>Is he saying that the Big Bang theory is just bad science, leaving aside its
>socio-historical origins? Care to summarise some of his ideas a little?
>
>Mark
He says precisely that. He notes that even what we can ascertain within
the span of our current instruments demonstrates that the size of the known
universe exceeds that possible in a 20 billion year old universe, noting
Tulley's Complexes. He notes that for theory to match observation, matter
density must be approximately one atom per ten cubic meters, which is far
less than we must necessarily extrapolate from what we have observed. He
notes that "cosmic strings," a dubious idea generated to compensate for
theoretical contradictions, for which there is not a shred of evidence,
still can't overcome the size problem. The amont of X-Radiation that is
being emitted is less than 1/100th what should be produced by the natural
braking of matter at the velocities predicted by the Big Bang. And the
amount of background radiation predicted by Big Bang theorists is woefully
short, 1/10 of what actually exists, as measured in 1987 and again in 1989
by the COBE satellite. He completely discounts "dark matter," in an
argument too complex for this medium. His alternative has to do with
"plasma, which he considers ubiquitous, as postulated by Hannes Alfven, and
says that plasma cosmology squares far more consistently with what has been
observed. What he principally reclaims is infinity.
"Today Big Bang theorists see a univers much like that envisioned by the
medieval scholars--a finite cosmos created ex nihilo, from nothing, whose
perfection is in the past, which is degenerating to a final end. The
perfect principles used to form this universe can only be known by pure
reason, guided by authority, independent of observation. Such a cosmic
myth arises in periods of social crisis or retreat, and reinforces the
separation of thought and action, ruler and ruled. It breeds fatalistic
pessimism that paralyzes society.
"By contrast, the opposing view, plasma cosmology, is empirical, a product
of the scientific method of Galileo and Kepler. Its proponents see an
infinite universe evolving over infinite time. The universe can only be
studied through observation--there is no final answer in science and no
final authority. This approach, binding together tought and action, theory
and observation, has proved, over the ages, to be a weapon of social
change. The idea of progress in the universe has always been linked with
the idea of social progress on earth."
Check out Eric Lerner, Hannes Alfven, and Ilya Prigogene on the web. Lots
of stuff there. Prigogene seems to be describing the dialectical process
scientifically.
Cheers,
Stan
"Teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom"
Psalm 90
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
