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).
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT