An Interesting Idea Of The Cause For The Big Bang

[neverclear5]

Go, read.

And, while you're there, read some of the other stuff on that site. on the left side is a browse archives section. Click "By Category" and look for cribsheets, to get nice simple rundowns of many of the difficult scientific issues of the day.

 

Big bang story

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/t...time.php?page=1

 

Cribsheets

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/cribsheet/

[Amanda]

Go, read.

And, while you're there, read some of the other stuff on that site. on the left side is a browse archives section. Click "By Category" and look for cribsheets, to get nice simple rundowns of many of the difficult scientific issues of the day.

 

Big bang story

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/t...time.php?page=1

 

Cribsheets

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/cribsheet/

Neverclear5, that is an incredibly interesting article! I didn't get a chance to look at the cribsheets, however, is it implying that each ever expanding universe is diluted by continually extending outward into space, and replenished by this process of another Big Bang creating a new universe within the previous one, which is also in its previous one and so on, as they state below? Yet, that would still leave us with wondering how the first "fluctuations" and dark energy got here to create the very first Big Bang, right? So we still don't know how the original Big Bang happened, do we?

 

Empty space, in which omnipresent quantum fields are jiggling back and forth, is a natural, high-entropy state for the universe. Eventually (and we're talking about a really, really big eventually) the fluctuations will conspire in just the right way to fill a tiny patch of space with dark energy, setting off the ultra-fast expansion. To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated, and the quiescent background—the other universes—would be completely unobservable. Such an occurrence would look exactly like the Big Bang and the universe we experience.

[Astreja]

Great article. Regarding the Big Bang, I got an image of a pendulum with the "bang" point being the moment when the pendulum reaches its peak and starts to fall. Perhaps we're in a closed time-system and our perceptions are limited to the sweep of the pendulum...

[Ouroboros]

Yet, that would still leave us with wondering how the first "fluctuations" and dark energy got here to create the very first Big Bang, right? So we still don't know how the original Big Bang happened, do we?

There never was one, just as it never will be a last one.

 

If you can traverse forward in time in infinity, you can also do it backwards, just like the whole numbers they go from negative infinity to positive infinity, only zero is the point of time that is currently for you right now.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Yet, that would still leave us with wondering how the first "fluctuations" and dark energy got here to create the very first Big Bang, right? So we still don't know how the original Big Bang happened, do we?

There never was one, just as it never will be a last one.

 

If you can traverse forward in time in infinity, you can also do it backwards, just like the whole numbers they go from negative infinity to positive infinity, only zero is the point of time that is currently for you right now.

 

Damnit Han, get out of my head! I remember, several months ago, when you used to do that to me all the time (at least when we were not arguing over something ). I was going to say that they shouldn't limit themselves with trying to find a beginning when there might not be one. Infinity is a crazy concept and difficult to grasp in a finite mind.

[Ouroboros]

Haha!!! It's the second time I get the "I was thinking the same" tonight. Like someone said once, "mediocre minds think alike".

 

I wonder why it's so hard for people to think about infinity vs finite.

 

Whole numbers, the set of integers, it has no beginning and no end, and yet it consists of distinct numbers that are finite.

 

-inifinty, .... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... infinity

 

Now my challenge to all "first cause" thinkers is, tell me, what is the number of infinity? Or put it this way, what number is the last or first infinite number? My answer is: there is none.

 

Or let's say we could think of infinite future, and let's say someone find themselves in this infinite future, how far back are we compared to them? Well, we're an infinity before them. So to them, the infinite past must exist. Or in other words, if there is a limit to the past then there must be a limit to the future, or neither has a limit.

[neverclear5]

I wonder why it's so hard for people to think about infinity vs finite.

 

Whole numbers, the set of integers, it has no beginning and no end, and yet it consists of distinct numbers that are finite.

 

-inifinty, .... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... infinity

 

Now my challenge to all "first cause" thinkers is, tell me, what is the number of infinity? Or put it this way, what number is the last or first infinite number? My answer is: there is none.

 

Or let's say we could think of infinite future, and let's say someone find themselves in this infinite future, how far back are we compared to them? Well, we're an infinity before them. So to them, the infinite past must exist. Or in other words, if there is a limit to the past then there must be a limit to the future, or neither has a limit.

 

Yes, the stuff in the universe could have been around for infinitely long. The point is that everything we can see is moving away from a single start point, implying that it was once all at or around that start point and something caused it to move away quickly and radially (as does matter from an explosion). Also, infinity isn't a number, its a concept. We annalise formulae for forces etc. and take them to infinity in order to examine the approximate state of them at long distance. There isn't really a number infinity. Discussing the nature of counting to infinity is like discussing the nature of seeing an invisible horse.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, the stuff in the universe could have been around for infinitely long.

Not necessarily. If they succeed in an experiment Universe 2.0, it's simply just that we are a universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning)...

 

There are many ways how the universe we live in can have a beginning but still exists in an infinite series of universes.

 

The point is that everything we can see is moving away from a single start point, implying that it was once all at or around that start point and something caused it to move away quickly and radially (as does matter from an explosion).

Kind'a. BB wasn't an explosion but an expansion. It doesn't have the evidence to support an chaotic explosion, but background radiation is evenly distributed to show it was once at the same point.

 

Also, infinity isn't a number, its a concept.

True. Since it isn't a number, yet infinity does exist, numbers exist too, and the infinite set of integers (positive and negative) exists. But numbers are concepts too. We do know that a number is just a representation of something that exists, and same thing with the infinite.

 

We annalise formulae for forces etc. and take them to infinity in order to examine the approximate state of them at long distance. There isn't really a number infinity. Discussing the nature of counting to infinity is like discussing the nature of seeing an invisible horse.

Well, yes it's correct there isn't a number infinite, which was my point. (I'm not sure if you agree with me or you're trying to correct me because you misunderstood me.)

 

My latter part of the argument was that if you could find yourself in an infinite future, we would be here in an infinite past to you. As far as you move in time in one direction, just as much time would then exist behind you, and if most everyone can accept an infinite future, then it isn't that hard to accept an infinite past, beyond the point of BB. The only problem is that the way we measure and experience time in our universe is based on physical laws that came into existence at the point of BB, but it doesn't mean that a negative time line doesn't exists.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I wonder why it's so hard for people to think about infinity vs finite.

 

There isn't really a number infinity. Discussing the nature of counting to infinity is like discussing the nature of seeing an invisible horse.

 

Be careful, you are treading upon my diety.

 

 

Not necessarily. If they succeed in an experiment Universe 2.0, it's simply just that we are a universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning)...

 

And God sits at the center of it constantly creating.

[Ouroboros]

And God sits at the center of it constantly creating.

Hmmm.... is there a center in an infinite regression? Let's look... (time goes by)... ah, I forgot, it takes an infinite time to find it.

 

Wait, I know, God is summarized in the words "infinite repression."

[Vigile]

Haha!!! It's the second time I get the "I was thinking the same" tonight. Like someone said once, "mediocre minds think alike".

 

I wonder why it's so hard for people to think about infinity vs finite.

 

Whole numbers, the set of integers, it has no beginning and no end, and yet it consists of distinct numbers that are finite.

 

-inifinty, .... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... infinity

 

Now my challenge to all "first cause" thinkers is, tell me, what is the number of infinity? Or put it this way, what number is the last or first infinite number? My answer is: there is none.

 

Or let's say we could think of infinite future, and let's say someone find themselves in this infinite future, how far back are we compared to them? Well, we're an infinity before them. So to them, the infinite past must exist. Or in other words, if there is a limit to the past then there must be a limit to the future, or neither has a limit.

 

Hans comes back to make my brain hurt once again.

 

You will be receiving a bill for my monthly aspirin supply shortly.

[Ouroboros]

Hans comes back to make my brain hurt once again.

 

You will be receiving a bill for my monthly aspirin supply shortly.

Sorry man! I'm just impressed that anyone even remotely understood what I said. I'm not sure I understand what I'm saying sometimes, and THAT is a problem, because I have no one else to ask for an explanation...

 

I guess it's good if I'm gone for a while now and then so people can recuperate. I think I did say in one of my posts the other day that I'm back to cause havoc. You've been warned... hehe...

[Amanda]

 

Thanks HanSolo and everyone here for enlightening me.

 

Okay, I now see the obvious concept of infinity answering aspects causing the first and last BB...

 

Now that raises more curiosity in...

Where is this energy source coming from to cause these additional BBs?

Is the 2nd LOT excluded in effecting the perpetuation of this concept?

Is popular scientific consensus saying we are ultimately a symbiotic - catalytic - self sufficient system recycling our energy source?

Would that mean dark energy is our predominant foundational energy source, returning to a specific location via a certain degree of fluctuations, accumulating to a point causing each BB event?

 

I guess that would mean that God really said "Let there be darkness."

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, very good questions, and the answer is ... .... ... I have no clue!

 

I guess the answer is that someone there is an infinite amount of energy, but I guess (again) that philosophically you can't really say it exists (at least not for or to us) in the same way as things here exists. Maybe the only "God" concept that could be is "infinite energy" and "infinite time". The problem with traditional God ideas is that this infinite energy and time also can think and reason. And it's funny that this idea comes from a creature (humans) that yet haven't figured out how he think, or what "thinking" really is! And add to this that there are paradoxes when it comes to infinite knowledge and omniscience. Everything is so mind boggling... maybe I should go back to bed?

 

Funny, "let there be darkness". I wonder what kind of world we'd have if God had said, let there be gray...

[Vigile]

I'm not sure I understand what I'm saying sometimes, and THAT is a problem, because I have no one else to ask for an explanation...

 

Perhaps you are channeling Newton?

[Ouroboros]

Who controls the clock

Ouroboros.

 

Perhaps you are channeling Newton?

Poor Newton, he's probably turning in his grave right now...

 

I think it's more of that I'm channeling bad English and poor understanding of complex concepts. My confusion is so great that anything that I say sounds really deep.

[Ouroboros]

Reboot, nice picture. I save it.

 

I'm planning on getting a tattoo eventually with the Ouroboros and a Lion head, somehow, not sure how to design it.

 

Because I'm a Leo in Western zodiac, and a Viper in Chinese zodiac.

 

From what I remember the Ouroboros is quite old image of time and infinity, the all existing. But I could be wrong. I'll check Wiki...

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

And God sits at the center of it constantly creating.

Hmmm.... is there a center in an infinite regression? Let's look... (time goes by)... ah, I forgot, it takes an infinite time to find it.

 

Wait, I know, God is summarized in the words "infinite repression."

 

Luckily God is omnipresent (infinately fat) so he can be in the center while occupying the space within my empty coke bottle, oops, be right back....

[chefranden]

It is the obvious fact that the "fabric of space" between my body's atoms is not expanding/inflating that makes me doubt the BB There are lots of other problems as well. Following from here

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

 

Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. [[2],[3]] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model.

 

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

 

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.

 

Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.

 

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8]] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

 

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it’s a question of figuring out why the element was either created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element. Examples: [[9],[10]] for helium-3; [[11]] for lithium-7; [[12]] for deuterium; [[13]] for beryllium; and [[14],[15]] for overviews. For a full discussion of an alternative origin of the light elements, see [[16]].

 

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]

 

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

 

According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. See [[19],[20]].

 

By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic. [[21]]

 

(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

 

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again. [[22],[23]]

 

(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

 

In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a "Great Attractor" pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave "background". The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big Bang. [[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]]

 

(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]

 

Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.

 

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. [[31],[32],[33]] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [[34]]

 

(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10120, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy”. [[35],[36]] This latter theoretical substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor”.

[mwc]

Yes, the stuff in the universe could have been around for infinitely long.

Not necessarily. If they succeed in an experiment Universe 2.0, it's simply just that we are a universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning), inside another universe (with a beginning)...

 

There are many ways how the universe we live in can have a beginning but still exists in an infinite series of universes.

 

When I read that article I didn't see this model being described but I could be wrong (because this could fit what they were saying).

