Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:58:43PM +1000, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > At 02:19 PM 7/25/01 -0400, Mike wrote:
> > >There is expansion of course, but do the steady
> > >staters claim the universe has been expanding FOREVER?
> > Of course. That's the great appeal of the idea. But last I heard (years
> > ago), Hoyle and Narlikar favored a sort of eternal Steady State with Small
> > Bangs; local horrendous bigger-than-quasar upheavals from their postulated
> > scalar C-field, I guess.
> Yes, I think this was their way of getting around the cosmic microwave
> background. I'm not certain they can handle the density fluctuation data
> as well as the BB, unless the mini-bangs are observationally identical
> to the big bang - in which case the theory IMHO falls afoul of Occam..
> One problem I have with the SST is that there ought to be an
> accumulation of old stuff. Even if the universe is expanding, galaxies
> hold together and age. So we should see a some very old galaxies having
> mostly imploded into central black holes and a dense cluster of dead
> stars orbiting them (with an expanding veil of stars having been thrown
> out in near collisions).
Yes, and there should also be traces of superheavy elements above the
current natural 92.
There should also be many different populations of cepheid variables
rather than just the two we know of to date, and the hydrogen synthesis
should be verifiable in laboratory experiment.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT