I shall simply have to plead ignorance on this one, but I was surprised nevertheless that I hadn't seen a competing explanation of the universe quite like this before. "How can it be that I've not heard a peep about something so ostensibly groundbreaking?" I wondered. Well, I haven't yet busied myself with reading any sort of refutation of this theory, and it's even harder yet to find follow up on the massive potential of such a description of the universe as this. As it stands, however, I can't help but predict that it was unable catch a lot of traction with cosmologists, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is/was familiar with this and can provide further information?
As an aside, what do we think about this idea, metaphorical plot holes and all? Clearly it doesn't address some of the protracted and lingering complexities that the BBT does, and yet it explains other core issues that the BBT does not. My interest has been piqued, but as much as I'd love to see big bang cosmology fall to the superfluous wayside - thus silencing men like William Lane Craig momentarily - I don't think I'll get too excited just yet.
I think he expressed the Riemann curvature tensor as a commutator for two infinitesimal spacetime displacements.
Actually the Riemann tensor tells you what the commutator of two infinitesimal spacetime displacements does to a parallel-transported vector
i.e. if vector V is parallel transported along vector A then along vector B, or parallel transported along B then along A, the Riemann tensor tells you how the result will differ.
To Tom Sarbeck: There's no reply button on your post.
>>Who says [the expansion wasn't omni-directional?
You said it wasn't with the pic you provided.
As propaganda it has some appeal.
No, that's not what the picture shows. To show expansion of the universe in time, it shows only two dimensions of space. Surely you didn't think space was two dimensional. As I pointed out, it's a schematic diagram.
My income doesn't depend on my agreeing with the BB hypothesis, so I have a freedom that many BB supporters don't have.
If yours does, I understand.
Your intended insult missed the mark. On the other hand your recourse to self-congratulatory innuendo signals you've exhausted your capacity for civil and rational discussion.
Your intended insult missed the mark.
Dr. Clark, when I intend an insult I do far better than inquiring about economic motivations. All I ask of you is that you not think me so naive as to expect people to not have economic motivations, even people in academia where research requires funding.
There are other less noble motivations, one of which is group think. According to one historian of classical times, after the Persians made an important decision they guarded against group think by getting drunk and reconsidering the question. They guarded themselves more effectively than we more civil people do.
During the 1970s I did some investigative reporting for an article I was writing for an environmental journal and took the advice of professionals: follow the trail of money. After its publication, an economics professor at Arizona State University told me he footnoted my article in a journal article he wrote.
I had an economic motivation; I didn't want to pay the taxes for a project whose chief beneficiaries would be politically-connected landowners.
When I later ran for a legislative seat, the law required me to identify my economic motivations. My opponent's campaign staff investigated them further.
I was in a more dangerous game than we are here. Check Wikipedia for "Don Bolles" (the reporter not the musician), and you will see the stakes.
...you've exhausted your capacity for civil and rational discussion.
Only in your opinion; we've touched only intellectual motivations.
Since we each have views about the origin for which there is now and will long be insufficient evidence, I suggest that we end our discussion here.
Two pieces of advice.
First, you would do well to gain a better grasp of evidence for Big Bang cosmology before condemning it. It may be wrong. If so, time will tell, but your criticisms appear to be based simply on misunderstanding. Skepticism is more effective when well informed.
Second, it is better to presume people are expressing honestly held views until you have good evidence to the contrary. It bespeaks courtesy and spares you the shame of being gratuitously wrong. No atheist needs to join the church of the unwarranted assumption.
A new great religion: The Church of the Unwarranted Assumption.
It would not lack for pastors or a congregation of sheep.
If memory serves, the phrase is due to novelist Peter DeVries, one of the wittiest writers ever, but I can't tell you which book it's in.
Church of the Unwarranted Assumption. Nice name.
Some BB folks want so much to win converts that they use words much like I heard from priests when I was in college and questioning:
...you would do well to gain a better grasp of evidence for Catholicism before condemning it.
They recommended Augustine and Aquinas.
Augustine had no credibility with me because I already knew he had prayed for chastity but wanted it postponed. Aquinas had no credibility with me because I already knew he wanted one-man-rule.
Besides, I was working on a degree in math, which as you know requires evidence.
...it is better to presume people are expressing honestly held views s until you have good evidence to the contrary.
With a minor in economics, I don't need Marx to say I have excellent evidence that people pursue their self-interest.
It's in the self interest of BB supporters to have the government deny funding for researching alternative hypotheses.
And so, BB supporters are engaged in politics. One early political victory was using BB Theory rather than BB Hypothesis. Yeah, I fell for that piece of propaganda.
Church of the Unwarranted Assumption is clever but it's poor propaganda; it's too easily turned around.
What kind of math are you into?
Before I retired at 45, I did some thermal analysis (diffequ) work, some commercial sort/merge work (sort algorithms are fun), and then wrote an email package.
Now, as a club treasurer, I do arithmetic.
And yeah, I'm playing with a non-relevant question.
You might learn something about the Big Bang theory, Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes might be a good book to read.
Luara, you deleted your original post so I deleted my reply to it.
This one's a bit more temperate. Thank you.
Like a lot of people who disagree with widely accepted science ideas, you are voicing FAQ's - in this case about the Big Bang, and you could easily look up the answers to the FAQ's online. Do you really think cosmologists are so stupid as to overlook questions like galaxies headed towards each other???