Alternative Physics Theory

[heusdens]

Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred. But the process of scientific progress is not being made at the basis of ignoring any other viable explenation of the cosmos.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence. The Big Bang theory is patched any time observational evidence shows that the predictions of the theory don't hold.

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause.

An alternative physics theory, I recently came accross, makes different approaches on many terrains, and comes up with a consistent theory of physics.
In last instance this theory just makes only one assumption, namely that space itself is an eternal and infinite substance in eternal motion, and causes all the known phenemona of the universe in the form of wave interactions.
In this physics theory, there aren't any particles, but the phenomena which we call or see as particles are just the consequences of standing waves in the space medium.

The theory is known as Wave Structure of Matter.

Apart from a total new and different physics theory, it also is an alternative to the Big Bang, as it has a different explenation for both red shift and cosmic background radiation.

In WSM theory (Wave Structure if Matter) the universe is a finite part of infinite and eternal space. The size of the universe is just determined by the maximum distance waves can interact. Every point in space has a spherical shell around it, it is the center of it's own universe.
And because of that maximum distance, the universe shells of two distant points have less common 'universe', and that is what we see as redshift. It explains why there is a redshift - distance relationship.
Apart from other mechanisms that can cause redshift.

This is a very simple and brief explenation, and shows that the pilars of the Big Bang theory might fall.

Since the theory is rather new (although not that new, some principles have been put forward several hundred years ago), from what I know about it, this theory is in accordance with known physical observations.

General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. don't go directly out of the window, as these ideas are basically right, and can be incorporated into WSM theory.

I just present it here, for people to get in touch with it and hopefully discuss it on here, as als a viable alternative for the BB theory.

According to WSM theory, there was no Big Bang, since there is no expansion of the universe, and space itself as the primal substance is both eternal and infinite and in motion.

The principles of WSM theory are very simple, but the impact is great.

You can read more on WSM theory here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

[heusdens]

Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred. But the process of scientific progress is not being made at the basis of ignoring any other viable explenation of the cosmos.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence. The Big Bang theory is patched any time observational evidence shows that the predictions of the theory don't hold.

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause.

An alternative physics theory, I recently came accross, makes different approaches on many terrains, and comes up with a consistent theory of physics.
In last instance this theory just makes only one assumption, namely that space itself is an eternal and infinite substance in eternal motion, and causes all the known phenemona of the universe in the form of wave interactions.
In this physics theory, there aren't any particles, but the phenomena which we call or see as particles are just the consequences of standing waves in the space medium.

The theory is known as Wave Structure of Matter.

Apart from a total new and different physics theory, it also is an alternative to the Big Bang, as it has a different explenation for both red shift and cosmic background radiation.

In WSM theory (Wave Structure if Matter) the universe is a finite part of infinite and eternal space. The size of the universe is just determined by the maximum distance waves can interact. Every point in space has a spherical shell around it, it is the center of it's own universe.
And because of that maximum distance, the universe shells of two distant points have less common 'universe', and that is what we see as redshift. It explains why there is a redshift - distance relationship.
Apart from other mechanisms that can cause redshift.

This is a very simple and brief explenation, and shows that the pilars of the Big Bang theory might fall.

Since the theory is rather new (although not that new, some principles have been put forward several hundred years ago), from what I know about it, this theory is in accordance with known physical observations.

General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. don't go directly out of the window, as these ideas are basically right, and can be incorporated into WSM theory.

I just present it here, for people to get in touch with it and hopefully discuss it on here, as als a viable alternative for the BB theory.

According to WSM theory, there was no Big Bang, since there is no expansion of the universe, and space itself as the primal substance is both eternal and infinite and in motion.

The principles of WSM theory are very simple, but the impact is great.

You can read more on WSM theory here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

[Cougar]

Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred.

Incorrect.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence.

This is not an "assumption". There are a variety of empirical supports for this possibility. Why do you consider this a problem?

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause.

Incorrect.

An alternative physics theory, I recently came accross, makes different approaches on many terrains, and comes up with a consistent theory of physics.

I see some rather broad claims, but little experimental and/or observational support. Whether this theory is self-consistent and accurately describes and explains reality remains to be seen.

