OT: astronomical distances quantized? Was Re: [XCSSA] Legos and Dark Matter

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

> Well, look at the way the big bang model has been revised.  First, we 
> looked at galaxy rotation, and decided we needed another correction 
> for "dark matter."  Then we looked at acceleration over time 
> (determined by distance), and decided we needed "dark energy?"
>
> So you could say, every time we look for something else we need 
> another correction.  Statistics?  (I never heard of that one before.) 
> Information (which is allegedly conserved)?  We've only begun to 
> understand these sorts of things.  How many such more things are there?
>
> Charles
>
The scientific study of such things is rich and deep - I admire your 
studies and they are certainly worthwhile explorations of our universe.  
My apologies for making a personal observation without better 
explanation.  To begin origins with a big bang requires that one account 
for, or simply accept, a series of dependent events, each of which is 
individually highly improbable... the statistical probability that a big 
bang was involved in generating our present state is what I was 
referring to - the numerical probability of a big bang and each required 
event following such a big bang [sequential and dependent events, 
therefore a multiplicative rule of probability applies] is what I am 
referring to.  It is unusual for scientific studies to not analyze the 
probability of an area of research.  Is there a study of mathematical 
probability that demonstrates the feasibility of the big bang theory?  I 
am assuming no and probably because so much more has to be learned and 
there has to be an explanation for the origin of our universe - so the 
probabilities of various theories get set aside...
-Kevin