[time 167] Re: [time 164] Question

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:38:55 -0400


        The problem is that the Big Bang introduces more problems than it
explains. It postulates a unique "beginning" and "end" to spacetime.
There are more facts to be accounted for that the Big Bang with its
"dark matter" and "cosmic strings" and inflatons can deal with. It
reminds one of the epicycle theory! ;) There is evidence from the plasma
physics community that galaxies, quasars and even gamma ray bursters can
be explained nicely using their formalisms without any unobservables at
all! "Ghost galaxies" indeed!
        The blackbody background radiation and the Hubble red shift is a manner
that our QGR theory should predict. Hitoshi and I are looking into that.
        I hope I don't upset you with my weird style and lack of rigor, I am,
after all, a philosopher, and you know what physisists think of them. ;)



Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Hitoshi,
> A quick question
> If you don't believe in the Big Bang, how do you explain the cosmic background
> radiation, which seems to be ~very nicely~ explained by the Big Bang?
> ben

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST