> Perhaps, but two counterpoints: > 1) If there was one big bang, who's to say there haven't been many? > (What would constrain the phenomenon to only ever occur once? And by > extension, if multiple have occurred, how do you choose which one to > use to define the geometric "center"?) > > 2) Your constraint on uniformity assumes there is such a thing as > "space-time" to worry about. I am of the inclination to believe that > time does not exist but instead is merely a gauge by which to measure > relative motion/change, and that "space" is just that--pure, empty, > void-filled nothingness--to which no properties or extension can be > ascribed (eg, "folding"). With these ideas at foundation expansion > uniformity becomes largely determined by the symmetry of the original > event--assuming a closed system. (There's always the caveat that it's > not a closed system--that stuff from wherever the initial stuff came > from can still interact with the stuff we see now with or without more > "bang" events at some scale.) > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > So i think we can both agree that with the information at hand the only really mathematically relevant central orientation point in the universe is currently objects with in out own solar system and possibly our galaxy. However on point two would i be correct to assume you disavow the Theory of Relativity in all of its incarnations?
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
