparently you've not read much about the subject."

Well if you are nothing else you are consistent. Consistently wrong.

The difference is that I teach at a university and I read publications in peer reviewed journals while you are reading, it seems, comic books. Though I have to admit I am shocked you found a web site at a university. There may be hope for you some day.

But did you read it? No where in the entire text is the word "black" much less "black hole."

Try this site from Cornell instead:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/lec31.htm

Note the statement:
# We can extrapolated back to about ~10-43 seconds after the Big Bang.

* Beyond this the physics is unknown.

That is the fact of the matter. We can not see all the way back to the bang. At ~10-43 seconds our math and physics break down.

1) just because you teach political mudslinging at a university, does not mean you know much about science. if someone who claims to have written a major paper on glaciers does not even know what glacial periods and intercultural period and does not believe that ice retreats during an ice age, there is little chance that these "piers" that reviewed you would know enough about science to understand the science of blowing their own noses.

2) you talk about inconsistency when you claim that know one knows about the first instances and then write that we know about the first minute.

3) Ive given you several links to university, although this is the first one that you give credit to understanding anything.

4) as i said there are different theories, which if you read the post you would know that ppl can only speculate (meaning theorise) the state that prior to the big bang. just because its not in this one does not mean that some one has not theorised that it was a black hole. many ppl have, because its logical to do so. one theory is that the universe is cyclic, meaning that after a time the gravity will pull everything back into another black hole and it will start all over again.

if you cant be bother to pay attention to whats going on, don't bother trying to bull-corn ppl into believing that you have any idea what your talking about.

here's a couple of researchers that have thought along this line.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

now before you make a fool of yourself claiming these are not real scientist, PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of both the Departments of Physics and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University. i have this sneaking suspicion that this guy knows a little bit more about science than you.

since your big on pier review here's one that was accepted by pier review
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

even your vaulted BBC acknowledges it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1953244.stm

Mostly no dehammer;
The 'Hawking Radiation` produced by a
black hole is dependent on virtual particle
pairs created at the event horizon falling on
different sides of that 'surface`, and thus
represent tapping of vacuum energy.
Hawking also stated that the 'temperature`,
(intensity), of the radiation is inversely
proportional to the mass of the B.H.
An interesting idea however is :
What does the B.H. 'look` like from the inside?
Since time becomes disorted, (tends to stop),
at the event horizon, it might look like a
Big Bang???????????????????????????????????
Pure WAG but WTH.
Pragmatist

one theory that i heard a long time ago is that a black hole is basically the door to another dimension whose time is flowing the opposite direction. scientist have not been able to explain dark matter, but according to this theory, its the energy that is falling into the black holes on the other side of that door. their big bang will be far into our future at a time when our universe is all pulled into the final black hole. and the final in flow of material into their black hole will be at the time our big bang occured. that would mean everything was in a closed cycle with the material and energy going from one side to the other and back endlessly. talk about daja vue.

no one knows, but speculations abound as to what could be on the other side of the big bang.

Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time ?The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.(24)
Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer: 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?(25) The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat: "If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"(26) To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."(27)
John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England. In The Origins of the Universe (1994), Barrow observes that the no-boundary condition of Hawking's quantum cosmology has become increasingly attractive because it "avoids the necessity for . . . a cataclysmic beginning." Barrow thinks that the traditional Big Bang picture, with its initial singularity of infinite density "is, strictly speaking, . . . creation out of absolutely nothing."(31)

Such alternative Creates New Physics, the laws are the same the elements are the same, but there cosmological interactions and functions must be interpreted differently.
There is a theory which takes this no-boundary view of the universe into account. You can find it here http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ if you care to check it out.

Aireal wrote:
"Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory."

Nonsense. Utter. Complete. Total. Nonsense.

Provide a reference.

If you are going to post nonsense ... expect to be challenged.

DA Morgan

So you do not see any problems with the Big Bang Theory? Do you believe that it is a near perfect representation, soon to become a law of science?

Do you not see the increase in sites and postings, questioning the theory? Or see science looking at other possibilities, like brane theory. The big bang is not proven yet, why should we not look for a theory that might fit the facts better.

I guess I could provide all the referances to these many sites, comments and forums, but most places would consider that spamming. On the other hand you could do a simple web search and come up with a comprible list, and I would not have to spam this site with a hord of so-so links. I did provide author, book title and page number for the quotes I did use. I guess people don't bother to read much anymore, and would rather just have a convenent web link.

