On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could > become correlated. > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf >
I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't, have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow. Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape because some involve correlations of distant objects) So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently derives the two local explanations. Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky. At some point objects like "the historic cosmological view" need to be included. And "the big bang". And then more widely things like "stable enduring structure" and "biological life". The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all together. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
