Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
There are two problems with Peter Wilson's idea:
1) it contains no new physics, so should not reach any conclusions that the current standard model is not already reaching, unless it can show that an error is being made in the standard analysis...
|
That is my point exactly! You do not need "new physics" to explain the expansion! The "standard model" presupposes an explosion, then uses GR to track how the explosion evolves. And the results look
nothing like what we see! Hence, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the singularity problem, the missing magnetic monopole problem, the ancient galaxy problem, the acceleration problem... The Big Bang model is a completely wrong on 6 of its 8 predictions. But instead of re-examining the initial hypothesis, one ad-hoc conjecture after another has been "piled on:" Inflation, dark energy, colliding branes in extra dimensions... None of these "theories" have a shred of observational evidence, except that they "save" the Big Bang theory!
This is not science. (
www.cosmologystatement.org/) If a theory yields 6 completely wrong predictions (and the microwave background is only half-right...but that is another subject), then it is time to
try another hypothesis.
The Big Bang model has tried to explain the present expansion in terms of a singular event in the past. This approach has completely failed. What I am saying is, look for an explanation in the present.
Presently, the moon’s orbit is expanding, because presently, the earth is spinning. Presently, the sun is expanding, because presently, nuclear reactions are taking place in its core. Presently, the Atlantic Ocean is expanding, because presently, geologic forces are at work beneath it. And presently, the universe is expanding, because presently, something is causing it to expand.
And that "something" could be any number of things, but radiant energy is one obvious source. I have estimated the quantity of radiant energy (two posts up). It is such a crude estimate, it could easily be off by 2 orders of magnitude (OOMs), either way. Do you agree that my number for the radiant energy is "in the ball park" (within 2 OOMs)? If not, what is it? If visible matter is not radiating energy at about 1 joule/kg/yr, then what is the rate?
I will quickly concede that the theory is inadequate...if the numbers are wrong. But before we can agree or disagree whether the numbers are right, we have to agree on what the numbers are.