Thread: Why is the Big Bang Theory better than Steady State?

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please forgive me if I misrepresent this second theory. It's hard to find much material on it. As I understand it, according to Steady State, the universe is constantly expanding just like in the Big Bang Theory, but it was never a singularity. It's just continually expanding. New matter appears in the form of subatomic particles and photons, giving us the CMBR, and continually replenishing the number of Hydrogen atoms out there.

The effective size of the universe would still be limited to the Hubble Sphere, because we can't interact with matter if it's receding from us faster than C. Matter may exist beyond that point, but it doesn't exist in any practical sense if we can't interact with it.

Mostly because what we observe falls more in line with the Big Bang Theory.

If space is in fact expanding then, how would running the clock backwards NOT imply a big bang event?

Originally Posted by kojax

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The remarkable match of the CMB's spectrum to that of an ideal blackbody continues to be a great difficulty for SS theorists. Many attempts to invoke a variety of mechanisms to explain such perfection in a SS context have failed. The observed redshift of the CMB also presents difficulties. Finally, the observed subtle deviations from an ideal blackbody spectrum pose an additional challenge to SS models. SS is, for all practical purposes, dead, but that doesn't keep some folks from continuing to try, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

If space is in fact expanding then, how would running the clock backwards NOT imply a big bang event?

Before Hubble's observations, the steady state theory was simply that the universe was static (stars might come and go, but on the whole, the the distribution of galaxies would be the same.

When Hubble found evidence of expansion, steady state theorists tried to patch things up by suggesting that new matter could be produced (by some unknown process) to keep the average density constant.

The CMB was pretty much the last nail in the coffin. It just fit too well with the big bang model. And then there are all the other things like the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium...

[QUOTE=tk421;334852]

Originally Posted by kojax

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The observed redshift of the CMB also presents difficulties.

How has this red shifting been observed? We would need evidence of what the light's original frequency was. Do we have any?

Finally, the observed subtle deviations from an ideal blackbody spectrum pose an additional challenge to SS models. SS is, for all practical purposes, dead, but that doesn't keep some folks from continuing to try, nonetheless.

What do you mean by "observed subtle deviations"? Are these deviations of a distribution of frequencies that indicates the radiation was originally emitted by a hotter object, and then red shifted to its current frequencies in a way that makes it clearly distinguishable from what we would observe if the light had simply been emitted originally at the frequency we see it at now? Or if it were emitted at a range of frequencies with are randomly red shifted (due to different photons beginning their journey at different distances and consequently being red shifted by different amounts?)

I can imagine a number of ways for a detectable fingerprint to exist. However, I'm hoping you might know the answer to this, because I don't know where to begin looking.

Originally Posted by Strange

When Hubble found evidence of expansion, steady state theorists tried to patch things up by suggesting that new matter could be produced (by some unknown process) to keep the average density constant.

There are lots of ways to arrive at it, though. Hawking radiation essentially results from matter anti-matter pairs appearing at the edge of a black hole's event horizon. It's not inconceivable that one could extend that sort of idea to allow expanding space to do something similar with a low probability per occurrence (spread out over a wide area of space so the dice still occasionally fall in its favor.)

Or if the expansion effect were "clumpy" or quantized instead of evenly distributed, so some patches of space would occasionally experience a very intense expansion effect, while others experience none at all, but a beam of light passes through enough space for the probabilities to balance out over time.

The CMB was pretty much the last nail in the coffin. It just fit too well with the big bang model. And then there are all the other things like the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium...

Would the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium etc be explainable by neutrons appearing out of nowhere (and then decaying into protons)? Or would there still be too little helium?

Originally Posted by kojax

How has this red shifting been observed? We would need evidence of what the light's original frequency was. Do we have any?

Sorry for the poorly worded answer. What I had intended to say was that the CMB's behavior at large redshift conforms to the predictions of BB cosmology, but is difficult to reconcile with SS theories.

"The light" is not a monochromatic source; it's the entire blackbody spectrum. In any event, the measurement is extremely tricky, but you can infer the temperature of the CMB at high-z by observing the absorption spectra of clouds interposed between us and quasars, e.g.. What you discover at high redshift is that the temperature was higher in the past, and by the right amount.

