Single Cosmological Theory Too Simple--When Is Life EVER That Simple?

[large amount of bubbles fanning out, small alarm from medbot]

Your autonomic systems seem disrupted.

Whoa, there--stand down. [multi-tentacle signal] I'm fine. I was just amazed at how PRIMITIVE this notion is about cosmology. It's on Facebook? Don't they check for oversimplification when they post research articles? I'm not sure whether that was laughter or regurgitation.

Perhaps this is next blog topic? Record and present?

Oh yeah! This IS worth checking out, even if only for a laugh. Or a pick-me-up for any of those out there with a vomit fetish. Not judging--just saying I think it might work.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/everything-we-know-about-the-big-bang-could-be-wrong/ar-AA9es2p?ocid=ASUDHP

Actually, what's really fascinating about this is that people are willing to assume that EITHER steady-state or big-bang is true, to the exception of the other. Really, guys--not both?  If you believe that the current state has a beginning, you believe that time 'started.' What with the beginning of light describing the essence of time and all? Then there's the business of expansion. This word implies something outside, not included.

So the fact is that everything outside the effects of the big bang, or inside, where we're talking fundamentals that the big bang wouldn't have affected, were in a steady state before the big bang . . . so . . . both. Why isn't that obvious?

Also, I gotta say--why all the immature arguing in comments about religion? Any supreme being would be allowed to keep some trade secrets, be inscrutable, and stay separate and undetectable by science if that was the plan. That doesn't mean don't learn science--it's useful. That doesn't mean don't have faith. Science is cold, unloving, and can mess up a good solid feeling of joy, if allowed to. AGAIN--both is the best plan. [disconnect]