 

I saw something more like a "gravity well" but more for entire universes. You have the entire fabric of space (whatever that is). "Something" happens that causes a localized dark matter expansion and *presto* you have a universe inside this little area. From inside it looks like a BB and it sort of lives inside a "depression" (for lack of a better word) that is on this much larger fabric just like the planets live on our local space/time fabric depressions (via Einstein).

 

Other universes could come into existence as you describe but the phenomenon is so rare and the fabric so large that it is unlikely they would appear in the same location (also your universes should go into their own dimensions). Plus, as I recall, the whole thing is dependent on the presence on concentrations of dark matter, which would be spread apart in the expansion phase, also highly reducing the odds of another universe forming there.

 

Anyhow, that's what I got out of my quick read of the article. I could be way off base here.

 

mwc

[neverclear5]

It is the obvious fact that the "fabric of space" between my body's atoms is not expanding/inflating that makes me doubt the BB There are lots of other problems as well.

 

 

I hate to keep with the explosion thing, but when a bomb goes off, the pieces fly in all directions, but the pieces themselves don't get bigger. The atoms in your body are held together by intermolecular forces which are very strong. The fabric of space isn't expanding, the objects in it are just spreading out, and you are held together strongly, as are all solid objects. think of vacuum packed food, you cant pull the packaging apart because there is not gas inside and to do so would mean expanding the solid food inside. Do the same with a gas and you can easily cause it to expand and contract. The molecules in the gas arn't stretched or expanded, just the space between them.

The gravity that holds objects together in space is ridiculously weak compared with the inter-molecular force holding together atoms in a solid, therefore space can expand easily, but solid bodies can't. Even when heated a solid barely expands but a gas' volume will double if you double its temperature.

[Ouroboros]

I don't get it. The Big Bang theory say it's expansion of space, and not that the objects just are spreading out. That's the reason why the Universe could expand to 70-80% of it's current size within a fraction of a second just after Planck time. Particles can't move that fast, because it would violate the relativity theory.

[neverclear5]

I don't get it. The Big Bang theory say it's expansion of space, and not that the objects just are spreading out. That's the reason why the Universe could expand to 70-80% of it's current size within a fraction of a second just after Planck time. Particles can't move that fast, because it would violate the relativity theory.

 

 

It's really not. Space is just defined as the universe we can see (even the vacuum of space contains loads of particles from a physics point of view, in fact the best vacuums known in the universe are in earthly laborotories), beyond that is nothing, and thats as close to an edge as we can define. The rapid expansion period you mention is a current stumbling block in the theory of the early universe and it's one that being examined closely. In fact, this is one of the few areas of physics in which there is still some discussion of philosophy, but somehow is never an area brought up by the "science deniers" in religion. They are building new theories of the initial universe all the time, a current idea is not to theorise the initial conditions leading to now, but the start now and work backwards.

 

Point being, an electron, neutron, or hydrogen nucleus has the same diameter as when they initially formed. The planets etc. are moving apart, but they themselves are not expanding.

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm... I think I get it now, space is expanding, but not the fabric of space. I've heard the "expansion of space" as an explanation to why the particles could move faster than light, it explained the initiral rapid expansion, but now it seems to me that the initial expansion is a problem in Big Bang after all, it could be an indicator that BB maybe isn't the best model.

[neverclear5]

Hmmm... I think I get it now, space is expanding, but not the fabric of space. I've heard the "expansion of space" as an explanation to why the particles could move faster than light, it explained the initiral rapid expansion, but now it seems to me that the initial expansion is a problem in Big Bang after all, it could be an indicator that BB maybe isn't the best model.

 

 

Either that or it needs a little editing. The big bang theory was put forward long ago and the astonomy community has been working on it for a while now. it does accurately map what happened from a few seconds in and back aways, and the behaviour of the universe from then on is fairly certain to be as predicted, essentially it just cools and spreads out. IUts that early part, maybe the start of the universe, or the start of a new cycle or whatever, that's still being worked on. This expansion thing has been examined in loads of ways. It seems like someone comes up with a new theory every few minutes and they are then examined and compared and so on and so on. Only the occasional nugget of thought escapes into the general public and that tends to be jumped on. People don't like revision and changing ideas, they want every scientific breakthrought to be "thats how it works....the end", and it just isn't like that.