Poilu, le vendredi 01 février 2008 à 16:22, dit :
Alright, I know some specific theories like the Big Bang base themselves largely in evidence like the Hubble Redshift, but there's a sense that there's more to the decision than just taking evidence and following it to an inevitable conclusion.
People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning.
My question is why? Why can't it be enough to just accept that it always existed?
Is it sort of an application of the concept of scale? We know the Earth didn't always exist, nor the Sun, and so ..... maybe some people just like to take that logic all the way to the universe itself?
I ask because I just don't share this feeling. I'm trying to understand it, so maybe if I can get inside the heads of people who feel this way... maybe I might even come to agree. Who knows?
The issue that you have is that you assume that scientists which are actually working in the field of cosmology base their conclusion on their "feeling" the way you do. This is so far from the truth!
Actually, for many years, there have been a proper "battle" between those who believed in a static universe, the way you believe ("always been there..always will be"), and those who believed in the Big-Bang theory. If now all mainstream scientist have discarded any static models such as the steady state universe, this is not because it suit them, but because the Big-Bang theory have been able to predict a lot of phenomena which disprove any steady state universe theory.
Among them, not only the redshift, but also the cosmic microwave background radiation, the isotropy of the universe, the observed helium and deuterium abundances, the age of the universe, etc...
The Big-Bang theory grew out of the accumulation of successful predictions and evidencs gathered from both theorical and observational research. Not from "feeling" as does your belief in a static "always been there" universe...
Ce message a été modifié par kyrilluk - 03 février 2008 - 18:18.