Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
Armchair ratiocination?? My theory is a logical progression. Satellites orbiting around planets, planets orbiting around stars, stars orbiting around galaxies, galaxies orbiting around Tipperary. And the Whirlies logically orbiting around something else.
|
Haven't you considered that your hypothesis is a recipe for infinite regress? Or in this case, exgress? Where does it end and why?
Quote:
|
My theory has a track record, the big bang theory is like starting another railroad line. It's like having a jar you can't see through full of jellybeans. You reach in once and pull out a red jellybean. The same for the second, third, forth, and fifth; all red jellybeans. I'm betting my money if you reach in again it's going to be a red jellybean. The Big Bang says it's going to be a yellow marble???
|
More like the Big Bang theory says you'll run out of jellybeans. But in any case, current observations do not lend credence to your hypothesis. Looking at maps of the universe at large, at supercluster distribution etc, it seems to be fairly even despite localised clumping, and generally hardly the sort of distribution one would expect from an orbital system.
Compare:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html
The visible universe, with fairly uniform distribution of galaxies.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galaxy.html
The galaxy, an orbital system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...lanets2006.jpg
Our solar system, another example of an orbital system.
Now, notice the dissimilarities between the last two examples and the visible universe at large. I feel my point is aptly illustrated.
Quote:
|
I do not assume Tipperary is 2.2 million x 43,428. I just used that as an example of where it would be if it were the same distance as our sun from the center of the milky way.
|
Fair enough, but you didn't address my other concerns.