Miriam English wrote:
> At 02:19 PM 25/07/2001 -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >Well, what I want to know is: if everything is a steady state, then why
> >is there quantum tension enough between galaxies to cause hydrogen to
> >pop into existence? There is expansion of course, but do the steady
> >staters claim the universe has been expanding FOREVER?
> Yep, that is the general idea. It gets away from that dumb mistake people
> tend to make over and over again:
> Europe is the single center of the world... oops, the Earth is round.
> The Earth is the single center of the solar system... oops, the sun is.
> Our solar system is the single center of the universe... oops, we are on
> the edge of our Milky Way galaxy.
> Our galaxy is the single center of the universe... oops, those other things
> way out there -- they are other galaxies.
> The universe had a single central starting point 15 billion years ago... oops
Actually, miriam, BBT DOESN'T claim there was a central starting point.
Since the universe contains all points, at the moment of the monobloc,
all points were contained within it, there was nothing outside it, see?
I think that this is one of the big conceptual stumbling blocks that the
SST people can't seem to grasp.
> If you hear people talk about the big-bang theory you could be forgiven for
> thinking that it is proven fact and not simply a theory. Even the microwave
> background radiation which is hailed as a great vidicator for big-bang was
> a real problem for it in the early days. But theories get modified to fit.
> I kinda like the idea of old material getting squashed out of existence in
> black holes and new material popping into existence in the great voids. Now
> that we know about vacuum energy (can't remember the proper term) it
> doesn't seem infeasible.
The problem is that zero point field energy can only be drawn out into
existence as matter in the presence of an event horizon. Without such a
boundary layer to separate particle pairs, the particle pairs cancel
each other out.
> I have never understood the problem most people have with infinity. It
> seems way more natural than a beginning or an end. As one who has
> subscribed to an extropian way of thinking since early childhood the
> prospect of a universe which never dies is infinitely more appealing.
I have never understood why most people have a problem with the idea
that the end of the universe does not have to mean the end of
themselves. As one who has subscribed to an extropian way of thinking
isnce early childhood, the prospect of outliving the universe, and
experiencing infinite others, is infinitely more appealing.
There is, after all, a limit to how much you can know and experience in
this universe, and there is far greater possibility for experience in
traveling to other universes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT