0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oliver,. . . . - your meteorite data, for example, is outdated and wrong. I am currently studying . . . before responding. RgdsO.
I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.
Is this anything more than an advert?Does it belong on this thread?
Oliver,I regret that I will have to pend further discussion for the forseeable future. My thinking in relation to another poster in a separate sub-forum is out of synch with forum moderation. The honourable thing for me to do is to absent myself for a time. I apologise for the impact this will have on what could have been an interesting discussion.RegardsOphiolite
what do you believe?
Come to think of it- the microwave background radiation, and then the proof that the universe is expanding. These two are observations and we cannot disprove them.
The observations are correct, however the conclusions we reach based upon them are merely assumptions. We assume that the CMBR is the cooled down remnants of the Big Bang.
It might simply be the temperature reached by cosmic debris as it is warmed by starlight.
We assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect.
There are other assumptions we could make that would explain the observations without the need to violate natures laws.
The Big Bang Theory requires a violation of the natural laws, at least in its early stages.
The First IncongruityIs the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?
The second IncongruityThere was not enough time to start the universe!The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).
The Third IncongruityThe universe had to expand faster than light!
The Fourth IncongruitySomething Came from Nothing?
The Fifth IncongruityParallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense