-The recent evidence about the Wilkenson Probe and other noninsubstantial masses shows that the cosmos is definitely not uniform on a large scale. If gravity is faster than light it wouldn't be what smooths out the cosmos even if it were. Gravity would be what's connecting the cosmos with large scale lumps the usual way gravity always has.
-Another Reason is that electromagnetism also is not uniform at high power as is seen with the jets of high speed masses, these are the most high energy events found in the cosmos. And like electromagnetic fields on other resolutions of size they're not just round. The jets are highly polarized and have the wheel of the galaxy whirling around them through the cosmos, so electromagnetism wouldn't be the source of the smoothness of the bubble even if it were found by the Hubble. More power, more nonuniformity of the masses.
-My Third objection is about spin; Almost all there is in the cosmos has spin, for example the earth has huge spin locked up in its counterrotation of particles, there's no reason to believe the cosmos is otherwise especially if it's of high power like the jets, and if a goddess sits on some sort of washing machine, when in high speed, a cleaner and brighter cosmos is found!
-The fourth reason is about how much of the cosmos we can see. If the cosmos was a smooth sphere of expansion as in Hawking's no boundary theory, we know the radius from the center so by 2 pi times the radius, so the circumference is about 6 times 10 billion (our distance from the center) or 60 billion light years. The distance most visable on both sides and at right angles (like the maximum distance on all sides) to our motion is 10 billion light years on both sides or 1/3 of the cosmic wheel, 20 billion light years, if the cosmos is a sphere. So if the lines of the light would not be linear, it would seem astronomers would already have found this. If you look at a line of light how do you prove that the ray of light was bent? By "displacement" of the image. If the light rays were bent around if you look out to where the ray seems to be instead of where the "actually" are without the bending of the light, you would seem to see galaxies with lower redshift instead with the same radius as us from the center of the cosmos. This would at least be a way to prove or disprove the Big Bang. If no other theorist has had this idea, which might be in favor of the Big Bang, it may be worth for more study by the Starlight Coffee team.
Another problem is that the Big Bang without a more general physics would violate energy conservation, it pulls the cosmos out of a hat on mother's day, of Ma Bell's 800 name and number savings. The only viable theory I've seen that explains this about the Second Law of Power Conservation as of May 2006 is the Double Vortex Generator model of the cosmos with two cosmic jets. One of the jets is where our realm is in the expansion. The jets are just like the jets of other massive sources of power, the same physics on a more cosmic level of power, this is the reason I believe in the Vortex cosmos. This cosmos of constant circulation from the jets to the disk by expanison of like charges, the combination of unlike charges at the disk to power the high energy jets of the distant power beacons, and the rewind of the disk in to restart the expansion wouldn't violate energy conservation because the expansion of the jets would exactly balance the implosion by the gravity. With a spherical cosmos expansion or contraction alone would be going on, and one or the other would win out and energy conservation would be violated mass either created or destroyed. So a smooth cosmos violates energy conservation.
A causeology that may be of more worth than the source of the leftover radiance being from the Big Bang is how "the radiance is from our own galaxy, which has a haze of dust and particles that would scatter the radiation uniformly like a lighthouse in the mist".
_____________________
Liked my postage lady Theresa for whom there was no wrong number, she was always so sweet there was a lots she achieved, but there was just one thing if woe about Theresa. When she left, but she never will! Knowing her she'll return more often than once or twice!
.
They now have teeth cleaning chewing gum. Wonder if they'll have a computerized teethbrush that uses radiance and sensors to aim a beam to where of most worth and if they combine this with H2O I'll wake up with, a Cupa Mouthwash is advanced biz!
.
