To disprove GR

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In MM, nothing is ever created or destroyed, just dissolving and re-assembling. And the present universe is not expanding. The observations are apparently better-explained by energy loss than by expansion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What about this example:
A small portion of this "special" energy I have discribed changes properties after a certain period of time and transforms into a new property/constituent.(lets call it water). This "new" constituent mixes with another small portion of the "special" energy and now creates a different "new" constituent.(lets call it flour) Another small portion on the "special" energy mixes and becomes a third "new" constituent.(lets call this one yeast) All of these "new" constituents are part of this "special" energy and are within the "special" energy. They are not really anything new they are just in a different state, until one day when all three constituents meet up together and the mix begins to release/use some of its energy. There are no new constituents; all are just re-assembled versions of the "special" energy. These three "new" constituents would begin to expand, not into pre-existing space and time, but would be creating space itself, within itself. The process, expanding space, will continue like this until the amount of energy transformation dissipates. From the inside looking out space would appear as if it were infinite provided the mixture continues to expand. If the forward progress stops, infinite stops as well. Now you're just left with a big, gooey, finite, mess of sticky dough.

*Nothing created or destroyed, no causality.

*No singularities aside from the fact that the "special" energy itself and everything that did, does, or can exist are all one and the same singularity.

*Momentum could be a given inherent of the "special" energy itself, no creation "ex nihilo".

Am I missing something? Was the "Big Bang" actually the beginning of a process rather then an event? Maybe it should be called the "Big Mix", better yet the "Big Mess".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Reguarding your comment that the universe would be much as it is now 50bya-would the the BB also be as it is now at 50bya? This seems to me to be true since that time would be about z=5 or 10 or what ever it is and the redshift would still be as it is at that z, right?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The BB universe did not exist more than 20 billion years ago. (Some estomates put its age as low as 10 billion years.) -|Tom|-

Note that I will be away on travel for the next week. (Leonid meteor storm expedition -- be sure to watch Tuesday morning. Peak in U.S. is at 10h40m UT, with high activity for about an hour before and after that. -|Tom|-

Are you copping out on this? The universe was the same 50bya so the observations that lead some to the BB theory would be the same.

To date is there any scientific papers that refute GR (besides MM related) Does anyone know where I can read up on the dilemna in challenging this sacrosanct premise?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(TVF)The Big Bang is not an explosion into pre-existing space and time. It is an explosion *of* space and time. So nothing can come before.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I took the following from "Physics Has Its Principles" 10-12-2002 (TVF)

{"Matter" and "energy" may be regarded as simply different forms of the same substance, convertible back and forth. It is easy to visualize matter as exploding into ultra-tiny bits that we might call "energy". But part of that energy consists of the high speeds of bodies. Where does that energy come from? Bodies have small constituents inside atoms that already have high speeds. These constituents may be liberated by an explosion, just as high relative speeds of bodies can be converted into fast constituent motion (heat) during a head-on collision. Even if we could not be specific about how this happened, we could still be certain that energy is not created on the spot from nothing.}

Nor does energy disappear into nothing.
Isn't Space and Time just another version of energy? If yes, then couldn't it just have been "pure" energy that existed prior to the bang? Is the universe just a finite amount of energy continually converting from one form to another and back again?