[Broken Symmetry]

Wow... this may actually fit into the model that I have thought up/explained on this message board under the post 'unification and physical pictures'

Expansion/inflation may just be observational consequences of transitions that occur on the 'inside' of the universe, where on the 'surface' it may remain more or less static.

WSM may also fit an idea of how forces emerge simply out of geometrical arrangements in the universe on different scales.

[Faultline]

Not another one.

Ahem... "The scientific community treats X theory like fundamental religious scripture!"

Prove it.

Never mind, you can't. Just understand that theories are held as a correct model even if they are adapted to fit new evidence. As long as it can fit the observations, I don't care how many times its patched.

[Faultline]

In WSM theory (Wave Structure if Matter) the universe is a finite part of infinite and eternal space. The size of the universe is just determined by the maximum distance waves can interact.

BOINK!

The Universe is infinite, but its size is determined by the maximum distance waves can interact?

BOINK! Ugh. Obvious contradiction. How can something that is infinite be determined to be equal to anything other than infinity?

[akirabakabaka]

In last instance this theory just makes only one assumption, namely that space itself is an eternal and infinite substance in eternal motion, and causes all the known phenemona of the universe in the form of wave interactions.

Sounds great, except that this doesn't really mean anything in plain english (word soup). Got a reference to some actual research done on this theory?

[heusdens]

This is a typical reaction.

Consider this. The "facts" on which the Big Bang theory is built are rather thin.

The main "proof" of the Big Bang is that there is a distance-with-redshift relationship. In Big Bang theory, it serves as evidence for the expansion.

But there are other viable explenations other then expansion.

I recently came accross a scientific report, which claims that the proposed mechanism for redshift in the Big Bang theory, the expansion of space, can not even cause the effect of redshift, since photons don't loose energy because of the stretching effect.

Another thing, the temperature of space. Conventional models about radiation explain that temperature and spectrum equally well, so also that is not a unique proof for the Big Bang theory.

About finiteness/infinity. The claim is that the universe (that what we can actually observe) is of finite proportions, while space itself (which is in WSM theory a medium) is infinite.

Look at this as follows. An electron is considered a wave like thing. So it is not some local object, as the particle model subscribes, put is something which extends in space. It only manifests itself (in macroscopic terms) as a point particle.

About the patching of the Big Bang theory. This is not a normal property of a theory. Normally, we could make predictions at the basis of the theory, and then later check those predictions with observations. The Big Bang theory does that the other way around. Everytime the theory is in trouble, a new variant is proposed, which matches the observations.

One could claim that, if at last the theory explains the facts, everything is ok. But one has to consider other viable, and more simple models, also.

The model which is the simplest, and fits the data equally or better, would have to be preferred.

It is just a form of arrogance to look on viable alternatives as just "crackpot" theories.

If we would consider the BB theory to be valid, it urges us to assume that the further we look in space, the younger the stellar systems are. But we do not see any proof of that. They are just typical stellar systems, which we also find nearby.
Populated by average stars.

This way the Big Bang theory looses it's predictive power.
At least this should make people aware that, perhaps, the Big Bang theory isn't a valid theory, and we would have to look elsewhere for a viable alternative.

The WSM theory, even when it stands in my humble opinion on solid grounds, is not a mainstream scientific theory.
Wether that theory can replace normal physics theory is dependend on how much attention and research are spent on this alternative. I think it deserves an investigation. But as long as mainstream science is not giving it any attention, it remains an outside theory.

[heusdens]

Hi

Please respond to my identical other post about this subject. Accidently it got copied on the board twice.

[captain swoop]

"a new variant is proposed, which matches the observations"

the problem being?

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[Bob Angstrom]

Incorrect.This is not an "assumption". There are a variety of empirical supports for this possibility. Why do you consider this a problem?

Cougar,

I am glad to see that you do not consider the possibility of a universe consisting of 95 percent dark matter and 5 percent ordinary matter to be a problem. Some people of little faith are not that open minded. After all, this is not a made up number. It is a verified value consistent with the Big Bang theory but would your faith be tested just a tiny bit if the numbers were 96 percent dark matter and 4 percent ordinary? How about 97 and 3? 98 and 2? At what value between 95 and 100 might you begin to suspect that the dark matter theory might just slightly be a total crock of ****? Can you give me a number?

[Broken Symmetry]

Wow... this may actually fit into the model that I have thought up/explained on this message board under the post 'unification and physical pictures'

Expansion/inflation may just be observational consequences of transitions that occur on the 'inside' of the universe, where on the 'surface' it may remain more or less static.

WSM may also fit an idea of how forces emerge simply out of geometrical arrangements in the universe on different scales.

[bigsplit]

According to WSM theory, there was no Big Bang, since there is no expansion of the universe, and space itself as the primal substance is both eternal and infinite and in motion.

The model seems to be an emphasis on the ONE. Of what does this primal substance consist? What generates the waves? What of friction and entrophy...how do the waves continue in infinate motion? What causes the spherical shells and why do some push out and other pull in? What generated the original motion? Where did the plurality come from in this one?

These are constructive questions for clarification. I agree with some of your basic premises concerning the infinity of space and a primal substance being the only "nothing" possible.

[akirabakabaka]

I recently came accross a scientific report, which claims that the proposed mechanism for redshift in the Big Bang theory, the expansion of space, can not even cause the effect of redshift, since photons don't loose energy because of the stretching effect.

I would love to see this! Got a reference?

About the patching of the Big Bang theory. This is not a normal property of a theory. Normally, we could make predictions at the basis of the theory, and then later check those predictions with observations. The Big Bang theory does that the other way around. Everytime the theory is in trouble, a new variant is proposed, which matches the observations.

This argument has been all over these boards. I don't agree that you are not allowed to patch a theory to match observation, in fact it is often good science. But I agree that the BBT gets special treatment with regard to ad-hocery.

The WSM theory, even when it stands in my humble opinion on solid grounds, is not a mainstream scientific theory.
Wether that theory can replace normal physics theory is dependend on how much attention and research are spent on this alternative. I think it deserves an investigation. But as long as mainstream science is not giving it any attention, it remains an outside theory.

Has there been any research? Could you reference any of it?

Wikipedia on Wave Structure Matter

On the wiki: "The matter in all of the (accessible) UNIVERSE determines the properties of space, and reciprocally space determines the properties of matter."

Doesn't this just replace particle/wave duality with space/matter duality? There's a really interesting Einstein quote on the wiki about this.

[akirabakabaka]

Also on the wiki: "Instead of interpreting a wave function as a probability distribution of discrete particles as in older QM, the 'particle' is represented by the entire wave function and we locate it experimentally at the wave-center where energy-exchange takes place."

Shouldn't WSM then be able to predict the location of the 'wave-center'?

[akirabakabaka]

Here is a terrible explanation of WSM, which includes this passage:

"When matter is close to other matter, then it's universes (in and out waves) overlap and you get matter interactions. [...] And if you think about it, you will realise that this must also cause a redshift with distance, because distant matter shares less of a common universe, thus less wave interactions, thus less energy exchange (which we see as a redshift with distance). Any smart mathematicians here can deduce this - just work out how the volume of two overlapping spheres changes as you move them apart - this should equate to redshift with distance"

What?

Looking for more info also led me back to egtphysics.net which I believe has been previously discussed on the BABB. Not the same theory, but they appear to be related. Are there any credible sources of information related to WSM?

[akirabakabaka]

Ok, finally, from the same author as above (Milo Wolff), a formal explanation complete with equations, predictions and OOM calculations:

A Wave Structure for the Electron

The section A Test of Assumption II is particularly interesting. The author derives the effective radius of an electron from the estimated number of particles within a Hubble sphere volume (the observerable universe), more or less a direct test of the WSM hypothesis of standing waves.

[heusdens]

I would love to see this! Got a reference?

I read it just a day ago or so, have to check my internet cache and/or directory of downloaded documents.

This argument has been all over these boards. I don't agree that you are not allowed to patch a theory to match observation, in fact it is often good science. But I agree that the BBT gets special treatment with regard to ad-hocery.

Yes, and the number of speculations which are made, are a bit too much.

At least it urges one to think, of this model of expansion, realy is the right track, and maybe there are other viable tracks.

Has there been any research? Could you reference any of it?

I dunno at this time, I am myself new to WSM theory. I will look that up.

Wikipedia on Wave Structure Matter

On the wiki: "The matter in all of the (accessible) UNIVERSE determines the properties of space, and reciprocally space determines the properties of matter."

Doesn't this just replace particle/wave duality with space/matter duality? There's a really interesting Einstein quote on the wiki about this.

I think it must read that the properties of matter are derived from the wave phenomena of space.

WSM implements the principe of Mach fully, that the properties of matter are derived from all other matter in the surrounding universe.

[heusdens]

THE STRETCHED PHOTON FALLACY

reference:

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/....html#REDSHIFT

[heusdens]

The model seems to be an emphasis on the ONE. Of what does this primal substance consist? What generates the waves? What of friction and entrophy...how do the waves continue in infinate motion? What causes the spherical shells and why do some push out and other pull in? What generated the original motion? Where did the plurality come from in this one?

These are constructive questions for clarification. I agree with some of your basic premises concerning the infinity of space and a primal substance being the only "nothing" possible.

The theory ain't mine, I just came accross it.

I can't give a real answer to your questions, I would advice to check the website, and otherwise post a message on the WSM form (can be found here: http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...orum/index.php).

Only clarification I can give is that the "incoming waves" are just the combined manifestations of all the "outgoing waves" of all other matter, and that they cause the "outgoing wave" of that particular wave center.
The interaction between the incoming and outgoing waves cause the phenomena of matter.

Since space is eternal and infinite, and in motion always, there is no event responsible for the orginal motion. That would not be logical also, since motion cannot arise out of total motionlesness.

[akirabakabaka]

The model seems to be an emphasis on the ONE. Of what does this primal substance consist? What generates the waves? What of friction and entrophy...how do the waves continue in infinate motion? What causes the spherical shells and why do some push out and other pull in? What generated the original motion? Where did the plurality come from in this one?

These are constructive questions for clarification. I agree with some of your basic premises concerning the infinity of space and a primal substance being the only "nothing" possible.

The Wolff paper I linked to earlier pretty much answers all of these questions. The 'primal substance' are the spherical waves dominated by the Minimum Amplitude Principle (MAP). See the section Assumption III - The Minimum Amplitude Principle:

"In other words, all the waves of the total number n of particles inside the Hubble Sphere adjust themselves at each point to make total amplitude a minimum. To accomplish this, energy (frequency) exchanges take place, or wave-centers move in order to minimize the total amplitude. This principle is very powerful and predicts many observations. For example, waves of two electrons close together will have a higher intensity than electrons farther apart. Therefore two electrons must repel in order to satisfy the MAP. A positron and an electron will attract. It also creates the Pauli Exclusion Principle, forces between atomic nuclei, and gravitation."

As for 'original motion', that is really outside the scope of the theory, since time and space appear to be infinite.

[akirabakabaka]

THE STRETCHED PHOTON FALLACY

reference:

http://www.starlight-pub.com/Matter/....html#REDSHIFT

Thanks! Unfortunately this is pretty much pure conjecture on the part of the author, who doesn't back up any of his claims with anything more than 'common sense'.

It brings up an interesting question though; has the energy loss every actually been derived mathematically from the expansion of space, or is it just assumed again with common sense that if space 'expands' it must 'stretch' the wavelength of photons (at the observed rate)? I'm not even sure how that would be done, given the way space is generally treated as empty nothing. (what is expanding if there is no aether?)

[Ari Jokimaki]

Unfortunately this is pretty much pure conjecture on the part of the author, who doesn't back up any of his claims with anything more than 'common sense'.

And it also is based on the faulty assumption that the redshift mechanism of the Big Bang theory is "photon stretching", which is only a simplification that is thought to help in understanding the redshifting in expanding space. We had a discussion about this few months ago.

It brings up an interesting question though; has the energy loss every actually been derived mathematically from the expansion of space, or is it just assumed again with common sense that if space 'expands' it must 'stretch' the wavelength of photons (at the observed rate)?

I'm only aware of an equation that says that the amount of redshift depends on the size difference of universe between now and the time when the redshifted light was emitted (this came up in the thread I linked to). It is explained here (in the "general relativity" page). There it says:

Another concept of general relativity is that the red shift of light from distant galaxies due solely to the expansion of space itself is not given by the relativistic Doppler shift equation of special relativity but is simply related to the present scale factor of the universe compared to the scale factor when the light was emitted that we see now. The equation is:
z+1=R(tr)/R(te)-----------(3)

To me it seems that it is only an assumption that expanding space causes redshift, but you have to remember that I'm not an expert, so there might be more to this than I know.