Science should always look for a better theory, if they can find one that fits the observed facts better than the current theories. My comment at the start of my post. "Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory." was meant to draw attention to my post, and suggest that not all is fine with the big bang theory, and that we should look at, or consider the possibility it may not be 100% correct.

Now if you are a supporter of the big bang theory, and back it as the only possible solution, that if fine, more power to you. I however am trying to be objective, and looking for any theory that might fit the observed facts more closely than the big bang does. This is part of the scientific method is it not? Do not pass such efforts off as "Nonsense. Utter. Total Nonsence" I was offering a link that gave a theory I had not heard of before. Why, so people could look at the theory and evaluate on its own merits. I did not pass judgement on this theory myself in the post.

My mistake was in thinking that a science forum, on a thread devoted to "An alternative theory to the big bang" might be interested in a link to alternative theories. Forgive me for being so clueless. It is now obvious that this thread is really meant to support the big bang theory, and belittle anything else.

So I bid you adue, and will not bother you any more with links to new theories you don't want to hear about anyway.

so far as i can tell from reading about it, the theory involving the brane (string theory) did not discard the big bang, just it points to how it occured.

if you have any referece to where people are saying that the big bang did not happen, please post them. the one i read said that it was a reoccuring event, happening every so often (if i remember correctly, something on the order of 100 billion years or more). that theory did not destroy the big bang theory, merely changed a bit.

Aireal writes:
"So you do not see any problems with the Big Bang Theory?"

What I see is that you don't believe in using google to provide references. Nor apparently do you have a book on astronomy or physics or a copy of Scientific American, Space and Telescope, or Astronomy magazine. Because if you did you'd have found that you are incorrect.

Has the big bang theory stand up to all experimental challenges? Yes! Is it perfect? Of course not. But a theory is intended to be a map, an analogy, and it is an extremely accurate one.

To claim that it is losing support among astrophysicists who are searching for a replacement is wholesale nonsense. There is a search for minor improvements not a replacement. The theory is remarkably capable of predicting everything down to the level of the most minor fluctuations in the microwave background.

And while we are on the subject my step-daughter just completed her work at ESO:
http://www.macalester.edu/astronomy/courses/physics440/anneandmaggie/wuma.htm

And I've good reason to believe she IS a subject matter expert.

In the future please verify your "facts." The job at SAGG of posting psuedoscience has already been filled.

Sorry to be harsh ... but if anyone believed what you wrote you could have found a supporting reference. And if not then you should have just said "Oops" and acknowledged your error.

DA, do you know anything about the string theory (brane), and if so whats your view on it.

String theory is not a theory in the classical meaning of the word. I think it has done a good job of moving theory forward and, in the end, will likely prove a dead end as currently formulated.

Money needs to be put into experimentation to allow our ability to test to catch up with our ability to think. We are not ready for string theory, branes (branes are not string theory ... they are a branch of string theory), and many other equally interesting (though less well publicized) proposals.

sorry, i cant agree with it not being a valid theory. IMHO, its interesting, but still rather weak. that does not make it invalid as a theory. i wonder how many theories are disproven every year. Unfortunately it is not old enough to have had the proof to support or discard it. I do agree that there needs to be more money put into proving and disproving theories.

.

dehammer wrote:
"sorry, i cant agree with it not being a valid theory."

Again your inability to understand what you read is truly amazing. I did not write that string theory is not a valid theory. I didn't. What I wrote was that it is "not a theory in the CLASSICAL meaning of the word."

it is either a theory or its not. If your going to split hairs with a new definition not normally used, then you need to give that definition when you make such a claim. on the other hand, what does your post have to do with an alternative to the big bang theory. OR is it just chit chat. As i said the theory still needs work, which if you read what the people that came up with it says, they say it needs more work.

DA Morgan

I did give referances to BOOKS on physics and astronomy, which you keep overlooking. The first qoutes were from Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, and page numbers for each one, thats a physics book by the way. I then gave supporting referances about Hawking statments from John Barrow, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Sussex in England from his book Origins of the Universe, thats an astronomy book by the way. I then gave a link to a site where more info and links could be found as support for increased doubts about the big bang amoung non-professionals.

Sorry I did not have a google referance for you to click on for everything. If you are unable to go to a libary because you are handicapped, or there is not a decent libary availible where you live, you should just say so. I would try and find a web link for your use. If it is because you are too lazy to get off the computer and due some research, I am not going to go to the trouble of spoonfeeding you information in easy web bites. But that is still no reason for throwing a tantrum and slandering others just because a referance is not in the form you want.

