Dear Mr. Nath,
re:
-------------------
Current fashion
favors the Big Bang with the cosmologists, as it explains better the
limited experimental data available so far. Its weakness lies mainly
in its inability to understand what may have pre-existed!
-------------------
ya. there's some problems there. the notion of a 'big bang' first arose from a 'Doppler' interpretation of the red shift in the light spectrum of distant astronomical bodies. the interpretation is that the observed red shift is a function of increasingly greater velocity with distance, giving rise to the notion of an expanding universe, like some fireworks display. this interpretation would appear to be inconsistent with general relativity's insistence on a fixed constant, 'c'. even something akin to a refractive quality of space would seem more gratifying - a function of distance rather than velocity [playing with a cheap plastic prism, i notice that i can, by angling the incidence of the light source, compress the spectrum, but not get it to change it's range, or i can expand the spectrum, and shift the spectrum to such an extent that i get an exclusively red image...].
the 'big bang' is a curious idea. we have a singularity which encompasses the entirety of the universe. there is no time/space within this 'all that is', effectively eternal always was/is/will be. where are 'we' in this visualization? we appear to be sitting outside of this singularity looking at it, objectifying it as if something separate and distinct from ourselves. this does not seem to work. there could be no 'outside' to such an object.
if singularity, then there is also the problem of how this singularity could have arisen. the present universe could only be interpreted as 'winding down' energetically. which implies that something had to have originally 'wound it up'. there does not appear to be a dynamics inherent in the system to generate a cyclical process of a 'self winding universe'.
problems....
re:
----------------------
Within the existing limitations of locations and precision in
cosmological measurements, it becomes difficult to follow a
strictly rational approach usually adopted in science disciplines.
----------------------
yep!
human perceptual perspective would seem to be much less a matter of logical precision, much more a matter of 'practical interpretation'.
but that's why looking at the universe is so much fun. it's actually looking at ourselves and how we perceive things.
:-)
re:
-------------------------
Another aspect that bothers the Big Bang enthusiasts relates to the
observation that it took just a trillionth of a second for the nascent
universe to cover its initial vastness!
-------------------------
it would be a sizable energetic event, apparently accelerating 'faster than light'...
i wish to take this somewhere...
coming up; stay tuned.
re:
-------------------------
The primordial matter was too dense and the initial expansion was due to extremely strong gravitational repulsion, on lines with strong nuclear force repulsive component at extremely short distances.
-------------------------
you wouldn't happen to have a citation for the source of this handy would you? (or is that part of "2. Cowen J.J. and Snowden C., Nature, 440, 1151, 2006."?)
gravity as a repulsion force interests me. i'm looking at the possibility of a different interpretation of gravity, that locally it is accelerating outward (a 'repulsion' force) in what we might call 'backward time' [note: this would accommodate a constant local environment factor shaping our perception of a temporal directional arrow, where metric 'time' has been shown to be so relative/condition dependent - what it is about a discrete inertial vector that identifies/defines its temporal characteristics...]. dark matter may be the same as 'our stuff', just going in a different temporal direction, for want of a better terminology. the temporal directional variance could account for it's 'darkness'. from there, we would likely appear as a very mysterious 'dark matter' also.
'if 'big bang'', that temporal eternity of the original 'singularity' is going to have to still be represented in the universe; it's going to have to balance out somehow in 'forward' and 'backward' time...
see also my comments to Mr. Pitkänen, in response to his paper, "About the Nature of Time".
re:
------------------------
In chapter 1 verse 41, Patanjali postulated that the cognize, the cognized and the process of
cognition must merge into one whole in any rational search for the truth.
------------------------
noting that consideration of the nature of consciousness is a recurring theme in the papers presented here.
yep.
a physics of consciousness... needs more study.
maybe a study of 'wisdom' would be good too. a physics of wisdom....
;-)
warm regards,
matt kolasinski