|
I still feel the type of Universe Dr Albert Einstein believed in when he formulated his Theory of General Relativity is the one most likely to reflect reality...his Universe was not a BB model but an eternal universe somewhat similar to the discarded Steady State Model.
He included the Cosmological Constant in his equations in order to have an eternal type universe.
However when observations concluded the universe was expanding Dr Albert Einstein stated that his Cosmological Constant was his greatest blunder and on this point I think he may be entirely wrong as I think reality may suggest it was indeed his greatest insite....yet he folded his cards overnight, which I find most strange as most times folk just dont do that...they hang on to what has taken years for them to develop...and I dont understand the equations of General Relativity but believe the cosmological constant remains yet its value reset so as not to prevent a universe from expanding...if anyone knows if I am wrong I would appreciate that fact being pointed out to me.
I really wonder if indeed the universe is expanding... I wonder if the observations may be able to be interpreted differently such that we determine there is no expansion...why is expansion so important?..well that is the basic premise upon which the BB model stands...The Steady State Model tried to accomodate an expanding universe rather than reject the interpretation of the observation leading to the conclusion that the universe was expanding..and it seems there is no room now to think that the universe is not expanding...however the BB model leaves us with a creation point which does not seem reasonable in my view. Sure the BB model deals only with the evolution of the universe starting at a point in time after what we could reasonably call the point of creation...seems odd to me...the early critism of the BB model was it was inspired by a religious need and although one does not hear such these days I believe that critism is still valid.
Who thought up the idea in the first place and would it not be reasonable to assume even if the man was a scientist that his science may well be influenced by his world view...and add that the church approves ... the Big Bang is a scientific theory which is more like saying it is a scientific fact..theory in science is near opposite to the usage a layman assigns..that of "I had a wild idea that is cool but perhaps unlikey"...no. .a scientific theory really means undisputted fact..so its not the big bang theory it really is the big bang fact...so what evidence do we have...well all evidence is offerred in support..cosmic background radiation therefore in its linked way proves inflation ( which I conceed I was wrong as to the metric) and every aspect of which we lack observation... personally I can not accept that because of that observation it establishes any more than there is exists a cosmic background radiation...it could be a result of what the BB theory asserts but perhaps such an assertion could use other facts rather that allow the theory to say "its there so everything else the theory says is right"...maybe its just me..a nutter and crack pot who tries to analyze the merits on the evidence...but finally my distrust of the theory boils down to my dislike of any notion of creation...already we have folk showing mathematically how the big bang could arise from quatum fluctuations...mmm how far can we bend this bow.
So would it not be sad if indeed religion has secretly guided our science such that we are forced to conclude there must be a point of creation and inevitably a point we can only call the end...why would a finite universe arise out of an infinite eternity as surely it makes more sense to conclude it is indeed the universe that is eternal.
However keep the suggestions for nutter UFO videos coming as evidence that to think that another reality is more likely can only be met with in effect calling one a nutter...
Alex
|