1) Can you give an example of non matter conservation? The particle-antiparticle creation in vacuum with "borrowed" energy perhaps? But it is not stated there the energy is netto created, the particles annihilate again, and no energy is lost or won.

2) But not that relative. Or do you hold it for possible that some sphere of matter, suddenly expands (which is motion) out of a state in which there was no motion? Pls. give an example of that!

3) Well yes, of course time is connection to motion, but motion is connected to matter also. There is no intrinsic time, apart from matter. Matter is in motion always (motion is the mode of existence of matter), and therefore time exist. There wasn't a time in which there was no motion. Matter couldn't exist when it was not in motion, and time couldn't exist when there was no matter. So, if we talk about the material world, then these concepts of matter being in motion and the notion of time and space, are brought together and are interconnected. A material world without time, or without motion or without space, is just simply non-existent.
That is why I think 'A phyiscs' of a world before the beginning of time, is just a non-existent world, and talking about it is not physics.
I am not elaborating on a Steady State theory (which does assume the cosmos expands, but compensates this by the obscure "matter creation" thing, in order for the cosmos to be 'static').
I was working on the viewpoint, that the redshift has a non-doppler cause, and therefore creates the illusion of an expanding space/universe.
There is obviously a mechanism that causes the light from far away stars to become weaker (redder), and that is why we only see a portion of the universe.
In my perspective you need a form of photon - matter interaction, that causes the photon to loose energy proportional to distance, without the photons becoming "diffuse".
Yhe intergalactic space is very dens, true. Even denser then any vacuum we can create in an earth laboratory. But there is a lot of space out there, and each cubic meter of space containts some matter. It all adds up in those large distances.
Isn't there such a mechanism?
If we look at a light source in a tube with an undense gas in it, it can be measured that the light looses some of it's energy without becoming diffuse, and which is a proportional with distance mechanism for redshift.
Steady State is an expanding universe model. I wasn't trying to 'revive' that model. I was simply stating that the remnants of all the star light in the infinite universe, cause the sky to be bright in the 3 K region, and not visible light, because of the redshift mechanism.
Well, it already goes further then that, with Inflation models, and pre-Inflation models (Instanton). It's not left to spculation, but to theoritical investigation (but of the kind that is purely speculative indeed!), such as the Hawking-Turok instantanton model. There it is, we are being left in the dark, or being brought to 'a physics'.
This is a very microscopic phenomena.
And you somehow assume that Nature at one time decided to pop up with a number of particles/energy that was sufficient to have this universe emerge?
Remember though, this energy is only on borrow, someday it will have to be payed back!
But not that relative (see my 1st argument). The argument is, if you put together all existing matter together in a motionless state, motion cannot arise out of it. But the case is absurd of course, cause neither matter could exist, when not being in motion somehow. To explain all this, phyisics leads us right back to a dark and obscure form of physics (meta-physics), to explain what 'caused' this matter and motion to arise, and time and space to become into existence.
There is no 'why' question in physics, that's right. We can't ask why the universe exist, we can only try to understand how it works.

Or as Hawking explained to us:

"One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It should just BE."
Oh, it's not my doubt if the current theory is embraced by a lot of scientists, I am completely aware of that fact.
I revealed some of the problems that comes up with the BB theory. I don't think that it is doable for me to clearly proof the BB theory is wrong, I would have to rely on sources and investigations from others.
To my knowledge, given the amount of credit given to the BB theory, such a thing would be a major achievement and break-through in cosmology.
That is something that can be assumed. Although I do not realy see a connection with this to the BB theory, as it includes the concept of a beginning of time. How would you remove that "beginning of time" thing from BB theory?
Yes, I am digging into that stuff, the issue on hand though is that every examnination leads you to innumerous sources, which have contrasting opinions and assumptions about nearly everything. It's a giant task even to get a non-contradictionary prescription on what in fact the BB theory says or states.
And I am far from laughing on the scientist who credit BB theory, I am mere pointing out BB theory contains somehow inproper concepts and notions about the material world, that in a way don't go together. And to my knowledge it might well turn out, that every other possible (yet, undiscovered) explenation or theory which could replace BB theory, while removing those from the BB theory, has the property of leaving other things in the dark or contain somehow contradictionary concepts. And somehow to my notion, we always come up with some kind of contradiction, which might well be the very essence of reality and existence, so that every theory about reality, must somehow contain contradictions, and which explains that no theory can explain reality in an uncontradicationary way.

It is questionable if this BB theory is not as much of an inflation vacuum bubble, as the material world it describes.
I can point to some of the interpretations, which seem to have gone their own way, and were not implied by their respective discoverers. For instance, the Friedman solution to the Einstein equations about the cosmos. Friedman himself did not imply there, the cosmos was expanding, but it was just an outcome of the mathematical model, in which the expanding metrics of the space made the calculations easier.
And still up to today, in my notion, there realy is not such a thing as "space expansion", it doesn't fit the reality of space.
I know, this is just my notion or conceptual framework, that tells me something is wrong there, and that becomes clear if one mixes the "modelled space" and it's behaviour with "real space". "space expansion" is realy an ugly concept, because - in order for it to have any effect in the real world - adresses properties to space that are not viable. A photon traveling through space, has no notion about this "space expansion" and it can't be that it's light becoming redder is somehow caused by the space, it traveled through having expanded during the travel, cause it would mean "something" interacted with the photon.
So, in fact I very much doubt if the cause for the photons emitted light years ago by stars light years distantiated from us, to be seen redder as when they were emitted, has something to do with the "expanding space" at all.
Friedman himself, who was the first one who thought of the cosmological consequences of the Einstein GR equations, did not think about it in that way. And I believe, neither Hubble implied the redshift he discovered to have the meaning of an expanding universe.
So it might well be that what we call an expanding universe, is nothing more then a self-created illusion, because we adapted a false interpretation to what we observe.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-24 12:26 ]</font>