Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 19:47:39 +0300 (EET DST)
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Ben,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ben Goertzel <email@example.com>
> To: Stephen P. King <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Time List <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 12:34 AM
> Subject: [time 173] Re: [time 167] Re: [time 164] Question
> > > 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!
> > Just to clarify
> > -- dark matter is not a logically a consequence of the big bang, it's a
> > consequence of some
> > extra assumptions that people make
> on the basis of observation...
> > -- cosmic strings are not needed for the big bang
> > I'm not wedded to the big bang theory. However, it was the discovery of
> > the cosmic
> > background radiation that caused most steady state theorists to give up
> > (pretty much
> > all but Hoyle and Narlikar, who developed the steady state theory initially
> > This one particular empirical observation very strongly supports the big
> > bang, and I know
> > of no alternative explanation. If we can find one, that's great.
> Hoyle prosposed that the space is filled with some small thin sticks made of
> iron at a small density, which reflect radiations from stars, etc. He
> calculated the wave length and it concides with the cosmic background
> radiation... according to my memory. According to this explanation, the region
> filled with such sticks can be finite, and at any point inside the region, the
> same radiation should be observed. So there is a possibility that if we can go
> out some region around earth (which may have some sharp boundary), we can find
> a place where no cosmic radiation can be observed.
The observed slight unisotropy (\Delta T/T =about 10^-5: do I remember
correctly?) caused by fluctuations in mass density caused by the presence
of lumps of matter, is in accordance with predictions. I think that
Hoyle's theory might have difficulties with this.
> > ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST