Godfree wrote:The big bang THEORY , is one of many theories regarding the evolution of the universe .
to assume one is correct and the rest wrong , is a little premature, ...
That's the thing you see, they don't in general 'assume'. The BBT theory was one of two, I presume, theories, always been here and created. The BBT was not particularly favoured but the discovery of the microwave background fitted a clear prediction for this theory, that and it so far fits pretty well with observation and experimentation. You think the atheist and agnostic scientists weren't unhappy with such a thing? Not aware what the theist could say with such an idea?
to assume any of them are correct is more than science is prepared to do.
Science thinks this exactly the more correct theory at present.
I find it entertaining to come up with other possibilities ,
don't you ,???
Depends, do I understand the fun in thinking about such things? Sure. Do I think them philosophy any more, not as such as I think 'science' has shown us that epistemology and phenomenology may be philosophy's purview, although Logic is still ours if the philosopher wants to work hard-enough. So I wonder what you mean by "possibilities"? As like I say, in my opinion for them to be that you'd have to convince the astrophysicists, as that arsy bunch of metaphysicians don't take much notice of the philosopher no more. Me, if I do any physics based metaphysics, I prefer the Digital Philosophy and Physics of Fredkin, I like my scientists mad and logical but I also thought Zuse's seminal paper amazing and nearly incomprehensible, but what I got was a laugh at its metaphor for 'reality'.
not only do we have big old galaxies at the outer limits of our view ,
but we also have an even spread of these galaxies not a tight spread near the bang site and wider further out , no an even spread ,
which also doesn't seem to fit this bb model .
I like to make predictions ,
At some point in the future ,
I believe they will drop the bbt , and replace it with a LBT .
No idea what LBT means? The way anyone in physics will listen to you is if you make a prediction that can be tested by experiment from this LBT that can't be made from the BBT and better, if you can find a prediction in the BBT theory that would disprove itself and even better if you can make such a prediction for this LBT.
As someone pointed-out, the sciences have a history of replacing theories so its not much of a prediction.
Its the way you talk about 'spreads', and distance that makes me differ in our understanding of what the BBT means in any sense, mine is that the BB was not an explosion in the 3-d sense we understand such a thing as a thing banging. It was the event of spacetime that created such things as things that go bang, where our 'time' is a 'distance' 'in' its. How this relates to how the galaxies et al are currently understood and measured I'll leave to those who wish to study such things, as the Maths is beyond my wish to learn, although the Physicist does have to learn less than the Mathematician I guess but then the Engineers even less, and I know who I prefer to drink with.
You are a simulation running-on either an emulator or simulator running in a simulation or emulation running in a simulation or emulation on some hardware calculating something! Even better, it might just be the boot-up and init stage. Worse, you might not be what its been designed for. It ALL makes sense now!!
