Hi BL, it's an awful cold universe without the BB, or at least the small bangs... Then if small bangs, why not a BB? What would one call the first small bang, being the only one, and no other bang to measure it against? See the point...? It's a non-definable, so small or big have the same meaning___sorry... How would one measure it against an infinite space one can't define...? Maybe all infinite space exploded first___A dark light explosion, into light...? There's still many open questions___me thinks... Was there a vacuum before first light/star, or was it pressure...? Is least possible primordial motion cold or hot...? Was there angular motion of any kind before first light...? What primordial energy produced angular motion___any motion...? Lots of questions... I just think a true atomic decay mechanics math is the only scientific way to answer these, and many other yet unanswered physics questions...
Real atomic decay, over enough time, collapses any and all steady state theories___sorry... Bye, bye static state universes... I'll send the tombstone... Hawking already proved this mathematically, with earlier works... What's he losing his mind, since...? His earlier work is scientifically and mathematically more true...
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomlander  I agree with RascalPuff.
Stephen Hawking did 'the normal adjustment' to the single Big Bang Theory and wrote a book 'Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays" in 1993.
He proposed many many baby universes alike bubbles within a beer.
If so, the overall cosmic picture actually becomes a Steady State Theory.
Yet science bureaucracy says that Steady Steady Theories had been collapsed!
Best Regards. Bottomlander |