[akirabakabaka]

When heusdens mentioned it I realized that I had always just accepted the 'stretching' argument at face value, but hadn't really ever checked to see that this idea was even meaningful. Thanks for the links Ari!

However it still convinces me that the whole space expansion idea is nonsense. But now I at least see where they are coming from.

[RussT]

Quote 'Chandra Furthers Understanding About Dark Energy
May 18, 2004 - A mysterious force, which astronomers call "Dark Energy", seems to be speeding up the expansion of the Universe. New observations from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have independently confirmed this expansion by measuring the distances to galaxy clusters. It seems that the expansion of the Universe was slowing down after the Big Bang until 6 billion years ago; at that point the force of this dark energy took over and expansion began to speed up. The big mystery still remains... what is dark energy? ' end quote.


Consider this...the above statement appears to be a "Direct Observation"!!!

I believe it is exactly correct, but that it is definitely not Big Bang Theory dependent!!!

It is what is being directly observed, and akirabakabaka, one of the main reasons I am convinced my Theory deserves "MORE" consideration!!!

Please respond to my last post on Big Bang Most Correct and continue our discussion.

The reason no formulas are working is because the matter and gravity did not get here all at once!!!

RussT

[akirabakabaka]

Sorry RussT that's thread highjacking (see rule #13). Just a warning

[Tacitus]

If we would consider the BB theory to be valid, it urges us to assume that the further we look in space, the younger the stellar systems are. But we do not see any proof of that. They are just typical stellar systems, which we also find nearby.
Populated by average stars.

That is patently untrue. Go and see the evidence for yourself - any (either?) of the Hubble Deep Field photos will do. The farthest (most red-shifted) galaxies in those photographs are nothing like the population of galaxies we see in our vicinity. Of course, it's nonsense to talk about "stellar systems" at the distances you're talking about in the first place - we can barely resolve individual star systems in our nearest galaxy let alone half-way across the visible universe.

[RussT]

Tacitus
Senior Member
wrote;
[The farthest (most red-shifted) galaxies in those photographs are nothing like the population of galaxies we see in our vicinity. ]

What do you mean by this???

As far as I know, they have found fully developed (what would appear to be 10 + billion year old galaxies) 12 + billion light years away.

RussT

[Broken Symmetry]

RussT...

As far as you know?

You seem to be stating many 'facts', that are as far as you know and IMHO. Let's remember that, as far as the philosophy of science is concerned, we really may not know what we know (or even, we may not know what we don't know). That may sound like an epistemological contradiction, but it's not - it's a paradox that follows naturally from the 'fact' that there are always going to be things that we don't know, and that we don't even know what those things are.

That being said - it's hard enough to state any knowledge as fact; and it's even harder to establish belief from opinion without being dogmatic.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with HO's and AFAIK's, but when you make statements like that, I would like to know why you think so. Point to an article you've read, or provide a detailed discussion of the point you're trying to make without begging the question and just stating that it follows from your theory.

I think that would make the discussion a lot more interesting and allow people to better understand your opinions, although they may not agree with them.

[nutant gene 71]

Mainstream physics and cosmology defend the Big Bang theory as if it was sacred. But the process of scientific progress is not being made at the basis of ignoring any other viable explenation of the cosmos.

The Big Bang theory has a number of problems. One of them is that we need to assume that almost 95% of the contents of the universe is made of some unknown stuff (dark matter/energy) for which there is no observational evidence. The Big Bang theory is patched any time observational evidence shows that the predictions of the theory don't hold.

The more philosophical typed problems of the BB Theory is that in some way the theory urges us to assume that the universe must have had some cause. ...(snip)...

You can read more on WSM theory here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

The philosophical problem with BBT is that is assumes that the recessional velocities of distant cosmic light sources is correct. This Doppler effect of receding bodies, due to space expansion, must be accepted as a postulate idea, since there is no evidence of any kind in our region of space that space is expanding at all. It certainly is not expanding within our solar system, and to assume that it is expanding beyond the reaches of our galaxy is tantamount to a 'scientific' act of faith. In fact, if redshift is due to any other cause other than Doppler expansion, the whole idea of BBT collapses. And this may be why there is such a land grab for alternative ideas to BBT.

I think Prince Louis de Broglie was on the right track with his Quantum Wave Theory. His (not so famous) equation, E = hf = mc^2, may have been on the right track, except it got derailed by Einstein's GR, where 'm' became a sophisticated warp of space-time rather than a gravitational entity in and of itself. But that is a matter as yet unresolved, since there is no mechanism known to us that would define mass as anything other than its a priori definition, as expressed in F = ma. Per the Equivalence Principle, which is proven valid, mass is defined in kilograms, and it got taken no further. To take it to the next step, we'd have to define mass as a gravitational function moderated by electromagnetic energy, which to date had not been done successfully. So de Broglie got to the point where Planck's 'h' times frequency is Energy, and that was that. However, without having delved deeper into the essence of what is mass, such as mc^2, as a gravitational function, gravity remained a universal constant per Newton's G. That is where we are now. To prove that cosmic light redshift is something other than recessional motion would require that Newton's G in intergalactic deep space is something entirely different from as we know it here: G = 6.67E^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. In fact, for light to redshift per the Hubble constant, G in deep intergalactic space would have to be in the range of 10X^-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, or five orders of magnitude greater than our 'universal constant' G. But such high gravity is an unknown, with its equivalent mass, so we dubbed it 'dark matter'.

Some of this was explored sometime back on this page posted on Hypothetical Variable Mass, pg. 4, where I worked out a rough mathematical sketch showing how deep space gravity G is about five orders of magnitude greater than Earth's G, which translates into cosmic light redshift approximating Hubble's constant. This would imply that Newton's G grows at the linear rate of about 1 G per 1 AU, so that by the Oort Cloud (~50,000 AU) it levels off at about the gravitational mass of hydrogen atoms (and space dust) that is about five orders of magnitude greater G, through which light must pass, which makes it gravitationally redshift as per the Hubble constant z. However, this is as yet an unfinished model, so take it 'philosophically'.

The point being is that the universe may yet be found to be an interaction between electromagnetic wave energy and a gravitational state which is variable, so that further from a hot radiant source, like a star or galaxy, G is somehow inversely proportional to the energy received there. This would lean towards a Wave Structure of Matter as postulated by de Broglie, and echoed in Haselthurst's Dynamic Unity of Reality. However, until such a connection is made between the Quantum Theory of energy and (as yet unknown) Gravity, the idea of light redshift as a function of greater deep space gravity remains in the realms of philosophy rather than science. To bring it into science, we would have to find evidence that all our astronomical calculations based on Newton's, and Einstein's GR, gravity as a universal constant are misleading, and wrong. The gravitational constant G may be a variable, inversely proportional to the hot radiant energy of stars. In effect, if we find that G on Jupiter is five times that of Earth's G 'constant' (which would explain why its small core planet of only about 2 or 3 Earth masses can hold such a vast atmosphere), then we would know that something else is happening out there. But at this time, we simply do not know (we landed Huygens on Titan, so feel all is okay), so we assume that the whole universe has the same G as we do here on Earth. And until then, BBT lives a healthy (if contentiously sclerotic) life, given many are now coming to the suspicion that both Einstein's GR is off the mark, and that cosmic light redshift is not necessarily 'space expansion'.

Of course, until we learn otherwise, BBT is merely a philosophy that fits neatly into both GR and some quasi-creationist theory of the 'birth' of the universe. Quite frankly, I find the 13.7 billion year time scale for all existence rather limiting, and think that it represents no more than what we can observe with our electromagnetic energy astronomical instruments, since beyond that range, light peters out, so we are unable to image it. That is the radius of our 'universe' and all beyond it is invisible to us. The fact that we find fully formed galaxies out there, at where the universe was supposed to be experiencing its 'birth' is puzzling, to say the least. In my humble opinion, a final theory incorporating Quantum Theory and Gravity as One Theory is yet to be developed. There is nothing 'sacred' about BBT if redshift is not Doppler effect of an expanding universe. I suspect redshift is a gravitational phenomenon. Once that is confirmed, BBT as a neo-creationist 'birth' of the universe dies.

Ivan A.