Thanks Steve for helping me understand the logic behind the CMB
Your points 6,7 and 8 are things I did not know
... I probably should have but when reading about CMB my frustration with the concept prevents me from delving further into the detail but your points 6 7 and 8 were very helpful..
As to 9 I agree however the determination that the big bang is the only credible explanation of anything we observe to me is a human tradgedy and that there exists a determination that will see no other explanation for CMB and slams the door for consideration of options.
I am not sure that if I fully understood the science I would change my view either,
To me the big bang makes no sense unless it is there to make scientists who feel there is a God comfortable...we reach a point before the big bang where one was faced with a blank wall with no explanation as to what may be behind it other than... well that's how God started creation...
AND so it will be very interesting to see where this latest stuff takes us.
The big bang suits human experience... a birth and a death...the latest stuff the subject of the article first mentioned will now suit the concept of a resurection.. why should the Universe follow the belief and desires of explanation laid down by humans extrapolating sums humans invented... why should it indeed... if a non believer you have to content oneself with the prospect of a quantum fluctuation that got it started...fine just explain how that quantum fluctuation works... fanciful to say the least.
I am for an infinite Universe why should it be otherwise...and this is from the direction of one who does not believe in a God..any God...however if indeed there be a God..or God's, and given the power we will attribute to that God or Gods why should that God be less than infinite and as such preside over an finite Universe...for any God folk infinite is the only answer as well
.
If not infinite who put the first stuff there
..the first little blocks...who?
If we are in an infinite Universe the photons would appear near infinite and certainly up to the 99.9 % mark indicated by the research and mentioned in para 1 above...as a pure thought is this not reasonable? and if one were to believe in this could one not adjust the data to suit such a result... if one were convinced of an infinite Universe all the findings would support ones view I suggest.
It is alarming that there is only one model of the Universe that is acceptable... it is alarming that there are folk who think they are 100% correct and will admit no rivals to the ideas they support.
The steady state model died when the CMB was presented...one thing struck it down..one..one thing only...and yet the big bang has many flaws and each time one is raised a patch is applied so that the idea does not fail...oh if only the steady state model could have had a patch to get them by...
I respect the ability of our science but one would be a fool if one were to think those 1000 years from now will not look back and laugh at our attempts to explain all there is...
Now although this may sound an anti big bang thing from me I say it is more upon the point that one theory should not enjoy a higher place than others simply because those pushing the barrow can find what they set out to find...
So here is a perfect opportunity to offer a death blow to my views with a further explanation that the CMB can only be what the big bang says it is...and with such authority that there can be no other reasonable logic to pursue...
So there we have it something to ague upon that I hope we will all enjoy...and I am only so outspoken because I feel I am among friends interested in similar matters.
So when drafting a reply remember I can not be insulted even if the matter is upon my ignorance or intelligence
...true so be open without fear that I will take offence
So Ron you have some nerve posting such an inflammatory post
I hope I have not disappointed again
alex
