"At 01:32 PM 8/7/96 EDT, Crosby_M wrote: 'Lerner shows how the basic
assumptions of the Big Bang theory have been refuted by observation.' IAN:
How does he write off the appearance of universal expansion due to the
red-shift of all starlight ?"
My statement that "the basic assumptions of the Big Bang theory have been
refuted" was a poor choice of words. Basically, I think Lerner proposes an
evolving universe driven mostly by dynamic electrical and magnetic currents
generated at the gallactic level, as well as the more static gravitational
forces of history that dominate general relativity and conventional
cosmology. When these forces are incorporated into theory, he sees no need
for a Big Bang and some of its appendages, like black holes and dark matter.
The red-shift, or "Hubble relationship" as Lerner refers to it, is "still a
mystery", he admits. In fact he devotes an appendix to the several theories
on this, such as Alfven's antimatter theories and the various "tired light"
theories first started by Dirac. Lerner summarizes these thus: "light may
lose energy as it travels through space, shifting it to red. Or perhaps all
objects, all space expands continuously, a certain tiny percentage a year."
Another pillar of conventional cosmology is the idea that a Big Bang is
necessary to explain the smooth cosmic background radiation that we see at
the 'edge' of the universe. Lerner, instead, proposes that this might not
be an echo of some perfect past but rather "the glow from a radio fog
produced in the present-day universe." I'm definitely not an expert on this
stuff but I might add that, perhaps, expansion is simply a side-effect of
the ever-increasing complexity of matter as it evolves.
Eric Watt Forste's comments concluded that: "If I were an astrophysicist or
a cosmologist, I'd worry about the ultimate destiny of the universe, because
that would be part of my job. But I'm not, so I'll worry about it in a few
hundred years, maybe."
I am also not at all interested in "the ultimate destiny of the universe"
EXCEPT for one reason: If there is no ultimate destiny of the universe, then
that implies that we have access to unlimited creativity in the immediate
reality. I think it further implies that stages of life and intelligence
beyond the human are not only possible but likely to exist already. That's
why I find 'anthropic' ideas of humans alone consuming the universe to be
rather amusing (if not impertinent). But I still endorse the "Mind
Children" mission because it seems to be the next logical step in our
species' diaspora "onward and outward" from the primordial tidal pool.
I'm all for an empirical method of deriving one's values and theories from
the evolving evidence of the immediate reality; but, let's never settle for
the immediate reality and always strive to see how far we can jump beyond
it.
Mark