G'day Maddog
You said
Quote:
There is "no need" of research as Big Bang is the prevailing theory.
Your article by Narlikar, Burbidge, etc is interesting yet is based upon earlier
work of Hoyle which is a Steady State Model. I respect their opinion, just
don't agree based upon what evidence I am aware. So do most other
Cosmologists that are in the field.
|
I thought this maybe of interest to you.
[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)
Quote:
Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.
In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.
|