As for your rude swipes at me and my poor reading habits, I have a about 600 or so books in my personal libary, not counting publications like the American Journal of Physics which I feel are worth keeping . I do read the magazines you mentioned, but I generally don't keep them around for long. As they are wrote for a more general public. They tend to gloss over details, when compaired to professional publications that is. They are fine reading material for the average person with an above average knowledge of the subjects covered by them. The sites you list as referances are much the same as the magazines you read, they tend to gloss over the subject. So you do post referances with your posts that have a web link, but overall many of them lack the detail for serious researchers. You should avoid the mud slinging you blame others of, and the lack of their reading material. So DA Morgan, by the way, What is your education level, seeing how you even belittle professers and professionals in your posts on this forum?

As I stated before, if you are supporter of the big bang theory, thats fine. To refer to anything that does not agree with you as "psuedoscience" without support or reason, and I qoute you "If you are going to post nonsense...expect to be challenged."
It only makes you look petty and vindictive. Worse it shows that you are not OBJECTIVE, one of the main requirments of a scientist.

If you did not throw a fit from the start, you may have noticed these things from my first post. I have meet all your so-so standards except haveing a google referance for everything under the sun. Sorry you can't google everything.

I came here for a little light hearted conversation as a break from my research. As it is clear that is not going to happen, I am out of here. Back to doing some science instead of these less productive pastimes. So feel free to bash me some more as I won't be back to trouble you with details that would hurt your finite view of the universe.

So to qoute you "Sorry to be harsh.." and "Oops" I don't care if you acknowledge your error for I know you are far too biased and closed minded for that to ever happen

My apology Aireal ... I was looking for references where I could verify what you wrote and didn't see them. Hawking has since acknowledged that he was incorrect about quite a number of things in those books. I'd have to reread them to see whether these statements are part of what he has recanted.

dehammer wrote:
"If your going to split hairs with a new definition not normally used"

I'm not splitting hairs. You saw a word or phrase you didn't understand and rather than trying to learn about it or make sure you comprehended what you were reading you replied with rubbish. YOYO!

You are completely out of line. This forum is specifically for asking the question... AND I QUOTE FROM THE FORUM BOARD...

"Where did our Universe come from?"

RM's suggestion not only asje this question. He or she suggest a perfectly good scientific explanation.

You... are not being scientific. SCIENCE is not being scientific.

You are trying to say that just because youare not capable of actually physically seeing what happened before the Universe emerged: that there is no point in exploring what happened BEFORE it emerged?

In that case: every court of Law on Earth should throw out every murder case... since they did not have a chance to actually SEE if the person was murdered!

You have this notion that the Universe merged out of nothing by magic? That there is no need to explore futher than what we can physically see?

In that case: heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty should ALSO be thrown out of all science text books... because he did not actually PHYSICALLY see how electrons acted... he merely thought about the problem long enough to make logical deductions... which turned out later to be completely verified.

If Science was run by the likes of you... then EINSTEIN should akso be disregarded as nothing more than a 'K-9' student. Since he also used logical deduction to predict how light acted around stars. he did not actually SEE how they acted. He thought about the problem and came up with some logical deductions... some of his predictions turned out to be true...

yet YOU!!! Sneer at an attempt to logically explain the Big Bang... and furthermore LIE about it and claim there WAS no Big Bang....

WHO ARE YOU???

You have NO training in the physical sciences whatsoever. Why are you setting yourself up as an expert in the field, when all you are doing is spewing scientific lies and scientific misinformation on this forum?

Newton found that for every action: there has to be an equal, and opposite reaction.

To this date... NOBODY has been able to disprove his discobery.. . NO scientific study ever doone has EVER found a loophole in his famous Law of Physics.

yet YOU!! sneer at the most basic of all scientific laws that every engineer and every NASA engineer and every laboratory scientist USES daily!

WHAT are you ralking about, eh?...

You have a LOT of explaining to do in front of this forum for posting your NON-scientific lies in public.

Also I find the way you treat RM's question offensive in the extreme.

If you can't be civil, don't post here.

Amaranth

turak was right. The universe had to have had a starting point. Newton's law says that for every action, there is a reaction. The reaction was the universe being formed. The action: God speaking it into being. The universe had to have had a beginning at some point. DA, that is very unscientific of you to think what you think and turak was right. There is a God.

not if it never had a begining. there are many theories that it is a continual contraction and expansion. There is no proof that there is a god, and especially that it is only the christians god.