What do you mean by "observed subtle deviations"?

As I mentioned before, the CMB spectrum is a remarkably good match to a blackbody spectrum, indicating that thermal equilibrium had been achieved throughout the volume of the universe by the time of last scattering. But it isn't a perfect spectrum, and the deviations tell us additional things about the structure and evolution of the universe. Aside from inevitable small-amplitude random fluctuations about the blackbody spectral template, there are also systematic anisotropies. These anisotropies can provide information about details such as curvature of the universe, as well as an independent estimate of dark matter density.

I can imagine a number of ways for a detectable fingerprint to exist. However, I'm hoping you might know the answer to this, because I don't know where to begin looking.

A good place to start is UCLA Prof. Ned Wright's website. Check out his Cosmology FAQ and related pages. Once you've read and understood his summaries, consult the references he cites. And go from there.

Would the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium etc be explainable by neutrons appearing out of nowhere (and then decaying into protons)? Or would there still be too little helium?

You might be able to get a match to the observed helium levels by assuming the "right" rate of spontaneous neutron generation, but you'd be making a Faustian bargain. You'd break so much else (or be forced to contrive an infinity of ad hoc patches beyond the one of neutrons coming from nowhere) that it would be an intellectually empty exercise.

Originally Posted by kojax

....As I understand it, according to Steady State, the universe is constantly expanding just like in the Big Bang Theory, but it was never a singularity. It's just continually expanding. New matter appears in the form of subatomic particles and photons, giving us the CMBR, and continually replenishing the number of Hydrogen atoms out there......

History: Before the 1920's the whole of the universe was thought to consist of only our galaxy and that it was in a steady-state condition. After Hubble discovered that some nebula, thought to be within our galaxy, were actually not nebula but instead distant separate galaxies. Within this same decade it was also discovered that there seemed to be a relationship between distances to these galaxies, based upon their apparent brightness, and a change in the position of their hydrogen absorption and emission lines as seen in the prism spectral separation of galactic light. The farther away these nebula (soon to be recognized as separate galaxies) appeared to be based upon their apparent brightness, the lower the average frequency appeared to be and the position of the hydrogen absorptions and emission lines within the observed spectra. This seemed to be a shifting toward longer wavelengths when correlated with a galaxy's Luminosity Distance. This was later described as the red-shifting of galactic light.

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and forecast the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers

(quote from link below)

It was called the "fireworks theory" by Lemaitre. This hypothesis later became the Big Bang model that later came into prominence by the work of a Russian Nuclear physicist called Gamow. The physics of the theory was then re-modeled after the atomic bomb. The interpretation of the galactic redshifts was an assumed Doppler shift which if valid would result in the continuous expansion the universe, which by extrapolation backward in time, was believed to have started from an original bang. After the second world war the Big Bang model gained in popularity amongst both astronomers and theorists.

There were then a great number of other theories proposed to explain the observed redshift of galactic light, many involving explanations other than proposing an expanding universe. There were also some models that accepted the assumption that the redshifting galaxies meant an expanding universe, but did not propose or accordingly require a beginning entity. These models were variations of the steady-state models of the 19th century, that proposed infinite space and galaxies, along with the creation of new matter via several proposed mechanisms. The main idea for these models was that although evolution of galaxies was a normal process, the universe as a whole was in a steady-state condition concerning its general appearance and density. The most famous of these proposals was Fred Hoyle et. al. Steady State models.

The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end (in time or space).

(parenthesis added, quote from link below)

Why is the Big Bang theory (BB) thought to be better than a steady state model? (the OP question)

For a number of years, the support for these (competing two) theories was evenly divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the Steady State could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the observed abundances. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Young objects such as quasars were only observed at the very edges of the universe, indicating that such objects only existed in times long past, whereas the Steady State predicted that young galaxies should be scattered all over the universe, both near and far.

(parenthesis added, quote from link below)

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some BB theorists had predicted that if there was an original BB then such a temperature remnant might still be observable. Upon the discovery of the microwave background radiation BB theorists proclaimed this background temperature radiation was a remnant of the Big Bang. Steady State proponents instead stated that the background radiation temperature observed was the temperature of galactic and intergalactic starlight as it heats interstellar and intergalactic matter, that had been predicted by a great many astronomers and theorists in the 19th and 20th century and that this was a prediction long before the Big Bang model was proposed.

