|
I dont know if I covered the stuff hereunder because I was in such a hurry..but steady state got the axe because they found background radiation..or rather what they found was interpreted as background radiation such that it supported the BB.
So on only one point steady state was shown the door...what if the background radiation data has another explanation ..and given we are dealing with matters of difficult measurement and possible alternate explanation one wonders why what was found now has no other explainantion.
Today as I said there are some out there who are shooting holes in the premise of background radiation. I am equaly suspicious of their motives...but that is not the point really the point is why be so hasty in saying .."we have found background radiation..as the theory suggested we would..now there is no need to ever look at the steady state idea again..."
And when one recalls that it was the steady state theory that provided the footing to develope theories on the creation of elements within Suns it seems that only part of the idea was disgarded... the part that did not suit BB...
Now as I understand it prior to the development of the theory of element synthesis within stars the big bang followed the view that all elements were created at the moment of the big bang... so that seems like a case of we take the good bits and throw out the rest because it does not fit our theory... well I simply say this if the steady state theory could develope the now excepted notion of element synthesis within stars as oppossed to a creation at the point of BB how could one throw the steady state theory so fast.
Humans want a creation whether by religious or by scientific means but that does not mean the Universe agrees...An infinite Universe to me would fit better the notion of a God..presumably infinite.. and I have dificulty imagining a finite Universe floating in a sea of nothing and it expanding into that sea of nothing as the apparent observed expansion dictates. There can be something we call nothing.. empty space is not...nothing.
Space can not be finite one would think otherwise it must sit in "nothiong".
Sorry David to be in a rush and not give this matter the importance it deserves with expanded detail.
Sorry Ken for getting off track and also somewhat going against your views in other areas... but when you think about light one thinks about these related matters.
Sorry to all if spelling and English take the back seat here.
alex
|