🚀 go-pugleaf

hmmm...

I have no problem with the POSSIBILITY of big bang theory...

I do have a problem with the way it is tought in schools as "factual",

and the way scientists insist on "cooking the books" to prop it up if
observations don't quite fit...

and how scientists who are open-minded enough to persue alternatives are
ridiculed.

BBT is at best a "best-fit" theory to some early observations, but the way
it has influenced interpretations of subsequent observations has reduced
current theory to a tenuous "stack of cards" where the destruction of a
fundamental idea will bring the whole lot crashing down. It will continue to
be mathematically propped up for as long as religion continues to influence
science.

Green Dehydrated Amphibian <GDA@dragon.ch> wrote in message
news:3E3F79EB.8F5B1796@nic.or.kr...
> > > > I'm looking for information on what specific
> > > > types of conditions would be necessary for a
> > > > second "big bang" to be triggered in the universe.
>
> See Andrei Linde's "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary
> Universe" at:  http://physics.stanford.edu/linde/
>
> !@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!
>
> Brief Timeline of String and Inflationary Cosmology
> http://www.sciam.com/
>
> 1915: Albert Einstein proposes the theory of general relativity, which
> equates gravity to the curvature of space-time.
>
> 1929: Edwin Hubble makes the first measurement leading to the
> conclusion that the universe is expanding.
>
> 1932: Richard Tolman works out the thermodynamics of an oscillating
> cyclic universe.
>
> 1949: Fred Hoyle coins the term "big bang."
>
> 1965: Robert Dicke, James Peebles, P.G. Roll and D.T. Wilkinson provide
> interpretation for the newly observed cosmic background radiation.
>
> 1969: George Ellis, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose derive the
> singularity theorems for the big bang, proving that general relativity
must
> break down.
>
> 1981: Alan Guth proposes an early version of the inflationary universe.
>
> 1982: Andre Linde, Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt put inflation on
> firmer footing.
>
> 1983: Andrei Linde proposes a model for a chaotic inflationary universe.
>
> 1992: John Mather and George Smoot identify fluctuations in cosmic
> background radiation with COBE satellite.
>
> 1993: Gabriele Veneziano and Maurizio Gasperini introduce their "pre-big
> bang" cosmology based on ideas in string theory.
>
> 1996: Petr Horava and Ed Witten construct an 11-dimensional string theory.
>
> 1998: Saul Perlmutter and colleagues make supernovae observations
> indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
>
> !@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!
>
> A Recycled Universe
>  Crashing branes and cosmic acceleration
>   may power an infinite cycle in
>    which our universe is but a phase
>     By JR Minkel and George Musser
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C55B5-C29B-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EE
DF&pageNumber=1&catID=4
>
>
> !@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!
>
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/inf_lowden.html
> If the density of the universe exceeds a certain threshold known as
> the critical density, this gravitational attraction is strong enough
> to stop and later reverse the expansion of the universe, causing it
> eventually to recollapse in what is known as the "Big Crunch."
>                         /.../
>         For quite some time it has been known
>         that the mean density of our universe
>         agrees with the critical density to
>         within better than a factor of ten.
>         Even with such large margin of error
>         this agreement is remarkable.
>         Establishing initial conditions so
>         that the mean density remains close
>         to the critical density for more than
>         a fleeting moment is much like trying
>         to balance a pencil on its point.
>         A universe initially with slightly
>         subcritical density rapidly becomes
>         increasingly subcritical and soon
>         virtually indistinguishable from
>         an empty universe. Similarly, an ever
>         so slightly supercritical universe
>         rapidly collapses into a Big Crunch,
>         never reaching the old age of our
>         universe---somewhere around twelve
>         billion years. To obtain a universe
>         like ours seems to require fine
>         tuning of the initial density to
>         agree with the critical density to
>         an accuracy around one part in 10^60!
>         [That's a "ten" with sixty zeros]
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/inf_lowden.html
>
> Verily... A Ten with Sixty Zeros "chance" for
> the initial density to "agree" with the critical
> density, to inflate a life-nurturing universe
> versus an empty universe, seems to suggest a
> specific fine-tuning of the original conditions...
> (a 1 in 10 to the power of 60 chance): Eternity
> has nothing but Time to impliment such myriad
> varieties. On the other hand, perhaps an advanced
> technology from a previous successful universe
> has found a way to perform these precise calculations
> for fine tuning many universes for scientific
> study and maybe even entertainment or motives
> entirely incomprehensible to us clever primates?
>
> Will we do likewise?
>
> Brookhaven National Laboratory
> http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/
>
> !@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*(!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(!