By the time these ad hoc SS proposals became known the Big Bang model had already was becoming the dominant model in cosmology. According to the SS models the microwave background temperatures according would have had no cosmological meaning to it, therefore no reason to theorize excepting as a counter to the BB proposal concerning it being a remnant of the Big Bang.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Bang theorists make the following claims:

-- the microwave background's consistencies and fluctuations match predictions of the Big Bang model.
-- the abundance of helium and other light elements cannot be be explained by stellar evolution theory alone, and requires another explanation like the Big ///Bang to explain these proportions.
-- calculated stellar ages do not not seem to support an infinitely old universe.
-- quasars seem to be more distant Active Galactic Nuclei that in a uniform and infinitely old universe, should also be found close by.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

observations which may be be supported or explained equally by both models:

-- both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are a Doppler Shift.
-- with the inclusion of Inflation theory both models propose the observed large-scale homogeneity of the universe.
-- evolution of galaxies

----------------------------------------------------

If real, these hypothesis were unforeseen by either model:

-- dark matter
-- dark energy

-----------------------------------------------------

Steady State theorists believe these observations are better explained by their model:

-- The observed structure of the universe including cosmic web and bubble structures, globular clusters and voids. Accordingly these structures would need much more time for the formation of such structures and their relative motions, than the Big Bang model via inflation could explain.

-- Some astronomers believe that some globular clusters in our galaxy appear to be older than the Big Bang model could allow, maybe up to 18 billion years of age.

-- The Big Bang model proposes that the universe was much more dense in the past yet there have been no accepted observations claiming greater past densities. Instead observations accordingly support a steady-state universe no matter how far back we have been able to observe.

-- There have been a great many observations at the edge of the observable universe that appear to be galaxies as old as the Milky Way or possibly older. If these observations continue at ever increasing distances after the James Webb goes up, this could be considered strong evidence against the age of the universe according to the present Big Bang model proposal of 13.7 billion years of age. such galaxies if as old as the Milky Way should require a universe with an age at a minimum of about 27 billion years old, which would be totally inconsistent with any cosmological constant and past predictions of the BB model.

----------------------------------------------------------------

It might be pointed out that there have been a great many other alternative hypothesis/ theories/ explanations/ cosmological models to explain the observed galactic redshifts as well as many little known, or generally unknown cosmological models, some of which are very different from both the Big Bang model and the Steady-State models. Many or most of these models have never been disproved.

Some of the more well known of these models are discussed here:

Non-standard cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The usual collection of errors and FUD from Forrest...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Big Bang theorists make the following claims:

I don't like the word "claims"; these all seem to be observations which match the theory. Claim implies something which doesn't have evidential support.

-- quasars seem to be more distant Active Galactic Nuclei that in a uniform and infinitely old universe, should also be found close by.

Can you give a source for that claim? This is not something I know a lot about but a quick look at Wikipedia says:

Originally Posted by WP

Quasars were much more common in the early universe. This discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1967 was early strong evidence against the Steady State cosmology of Fred Hoyle, and in favor of the Big Bang cosmology.

Quasar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which seems to contradict your statement.

-- both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are a Doppler Shift.

The big bang theory does not explain these as Doppler shift.

-- The observed structure of the universe including cosmic web and bubble structures, globular clusters and voids. Accordingly these structures would need much more time for the formation of such structures and their relative motions, than the Big Bang model via inflation could explain.

Do you have any evidence for that? Everything I have read suggests these structures are entirely compatible with the big bang model.

Similarly, everything I have read says that the very earliest galaxies seen are significantly different than modern ones.

[QUOTE=kojax;334919]

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The observed redshift of the CMB also presents difficulties.

How has this red shifting been observed? We would need evidence of what the light's original frequency was. Do we have any?

Yes we do. We look at the spectrum of the object. If you break the light from an object like a galaxy or star into its spectrum, you will see bright lines in it called emission lines. These lines are caused by the elements that make up the object. Each element has a unique pattern of lines that acts as a "fingerprint" for that element. These lines also have a normal location in the spectrum when emitted.

Something like this:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

where the bold I's are the spectral lines for a given element.

Now if we see this same pattern but shifted in position, like this:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

We know that the light has red-shifted since it left the object because light that was originally emitted in one part of the spectrum is now seen in another.

Originally Posted by Janus

We know that the light has red-shifted since it left the object because light that was originally emitted in one part of the spectrum is now seen in another.

Perhaps you could fix up the quote tag a bit? It currently appears as if I've both asked and answered my own question.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Some of the more well known of these models are discussed here:

Forrest, we all know that you have your own pet notions of how the universe works, but offering those opinions to those who come here looking for established answers to their questions is highly inappropriate.

Either you have deliberately misrepresented what standard cosmology says, or you don't understand it, so you shouldn't be providing answers to folks posting here without appropriate disclaimers.

Originally Posted by Strange

The usual collection of errors and FUD from Forrest...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Big Bang theorists make the following claims:

I don't like the word "claims"; these all seem to be observations which match the theory. Claim implies something which doesn't have evidential support.

-- quasars seem to be more distant Active Galactic Nuclei that in a uniform and infinitely old universe, should also be found close by.

Can you give a source for that claim? This is not something I know a lot about but a quick look at Wikipedia says:

Originally Posted by WP

Quasars were much more common in the early universe. This discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1967 was early strong evidence against the Steady State cosmology of Fred Hoyle, and in favor of the Big Bang cosmology.

Quasar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which seems to contradict your statement.

-- both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are a Doppler Shift.

The big bang theory does not explain these as Doppler shift.

-- The observed structure of the universe including cosmic web and bubble structures, globular clusters and voids. Accordingly these structures would need much more time for the formation of such structures and their relative motions, than the Big Bang model via inflation could explain.

Do you have any evidence for that? Everything I have read suggests these structures are entirely compatible with the big bang model.

Similarly, everything I have read says that the very earliest galaxies seen are significantly different than modern ones.

Hi Strange,

The usual collection of errors and FUD from Forrest...

Sarcasm does not suit you well. I think you are better than that Would you like it if I prefaced my replies to you by " the usual errors ........... from Strange?

I don't like the word "claims"; these all seem to be observations which match the theory. Claim implies something which doesn't have evidential support.

A "claim" is an assertion. The claim may not be accompanied by evidence which may or may not exist. I used the word "think" for Steady State theorists. I could also have used the words "they think," "they believe, "they assert" etc., the same words I could have used for either group of theorists. Both sides believe there is very valid evidence for their assertions.

Can you give a source for that claim? This is not something I know a lot about but .........

Quasars are the very energetic nuclei of distant galaxies and are among the most distant objects in the universe. We do not observe quasars less than about a billion light years away and most are farther. Because of the time it takes their light to reach us, the lack of nearby quasars means they no longer exist. These examples of evolution in the universe are evidence against the steady state theory, which is based on the perfect cosmological principle.

(quote from link below)

Steady State and Big Bang Theories: Fundamental Cosmological Assumptions and Observations | Suite101.com

My claim was that this is a Big Bang argument against the SS model. The main argument is that the distant universe, because of evolution, should look different from the present universe, according to Big Bang theorists.

The big bang theory does not explain these as Doppler shift.

The Hubble formulas for galactic distances calculate using Lorentz Transforms based upon a Doppler shift that galaxies are moving away from us and each other. The cause of this motion is not important, whether space is expanding or galaxies are actually moving. Both the Steady State and the Big Bang model both propose non-local galaxies in general separate over time via the expansion of the universe.

Do you have any evidence for that? Everything I have read suggests these structures are entirely compatible with the big bang model

This is not just a steady state argument, it is an argument by against the Big Bang by all models that I know of that propose a much older of infinite universe in age.

This simple argument is explained in #4 argument against the Big Bang below. This is one of the most common arguments made against the BB model.

BB top 30 problems

Of course BB theorists have their own explanations for this criticism, the same as SS theorists have counters against BB arguments against their model.

.... everything I have read says that the very earliest galaxies seen are significantly different than modern ones

Then you haven't been reading very much in this field.

Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily

ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/05/-the-ancient-massive-galaxy-mystery-80-percent-appear-extremely-active-and-in-a-phase-of-intense-gro.html

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...tense-gro.html

There are fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago; which would make them older than the Big Bang. Then there is the problem of the oldest globular clusters so far discovered, whose ages are in excess of 16 billion years. The Milky Way and other galaxies are also so old that they must have formed before the so called "Dark Ages" and thus almost immediately after the Big Bang, which is not consistent with theory.

(quote from link above)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1201125358.htm

Galaxies can be very red for several reasons. They might be very dusty. They might contain many old, red stars. Or they might be very distant, in which case the expansion of the universe stretches their light to longer wavelengths and hence redder colors (a process known as redshifting). All three reasons seem to apply to the new found galaxies.

The point here is that some galaxies appear to be very old in the distant universe, similarly there are some very young appearing galaxies in the nearby universe. And the list goes on. There are a great number of observations that propose old appearing galaxies in the in the distant, supposedly young universe. I have a collection of dozens more and these are just a few of those published. Those contradicting observations unpublished might be much larger than those published.

Using any search engine input "old appearing galaxies in distant universe" or a similar type inquiry and you will find a great many of such observations.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

A "claim" is an assertion. The claim may not be accompanied by evidence which may or may not exist.

And that is the problem right there. The word has a very specific technical meaning. Perhaps, in everyday speech it just means something like "say" but in philosophy and science it very specifically means a claim with no evidence. So you are inherently casting doubt on a well established theory with much supporting evidence.

My claim was that this is a Big Bang argument against the SS model.

Well, it sounded as if you were saying it was something the big bang model couldn't explain. Sorry if I misunderstood.

The main argument is that the distant universe, because of evolution, should look different from the present universe, according to Big Bang theorists.

Yawn. And it does. No matter how often you deny it.

The Hubble formulas for galactic distances calculate using Lorentz Transforms based upon a Doppler shift that galaxies are moving away from us and each other.

Wrong. I'm pretty certain that if you use the formula for Doppler shift you get the wrong answer (I tried it once. Have you tried it?)

BB top 30 problems

That link is from the king of crackpots. It is quite literally a string of assertions (in the technical sense). He presents zero evidence for any of that drivel. They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead so I will say no more.

I'm disappointed that you would even consider quoting that as a reference.

And you final set of articles show that we still have much to learn about the early universe and how galaxies form. But they also clearly show that early galaxies were very different from current ones. And they don't (as far as I can see) indicate any problems with the big bang model.

Even the one that I assume you like because it has "similarities to nearby galaxies" in the title doesn't say that early galaxies were like current ones. The only similarity is in the degree of metallization. Which is surprising, but clearly we have a lot to learn about the early universe and the evolution of galaxies.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Some of the more well known of these models are discussed here:

Forrest, we all know that you have your own pet notions of how the universe works, but offering those opinions to those who come here looking for established answers to their questions is highly inappropriate.

Either you have deliberately misrepresented what standard cosmology says, or you don't understand it, so you shouldn't be providing answers to folks posting here without appropriate disclaimers.

(embolden added)

For any valid argument one must present evidence for your assertion, position, or name something that you think has been misstated -- which you have not done for your embolden statement above. Nothing in my statements or posting are related to my own opinion or cosmological model the Pan Theory, which is very different from both the BB model or any SS model. All of the statements in my posting above can be corroborated by multiple sources. When I present my own opinion it is always prefaced by I think, in my opinion, it seems to me, or a similar statement. If you think you have found such an omission, non-justifiable statement, or error in any of my postings I will formally retract it, as anyone should willingly do concerning their statements.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If you think you have found such an omission, non-justifiable statement, or error in any of my postings I will formally retract it, as anyone should willingly do concerning their statements.

I have my doubts, given our previous interactions in which you demonstrated a powerful ability to deny facts. But I will try this once and see if you live up to your word.

You claimed that redshift and Doppler shift are the same. They are manifestly not, and you should know better. The way cosmologists do the accounting is to note the separate contributions of relative motion (the source of Doppler shift) and the metric expansion of space (which causes further redshift). It is a gross error to treat redshift as due entirely to Doppler shift.

