Everitt Mickey wrote:
> Regarding cosmology it has been said...
> And here is a third article I think you might find
> interesting - note especially :
> "The best explanation for the observations requires
> that over large distances gravity becomes a repulsive
> force, not an attractive one." '
> Now's my chance to ask a question.......(betraying immense ignorance
> nodoubt...but what the heck)
> Is it just me?......or are the conclusions drawn of Plasma Cosmology (Alfven
> et al.) as portrayed in "The Big Bang Never Happened" (by Lerner) gainin
> more credibility? It would seem to me that the data presented earlier in
> this thread would be equaly well explained by a universe infinite both in
> time and in space...
> I dunno about the repulsive gravity though....
Its pretty well accepted that the big bang happened. As far as I have
heard, the macro repulsive force is separate from gravity, and is
something to do with the remaining large amount of cosmic strings woven
through the universe. Perhaps some can give more detail, but IMHO,
people who try to claim the big bang never happened are as zealously
dogmatic in proving a negative due to their fanatic atheism as anyone
who still claims the earth was created in 4004 BC.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:15 MDT