|
Hi Bojan
Thanks for contributing I really do appreciate you doing so.
As to 1)...that is the interpretation of observations and there is no arguement there...I wonder however if we could be wrong is my point...similar to but not the same as a mirage where what we think we see is a distortion of reality in some way.
As to 2)
Yes I am aware of such but given the distance it is entirely possible that the image we get after billions of years may be distorted such that something is missing from the picture...if we viewed m31 or the Milky Way at extreme distances I wonder how they would appear maybe the same but I do think there is room to speculate they may appear different..take the first cutting edge observations of Mars that showed canals apparently...now that raises another issue..the guy observing Mars I guess had a somewhat preconcieved idea of what he should see which I expect was some evidence of a Martian civilization..that may have led him to interprete his observations thru a "lens"☺ of pteconception to find the evidence he expected.
So I ask can we observe gallaxies at billions of light years and determine conclusively they are young, could they appear different if we were only next door. Can we say observations of distant gallaxies are made without the expectation that they must be young and re ently formed. If there is no doubt I think all could be remined of the times humans have been wrong. So I ask the jury can you be sure the defendant is guilty beyond a resonable doubt☺☺☺.
As to 3) I make no critism of GR at all and I think what I have laid out represents a short version of the history...GR was constructed at a time when most all the scientific community thought along the same lines as Dr Albert Einstein that the universe was eternal.
I dont think that observation is dependent upon any understanding of the maths involved.
And as I have said in the other thread GR is really not the issue...GR was used to support in the first instance an eternal universe and adjusted later to fit an expanding universe..it is as I understand a geometric co ordinate system and via adjustment eg the value of the cosmological constant can be used in support of two very different propositions.
The BBT is the best we have all agrees upon that and thinking about cosmology is perhaps better left alone particularly when one has not studied it as a professional must...nevertheless I like to think about it and sadly will form and voice opinions...some humans will do that..but I dont think my situation is the same as say a newearthcreationist who fails to have any teaso able grip on evolution...maybe that is what I am doing but it would seem the basic premise of the BBT is the univerze evolved from a extremely small hot dense state to what we observe today..well U have a problem with that simy because it makes no sense to me and seems impossible that all there is could at any point be contained in a volume as small as the theory seems to suggest..it either presents everything came from a hot dense state inconceivable small or it does not..if I am wrong here that could be the problem but it seems that is the common understanding..if not I question why presenters talk about it this wY...are we not asked to accept the universe ..even the observable universe at approx 100 billion light years diameter and the billions of gallaxies contained therein and the trillions of stars and zillions of planets etc all at some point were contained in a region as small as or smaller than an atom...I can never buy that and I assume the maths can show how at an inctedible temprature and pressure such could be...Obviously the maths can tell us that..but I still wont buy that I am afraid.
I think steady state is much more reasonable...why did it fail? A couple of points...the need for a mechanism to create more hydrongen would be it..the CBR I think was approached from a tited light perspective which has been discredited I know...still tired light is really not that unreasonable. ..why would not light lose something on a billion year journey. ..how can we be sure there is not something that misleads our interprwtation of the CBR.
I have been reading about BBT a great deal and its hard to get ones head around many of the concepts but at the end of the day it seems to tell of a universe that was created somehow whereas I petsonally think an eternal universe is the most likely.
The main reason I started this thtead was so folk could ha e their say and give ample opportunity for folk to point out that I can only be wrong..eho does not like telling some loud mouth they are wrong☺.
Alex
|