Strange,

...Wrong. I'm pretty certain that if you use the formula for Doppler shift you get the wrong answer (I tried it once. Have you tried it?

I have done the derivation of the Hubble formula. In fact I have reformulated it and thereby changed it to explain away dark energy. This of course is based upon my own theory.

Here's a link below for you to see how the Hubble formula was derived. Scan down to where it says "Redshift velocity" and below that you will see the Fizeau-Doppler formula which is the Doppler basis for the Hubble formulation which itself was derived from a Lorentz transform, or Special Relativity if you prefer.

Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That link is from the king of crackpots......

The point had nothing to do with the link, it was simply that the Steady State argument I thought was succinctly stated there in statement #4. Most of the arguments in this link are well known steady state arguments. Name calling, such as crackpot, is meaningless. These are statements of arguments against the BB model. If you wish to differ with a particular statement you can present your own argument if you wish. I've made no statements concerning a personal preference since none are based upon opinion.

"(4)The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years."

This was a listing of the views held by steady state theorists such as the late Fred Hoyle.

This is the SS argument, the Plasma Cosmology argument, etc. It is a common argument by those arguing against the BB model.

You claimed that redshift and Doppler shift are the same. They are manifestly not, and you should know better. The way cosmologists do the accounting is to note the separate contributions of relative motion (the source of Doppler shift) and the metric expansion of space (which causes further redshift). It is a gross error to treat redshift as due entirely to Doppler shift.

To clarify my meaning here I added:

The Hubble formulas for galactic distances calculate using Lorentz Transforms based upon a Doppler shift that galaxies are moving away from us and each other. The cause of this motion is not important, whether space is expanding or galaxies are actually moving.

The cause for the supposed expansion of the universe is not important in this context since both the BB and SS models both propose the universe is expanding so it is not a point of contention between the two models. They both agree on this matter and this was my point.

tk421,

I have my doubts, given our previous interactions in which you demonstrated a powerful ability to deny facts

I could say "given our previous interactions in which you demonstrated a powerful inability to understand what was being said," but I would never say such a thing since like your statement, it could be considered sarcasm and mis-characterizing the intent of your statements

You claimed that redshift and Doppler shift are the same. They are manifestly not, and you should know better. The way cosmologists do the accounting is to note the separate contributions of relative motion (the source of Doppler shift) and the metric expansion of space (which causes further redshift). It is a gross error to treat redshift as due entirely to Doppler shift.

What I actually said in a historical context was:

The interpretation of the galactic redshifts was an assumed Doppler shift which if valid would result in the continuous expansion of the universe, which by extrapolation backward in time, was believed to have started from an original bang.

This has nothing to do with a statement of present beliefs or theory. It was a statement of history.

Redshifts are attributable to the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.

(quote from link below)

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

The Doppler Effect

Of course expanding space is not the same as the actual motion of galaxies. But in fact both involve the relative motion of galaxies away from each other which can mathematically be described by a Doppler shift.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

What I actually said in a historical context was:

The interpretation of the galactic redshifts was an assumed Doppler shift which if valid would result in the continuous expansion the universe, which by extrapolation backward in time, was believed to have started from an original bang.

This has nothing to do with a statement of present beliefs or theory. It was a statement of history.

You seem already to have forgotten what you wrote. As you have not quoted the relevant part of your post, I shall do so for you now:

observations which may be be supported or explained equally by both models:

-- both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are a Doppler Shift.

The "both models" phrase is a reference to the Big Bang model and some version of steady-state model. You wrote these words, and you are stating that the cause of redshift is a Doppler shift for both the Big Bang model and SS model. That's just wrong, as I said before and say again now. You claimed that you'd retract an error. Please do so. And in so doing, please do not post another long section of irrelevant text from the web in another effort to obfuscate.

tk421,

.... both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are a Doppler Shift.

The point was that the meaning of the redshift has no relevance in this topic since both models believe the universe is expanding. Because of Strange's similar misunderstanding I tried to clarify my statement by saying:

Of course expanding space is not the same as the actual motion of galaxies. But in fact both involve the relative motion of galaxies away from each other which can mathematically be described by a Doppler shift.

