Danny,
Sorry you are feeling under the weather. I hope you get well soon.
I don't think that guys like Halton Arp and Eric Lerner are quacks. They have been around too long (i.e. seasoned, experienced veterans), have excellent academic qualifications, are very aware of the whole body of knowledge that their particular specialties comprise, are juxtapositioning their own observations and theories with that of their colleagues, meeting their objections head-on, and can defend themselves eminently well. Further, they are in very responsible positions within their professions. They just are not very popular amongst their fellow scientists because they don't agree with what everyone else is saying. I think that is a BIG part of the problem here, and that is a barrier I am trying to go thru or around. We need free and open discussion about all points of view. That is reasonable and fair and justifiable.
At the same time, I am probably a lot like most of us here- a spectator, watching from the sidelines, watching these scientists spar with each other, while I am trying to figure out what is really going on. I have never said I have all the answers, but I sure do want to hear from many different individuals who will critique, criticize, defend or whatever, the things that these scientists are saying. I am trying not to be judgemental, or to have preconceived notions about things, and that is one thing I am trying to foster on this thread, with free and open discussions and exchange of viewpoints, moving forward. This is not about polarizing opinions and apologetics, or preaching dogma. It is about exploration and discovery, and in the end, I hope we do discover and appreciate a few new things from having gone thru this exercise.
One thing that is emerging from my own experience thus far, is how much I have yet to learn, and also how little I do know about anything for a certainty. It is, at the same time, both humbling and a little frightening. I feel like I am "groping" for the "truth" which seems so illusive at times. I keep searching for "the answer", and so far the answer seems to be "there ain't no answer!" Oh well, onward and upward! (Or as my marketing friend used to tell me, "Inward and downward!"
Regarding the question of "new physics", again, this is just like the Red Shift question. It is a whole other area of exploration, all of which is relevant to the discussion of the Big Bang theory or alternatives. This again, is a huge and technical subject, with a lot of room for debate and interpretation.
Relativity is another tool used in Big Bang, and, in fact, depends on it. But here again, contrary to what most think, there are some serious questions on that subject as well, which I have told everyone previously I will want to get into at some depth on another thread. And I don't mean kinky or kooky science here either. You would be surprised to learn that just tinkering around with a few adjustments and changes and additions is not going to suffice. There may actually have to be a whole new paradigm shift involved. But we'll leave that one for another day.
You mentioned that one of the problems is that some of the articles here are not technical. I suppose you mean that therefore we cannot evaluate the merits or otherwise of their respective theories or explanations, and so it is hard to predict the outcomes or consequences of their models. But this is partly what I thought I was already doing in the cases of Halton Arp and Lerner- there is a lot of technical detail and measurement and observational data they have presented, which I thought would help you to assimilate and evaluate their theories better.
I think it is pretty clear that given our present state of knowledge, we are not going to get to the bottom of everything anytime soon.
You will recall that I stated much earlier that we would first try to present some alternate viewpoints and deal with specific items on Big Bang (eg RedShift) one at a time. Then, at the end of our "fact-finding" mission, my intent was to try and put things together and see if we can distill things, and finally discuss some of the implications or ramifications for these alternatives, if the Big Bang is not necessarily true.
Well, I would still like to end up with that kind of discussion. But at the same time, I am discovering that it is extremely difficult to isolate one thing at a time and deal with it only, to the exclusion of all others. There is so much interaction going on, with one approach or factor that bolsters a particular item, while another one challenges the same thing.
Anyway, we're not done yet. But it should prove interesting as to where we are going to end up. Here is what I think are the possible outcomes of this discussion:
1) We may end up accepting the Big Bang theory as it is currently being taught or accepted.
2) We may decide that at least one alternative explanation or model for the Universe has a better explanation than does "Gig-Bang.
3) We may come to the view that this is entirely too uncertain, too complex, too tentative at the present level of our knowledge of the universe, that the only intelligent position to take on this is that of the "Agnostic". We simply do not know with any kind of certainty. Therefore, we shall remain open to the possibility that other models are possible than the Big Bang, and so we simply need to keep an open mind, and await new developments and observation and research.
(For the record, thus far my position is 3).
Rod P.
edited to remove gaps and spaces and to correct the first sentence.
