Do these other theories imply the size of the observable universe is different as well?
Harry Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Harry, > > "are there any non-big bang theories which predict the > observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? > > Many. You mention the fringes of one theory, which is just > now emerging, in your second post. To the contrary of what > they state in that piece, there is adequate if not > convincing reason to believe that the findings (which are > not new, but from the 2001/2002 WMAP survey) reflect a > definite physical connection between our local astronomical > neighborhood (Virgo supercluster) and the universe at large > by way of interstellar protons. > > Halton Arp, who Frank refers to, has suggested several other > explanations. Many of these intertwine at some level. All > are incomplete, but so is the connection to a big bang. The > fit there is fairly poor, actually, if you look at the > actual numbers. > > My favorite part of the expanded explanation, which Frank > will like, is that CMB radiation is a relic of current and > ongoing, not past, beta-aether interaction with interstellar > hydrogen. It is NOT an ancient relic of anything, but > instead it is a pointer of where to look for ZPE, not only > in "local" cosmology (if our supercluster can be considered > local) but in the very-local environment of earth (since ZPE > is also dependent on of an aether and probably is active at > the same frequencies here as "out there"). > > Where is that you ask? As I have suggested several times in > the past, a 21 cm wavelength and 1420 Mhz would be a good > place to start, if CMB is indeed somehow related to a > "particulate" of aether in the vicinity of our solar system. > If you are into Fourier transforms and power laws, then this > frequency may point to another more active frequency > locally. > > Jones