I think on this point semantics is the only thing involved since my related statements were later clarified as to my intended meaning. To have avoided possible misunderstanding maybe I should have said something like: "both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are based upon (the relative motion of galaxies away from each other, which is mathematically equivalent to a Doppler shift.)" The primary point was that both theories propose that the universe is expanding so the statement was related to how the two models agree

Originally Posted by forrest noble

To have avoided possible misunderstanding I should have said: "both models propose the cause of galactic redshifts are based upon (the relative motion of galaxies away from each other), which is mathematically equivalent to a Doppler shift." The primary point was that both theories believe the universe is expanding so the statement was related to how the two models agree

Not nearly good enough. Your answer was wrong. Big Bang redshift is not Doppler shift. And yet you keep writing. You are acting disingenuously.

Let me ask again then. If the steady state model also advocates for expansion, how does running the clock backwards avoid a big bang situation?

It seems to me that would require two assumptions: that it has not always been expanding and that energy can be created out of nothing. What evidence is there for either?

tk421,

Not nearly good enough.Your answer was wrong. Big Bang redshift is not Doppler shift. And yet you keep writing. You are acting disingenuously.

(embolden added)

There were no answers involved since there were no questions asked. I provided additional explanations and clarifications of my intended meanings when asked. Two of my so called "answers" were direct quotes from links provided.

If you could not understand my extended explanations, meanings, or the related links, or if you just like to argue, if your purpose is simpy to one-up others, or if you just like to make "disingenuous" accusations, then I would expect some might occasionally but wrongly think or assume that you have nothing better to say

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Let me ask again then. If the steady state model also advocates for expansion, how does running the clock backwards avoid a big bang situation?

It seems to me that would require two assumptions: that it has not always been expanding and that energy can be created out of nothing. What evidence is there for either?

I know your original question was not directed toward me, but I will give you the answer since I think you this time are addressing the question to me, if I'm not mistaken

In Fred Hoyle's et. al. Steady State model(s) new matter accordingly is continuously created so as to maintain a constant density of the universe. When running the clock backwards the density therefore would remain the same. For an infinite universe there never would be a beginning point in time.

As far as assumptions are concerned, it might be wrong to call them assumptions. It might be better to call it theory. An example is that neither the big bang itself nor Inflation can be directly observed and could be called assumptions of the theory even though there is supposed evidence for these events. Instead they are called theory.

One of these assumptions or theoretical proposals of the Steady State model was/is that in an infinite universe there would accordingly always have been an expanding universe, and for the second "assumption," new matter is accordingly being created from particulates in the background field (maybe something like dark matter), called the ZPF. How this creation occurs was not explained/ proposed but several possibilities given, generally the same explanations first proposed by the famous theorist and mathematician Paul Dirac in the 1920's and 30's .

.....Dirac met this difficulty by introducing into the Einstein field equations a gauge function β that describes the structure of spacetime in terms of a ratio of gravitational and electromagnetic units. He also provided alternative scenarios for the continuous creation of matter, one of the other significant issues in LNH:

• 'additive' creation (new matter is created uniformly throughout space) and
• 'multiplicative' creation (new matter is created where there are already concentrations of mass).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_l...ers_hypothesis

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If you could not understand my extended explanations, meanings, or the related links, or if you just like to argue, if your purpose is simpy to one-up others, or if you just like to make "disingenuous" accusations, then I would expect some might occasionally but wrongly think or assume that you have nothing better to say

You consciously chose the quotes you posted in response to a question by the OP, I presume. You are now trying to hide behind a feeble "I was just cutting-and-pasting" defense.

Your anti-intellectual behavior is at least consistent. This is a science forum, and if you post nonsense in response to a question, you will be called on it. If that's "one-upping," so be it. I wear that moniker proudly. Some folks just don't like it when they're caught pushing fertilizer.

tk421,

You consciously chose the quotes you posted in response to a question by the OP, I presume. You are now trying to hide behind a feeble ........

"one-upping," so be it. I wear that moniker proudly. Some folks just don't like it when they're caught pushing fertilizer.

Why so caddy? Constant denigration Don't you have anything better to do other than make "fertilizer" comments?

I will not waste my time responding further to your insults since it seems apparent that you are not interested in a related discussion .... peace

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Why so caddy? Constant denigration Don't you have anything better to say concerning the OP question other than "fertilizer" comments?

