Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, September 24, 2010, 23:54 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

If you really want to go into all the possible alternative theories of cosmology and physics, there is enough out there to last several lifetimes. Here are some links I found a few years ago when I studied the subject. Some probably overlap with those given by B-M. Some links have gone astray. There was one I read in New Scientist a year or so ago that relates the basic particles to a certain mathematical Group, but I forget the details for the mnoment.-Lee Smolin's book on evolving universes is the most convincing alternative I have read. Lee Smolin: Life of the Cosmos: Evolving Universes
http://www.leesmolin.com/-Fitzpatrick's theory of everything
http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm-Milo Wolff's Space Resonance
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm-Alan Kazlev Meta-Evolution in Symmetry Breaks
http://www.kheper.net/evolution/symmetry_breaks.html-Anton Zeilinger
"In the beginning was the bit" (link lost)-John barret: Quantum Gravity in 4 dimensions
http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/jwb/qg.4d.html-Edward A. Milne (1896-1950)
Kinematic Relativity-David Brahm, Baryogenesis
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/baryogenesis.html-Donald E. Scott, Electric Cosmos
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/index.htm
(Much of this website seems plausible to start with, but towards the end it becomes dubiously Velikowskian.)-Matti Pitkänen had a whole site devoted to Topological Geometro-Dynamics:— Quantum TGD includes a theory of consciousness!
(link lost)-Michael Lewis: red shift by photon decay
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/indx-red.htm-John Baez: Topos Theory
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html-H.E.Puthoff: Quantum vacuum fluctuations
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html-Myron Evans: ECE Theory
http://www.aias.us/-My own theory: The Nonexistent Universe
Does the Universe in fact "exist"? If relativity and quantum uncertainty are accepted as correct then because of the velocity of light the "visible universe" that we can see now is not the "universe now" that we would see if the velocity of light was instantaneous. The only part of the "universe now" that exists, from our point of view, is the "here and now". All other parts of the "universe now" are in the future and do not yet exist. But if we suppose the Andromeda Galaxy, say, continues to evolve for 200 million years the way our's has, then presumably there might be observers there "now" (in the instantaneous sense). But on the other hand there might not, because the future of the Andromeda Galaxy cannot be predicted by us. So there is a sense in which, like Schrodinger's cat, the Andromedans both exist and don't exist "now".

--
GPJ