Re: NO BIGBANG


Posted by Pasti on Mar 28, 2004 at 21:24
(67.69.240.76)

Re: NO BIGBANG (Johan)

"Before that a non-expanding universe derived from "GOD" was a valid scientific explanation."

Your point is?If you bother to go back enough in time,historically speaking,a valid scientific explanation were also several gods.

"Still today several scientist conclude that the Big Bang theory is at best unfounded."

And what would these "several scientist" be?Some links, refs, anything?

What exactly do you mean by the BB theory being unfounded?This statement can be understood in so many various contexts, that it is useless by itself.Not to mention ncorrect in most of the contexts.

"The energy og the cosmological background radiaton does not fit in the equation, and the existence of dark matter and "dark energy" is not a valid explanation."

This is pretty much baloney.The CMBR was discovered by Penzies and Arno,and was recognized as such based on the predictions of classical GR.And as much as I am aware,I haven't heard of any breakthrough that would invalidate the current cosmological models even from the WMAP.

You may not like the names of dark energy and dark matter, but the effects are there, based on the observational data.We don't know yet what exactly they mean,but sooner or later (unfortunately mostly later than sooner) these issues will be solved one way or another.

"I believe that the Big Bang theory will crumble under it's own massive need of assumptions, and a new view of the universe will emerge! The PLASMAUNIVERSE. Check it out."

What you belive is your own concern.What you can prove, that is a rather different story.

If you make a statement,try to prove it, at least in some elementary way,not by reproducing what you read (and not understood) from the net.
Or in case you cannot form an argument for whatever reason,provide references,so that other people can judge the arguments in the refs for themselves.

Yes, the view of the universe will be changing,as it constantly has been during time and with the development of science.This is neither new,nor strange in the the evolution of any theory of nature.
But not because of the reasons you mention.The emphasis on plasma that you mention does not change anything fundamentally, just shifts the way of different couplings to GR.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]