You are mistaken. The logic of Newton's third Law does not prove the existence of God.

But it does prove that something had to exist before the Universe exploded out in a 'big bang'.

This does not mean that what came before the Universe was finite. The concept of God is the concept of the absolute, which is the concept of the finite. It comes from closed minds. Only an open mind can conceive of infinity. A closed mind cannot.

A closed mind thinks in finite, closed, absolute terms.

An open mind thinks in open, relative, intelligent terms.

"The concept of God is the concept of the absolute, which is the concept of the finite. It comes from closed minds. Only an open mind can conceive of infinity. A closed mind cannot."

"A closed mind thinks in finite, closed, absolute terms. An open mind thinks in open, relative, intelligent terms."

This is pretty funny stuff. You could put Dave Barry out of business.

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore God is blind.

Can't be CIVIL??!!!!

The rudeness of this person just chased a very mature and intelligent poster named AIREAL out of your forum... and you don'y CARE??

You don't CARE? that this ASS called DA MORGAN, has been acting rudely and calling posters here K-9 children??!!!

You don't CARE how rude this DA Morgan is, because he has been here LONGER than others whom he is so RUDE to, that they never come back because of HIM???

Well in that case... I AM OUTA HERE!!

You can KEEP this rude person....

But you will LOSE all intelligent mature people who will not tolerate HIS rudeness.

GOODBYE.

I care. I've been editing DAM's posts for a while because I care. And I will continue to edit or delete posts which are uncivil in nature. Intelligent mature people are not driven off by one rude person. Therefore I must assume you are neither. If you are as mature and intelligent as you insist you are you are welcome to continue posting here.

Amaranth
Moderator

its not always that easy to take the continual insult. granted he has been better at withholding the insult recently. But even mature, intelegent people get tired of them quicly.

Have any of you ever heard of the kalam argument. Google "kalam argument" or "william Lane Craig"

a major problem with that theory is that the universe had a begining. the cyclic universe theories argue that there was no begining, therefore no god.

The "kalam argument" is philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. It's not even very good philosophy.

This is a science forum.

Please, please can all of you highly educated experts use spell checker once in a while.Credibility goes out the window especially if you are trying to "pier" out of it.
bagpi.

Know ... well actually "No" but who's counting.

The point being that spell checking won't catch many things and TTBOMK this forum does not have a built in spellchecker.

That said your point is valid that we are entirely too sloppy.

Did I just set myself up in an extremely fragile Glass House? I am only concerned that this interesting discussion regarding The Big Bong etc should go to pot due to a misunderstanding.
I find it helpful to cut & paste from Outlook Express etc, having done a rough spell check.I will follow the thread with interest before contributing my (tuppence )(colloquial spelling)worth regarding the discussion.
bagpi

unfortunately spell checkers dont spot the difference between peir (Prince Edward Island Regiment (Canadian Forces Reserve)), pier and peer.

im afraid im one of the sloppiest when it comes to writing. Even da will have to agree with me on this.

bagpi wrote:
"this interesting discussion regarding The Big Bong etc should go to pot due to a misunderstanding."

I think you're just blowing smoke.

And yes dehammer I am in full agreement. And a grammar checker. But more than that a fact checker. You see to do well on non-science topics but every time we discuss science ... yech!

OK jokes aside their has been much discussion elswhere regarding "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon.He postulates that an ever expanding universe accounts for what we feel as gravity.I have trouble with this reasoning that, rather than gravity, the earth rushes up to meet a falling object. My problem apart from what happens to dohnuts?, is that adhering to that theory, why would a dropped object not just stay in place and get bigger along with the rest of the Universe.Im probably asking about a topic that is a whole load of old cobblers anyhow. Though I believe the current understanding to be that the Universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, as per a balloon inflating, but more like a sponge released from compression.If true that the Universe is expanding, then it must be expanding from a point in time when it was highly compressed. Am I on the right track here?
bagpi

i agree with that

McCutcheon, if your interpretation of what he wrote is correct, is hard of thinking. But having not read it myself that reaction may be quite premature.

It appears one must make a distinction between objects that are gravitationally bound, planets, stars, galaxies ... and objects that are not such as galaxy clusters.

Regarding The Final Theory:
http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/amazoncom-and-the-final-junk/

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/08/amazoncom-controlled-by-crackpots.html

An alternative theory to the big bang:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie