Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody  Just a quick thing I noticed that might put your paper on ignore mode, is the discription of the big bang as an explosion. Eventhough the name implies an explosion, the inflationary theory and bb theory go hand-in-hand, and the consensus leans toward a big expansion with the picture of space stretching out and carrying matter with it as it expands. The cmb being more the result of decay of particles than due to a first exposion. |
Thanks Nobody, but I hold to the original explosion scenario___It's, IMO, the only mechanics of the universe that fits the actual laws of physics and thermo-hydro-dynamics. The inflation, only, theory makes no sense coming from nothing. The laws of physics require an infinite, eternal existence of energy/matter___IMO, it's just the original forces of motion and their evolutionary organizations that matter. The laws of physics become invalid if the entire energy/matter is not infinitely eternal___We know by all experience that the laws of physics are fundamentally sound___even when all classical, relative, and quantum cosmological relativity mechanics are considered. A universe coming from nothing makes no sense___a universe inflating without a description of original motion cause___makes no sense___scientifically. It must have the only original self-cause scientifically known___thermo-hydro-dynamics___and such a self-cause would create a true big bang explosion by simply/complex deisel through hydrodynamic compression and condensation of original wave/matter, as we now know it. How it formed then is the real question___before the first star was born___we can know the rest of the story___explosion and inflation of real wave/matter are, IMO, both true...
regards,
Lloyd