Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: atbb on 27/02/2006 18:11:09
-
Hello Soul surfer,
In answer to your question in my post titled, Hello from new member and my theory
It would appear that the way I have done my theory on my web site is not very clear according to you. But it is odd that several astronomers found no problem following it and that two are still in touch going through the finer details.
I do not think I will loose any sleep if I am not taken seriously, I have had many astronomers inform me in the past where I was wrong with parts of it and was not taken seriously. I just get on with thinking how it could be refined to fit in with their critical remarks.
You stated it does not fit in with what we see. Clearly the site puts forward a theory of dense banks of clouds stretching infinitely through the cosmos. A large mass of these clouds possibly 100 billion LY across condense through gravity over billions of years to create masses of stars in a central mass. After its expansion why would it not be any different from how we see the universe with the big bang.
With the big bang we are not sure just where we reside in our universe, we just see most objects going away from us, it would be no different in the one I put forward. Explanations for radiations are clear enough on the site.
Regards,
David.
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
-
Dear atbb;
Some people just can not understand that 99% of astro-physics is only Theory for the fact that it all is by observation and that is very long distence observation also.
And that there are way to many pepople teaching Theories as facts.
Time alone doesn't make Theory become Factual.
There are people on this site that cann't even understand that Newton said that he realy thought that all of the forces are of the same, much like magnetic fields, and that Einstein even had the math for gravity to have two poles.
Your theory is as good as anyone's keep up the work.
Edward E. Kerls
"Learn the facts and go on from there, and never stop asking questions."
Admiral Rickover
If it disagrees with experiments it is wrong!"
Dr. Feymann
-
Sorry, I've been away on holiday and am only just catching up with the board and have still a lot of stuff to read. Here is something to go on for both of you.
I agree that the information that we base our theories of the universe on is remarkably tenuous and an infinite universe in which some parts are expanding and others are contracting is a possible solution.
As for mystical life forces why pose them when an evolutionary process works so well!
I am definitely not anti innovative thinking as you will rapidly find if you look at other contributions that I have put on this board. If you want philosophy look at my web pages.
However to return to the cdurrent thread. There are quite a lot of very solid and accurately measured facts related to the laws of physics and the proof that they stay very (but not possibly absolutely)constant over the area of this universe that we can observe. This allows us to work out how these laws will work out in a wide range of initial conditions. One of the remarkable features of our universe is it's apparant size, because most universes should be much smaller than what we see to be true of ours. The larger the universe the more unlikely it is so what you suggest falls into the more unlikely area.
It therefore appears more likely that our universe is in fact smaller that we think and just appears to be large and looking at theories that fit this pattern is more likely to come up with.
Another important fact is that we know with a reasonable confidence that there are other universes which we cannot observe inside black holes and we can clearly define there may be areas of our own universe that we will never ever be able to observe and that some sort of infinite compartmentalised multiverse is also the most probable solution.
I also feel quite strongly that we should make maximum use of what we do know and have been trying to find and draw attention to unexplored corners of current knowledge. OK I am sure that there are important things that we dont know yet but all good theories are solidly based on what has hone before and solid observational evidence.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
To come back to your idea that all galaxies might be linked up to form a "supergalaxy". The large sacale structure of the universe and its component galaxies has been studied in great detail for many years and if you really want to learn about it I can reccommend the book
"The distribution of the galaxies" by William C Saslaw published by Cambridge University press in 2000 ISBN 0 521 39426 0
This is one that I am currently (among others) reading.
Galaxies show strong evidence of rotation and the Virial theorem has also been used to analyse the motions in large clusters of galaxies but beyond that the sruxture is much more stringy or possibly foamy with notes aurfaces and lines of galaxies surroundig area of very empty space. This links well with the expansion theory so all srtructures in the universe from the isotope ratios in early materials to the clustering of galaxies point to a "big bang".
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!