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.
I do not think that Halton Arp or Lerner are quack scientists. Soe of the web sites we find there article on are though. It is too bad for them that their articles are grouped together with some very extreme viewpoints.
I think it is good to have an open mind. And yes of course in the science community it is always a theory that is ruling. But I think in general the science community is open to other theories as well. This does not only happen here. Consider new theories like sting theory. First it was hot, then it did seem dead and all dropped it. It became unpolular, until some modifications made it a better theory.
Just one or two discoveries can change a lot.
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.
I think we all are spectators here
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.
What would be interesting to explore IMO is the cause for some of the abnomalies in redshift as observed. If as Arp suggested this is caused by 'aging' . i.e. that the mass of elementary particle is changing in time, this has many concequences. I would like to know more about this. I wanted to do some research on this but had an assembly in between and a few days in bed with the flu....
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.
Well, can't almost not wait. I see the theory of relativity as a real different level as the big bang theory. Relativity is much more testen (can be tested etc). Big bang of course was something that happened long a go and hard to test.
I do not kow if you mean this, but relativity does not depend on the big bang. There can be a other explaination of the universe,a nd still have relativity.
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).
My position would be in between.
4) The big bang is the thory that explains the universe the best with the current knowledge. However there is much uncertainty in the theory and futher modifications, changes or a better theory are very lickely. We should therefor have an open mind.
Danny