Fractal Universe Theory: the only predictive steady state th

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">More evidence against steady state: <br /><br />1) Predicts that early galaxies in the universe should look very similar to ones today (since matter was supposedly being created throughout history, and into the present, in a uniform manner). But the Hubble space telescope has utterly disproved that notion, because its pictures of the early universe show galaxies that look quite different from the galaxies of today - much more primitive; implying that galaxies evolved from a particular point in the past (big bang) into the galaxies of today.</font><br /><br />A steady state theory must consider that different areas of the universe are unlike our own. It must follow that light seen from distant blue galaxies represents a physically different region of the universe. Given the evidence of Angular Diameter Distance and redshift it must follow that the gravitational potential of blue galaxies is lower than the gravitational potential of the local group. This does not add any new physics, just new entities which can be explained using current physics. But there is a possibly a future need for modification as new physical laws, some perhaps attributable to the pioneer effect.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">2) Steady State predicts too little helium; BB predicts just the right amount.</font><br /><br />http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory<br /><br />Cyclic (Fractal) Multiverse Theory predicts the recycling of the material. It must be that such a universe is infinite, or else the entropy rises. It also must follow that the majority of space and time does not resemble a particular fluid, which means that with varying scale, we must see different things, and the further out, the in general, the larger the objects are.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">3) Offers no predictive power. Fred Hoyle, the greatest steady state proponent, in</font>

 

[contracommando]

Really, do the Raelians believe in Steady State too? Because most scientists and Earth people do not.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Really, do the Raelians believe in Steady State too?</font><br /><br />Most Raelians are not informed about archaic disproven steady state theories. Therefore one can say that most Raelians do not support any particular steady state theory other than ones that are compatible with their Raelian tenet that the universe is a fractal. However, no such theory exists, except perhaps the Cyclical Multiverse Theory, which makes it clear that there are galaxies inside the atoms within us. I never saw any steady state theory attempt to see the universe as a fractal nor to attempt to locate where in atom a universe should be in the atom if it is in the atom (in the electrons or the nucleus?). "Steady state" theories are typically of an old fashioned kind and most do not hypothesize a fractal universe, both lines of thought are not compatible with Raelian tenets.<br /><br />http://www.maitreya.co.kr/eng/maitreya/maitreyarael6.htm<br /><br />http://www.glenncarter.com/zzz/raelian.htm

 

[kmarinas86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle<br /><font color="yellow">On large scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.</font><br /><br />Most raelians, in general, do not delve into this question, since the cosmological principle, clearly, is not view by all types of people. If they were to view it, some Raelians may not find any problem with it (even with the Big Bang theory). That is all fine. However, for the infinitely large and infinitely small, is it implied that every existing thing is a composite, no matter how large, or how small. One may imagine that the big bang be compatible with a fractal universe, though the problem with that is, it doesn't allow us the oppurtunity to look outside our own universe atom, and thereby making it theoretically impossible to validate the existence of the fractal. On the other hand, Cyclical Multiverse Theory allows for the possibility of looking outside our own "universe-atom". It's just that we have to take a complete sample of our sky in the deep universe. Hubble Deep Fields are expensive and are constrained to certain portions of the sky, creating a bias not unlike that of Alton Arp's incomplete data of quasar's proximity to galaxies. It is a bit like claiming you covered the world before you discover the Americas. It's expensive, but that expense gives its reward.