I will not respond further to your insults if you do not have anything more worthwhile to say.... peace

I don't understand the golf reference. But English isn't my first language, so I'll have to consult my friends as to what appears to be an obscure colloquialism.

But that mystery aside, you posted a response to the OP that was a lengthy rambling pastiche of cut-and-pasted snippets. Some of it was in service of your off-mainstream proselytizing (perhaps in the category of "not even wrong" -- search for Wolfgang Pauli and "ganz falsch"), and some of it was just out and out wrong. As one ought to in a science forum, I pointed out the wrong. You didn't like it, but maximizing your pleasure isn't the goal. No one enjoys criticism, but you could at least graciously accept corrections when they're offered, especially after you've declared that you would.

Big Bang cosmology does not say that redshift is Doppler shift. Period.

At it's base though, the big bang scenario emerges simply from running the clock of expansion backwards. Whether inflation turns out to be true or not does not affect the base motivation for the big bang idea. To get a steady state universe on the other hand, you need to insert the unknown phenomenon of constant mass creation to get a steady state universe at all. Why do that though? Simply because the SST is older?

Steady State requires the spontaneous generation of matter at the rate of, (if I remember correctly) one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years. However, it also calls for proton decay, which has been extensively looked for, and never found. You can't have spontaneous generation without proton decay, and there is no detected proton decay.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

At it's base though, the big bang scenario emerges simply from running the clock of expansion backwards. Whether inflation turns out to be true or not does not affect the base motivation for the big bang idea.

I agree.

To get a solid state (steady state) universe on the other hand, you need to insert the unknown phenomenon of constant mass creation to get a solid state (steady state) universe at all. Why do that though? Simply because the SST is older?

(parenthesis/ color added)

No, a steady-state model does not need constant creation of matter. But if not such a model would need another explanation for galactic redshifts other than an expanding universe if it proposes a constant density. There have been a number of such SS models proposing another explanation of/for galactic redshifts. Also not all SS models are Infinite universe models. There have been infinite-universe models in time and space which propose expansion in the local universe but not in the larger scheme of the universe. And I suppose cyclical infinite universe models fluctuating between greater and lesser densities (but no models that I know of).

Hoyle's Steady State model(s) accepts the expanding universe explanation for galactic redshifts therefore must propose the new creation of matter to maintain a steady-state density. Because of this proposal Hoyle's model seems to better match distant observations of a constant galactic density. On the other hand the BB model predicts a universe 8 times denser 7 billion years ago based upon the volume of a sphere, i.e, as the radius doubles the volume would increase by a factor of 8. A denser universe in the past has never been observed, which is one of the primary observational failures of the BB model, based upon an expanding universe premise without the creation of new matter.

Because the SST is older?

Actually both the original BB model and older steady state models have changed a great deal since their inception. Hoyle's Steady State model was put together in 1948 from a long history of steady state models, adding many new state-of-the-art theoretical addendums of the time. This same year Gamow formally resurrected the BB model based upon the new physics of the atomic bomb, retaining the underlying physics of General Relativity, while modifying the theoretical physics' addendums originally proposed by Lemaitre about two decades before. The Big Bang model has made many changes since Gamaw's proposal. Hoyle made one major revision/addendum to his original SS model called the Quasi-Steady-State model proposed in 1993.

Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

AlexG,

You can't have spontaneous generation without proton decay, and there is no detected proton decay.

Are you saying that Hoyle's SS model proposed proton decay? Grand Unified theories have proposed proton decay but by my present internet research following your posting, I cannot find that Hoyle's model required or proposed proton decay. To my vague recollection, it did not.

The creation of new matter from the ZPF, or otherwise, does not seemingly need to have proton decay for its creation. Proton decay of some type, could be one theoretical mechanism of new creation, but seemingly not the only one. This decay could be very subtle and unrelated to the disappearance of the proton, for instance, besides many other theoretical/ hypothetically possible mechanisms can be conceived of, in my opinion.

tk421,

Big Bang cosmology does not say that redshift is Doppler shift...

I agree.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

These are statements of arguments against the BB model.

That's the trouble. They are not arguments against the big bang theory. They are just things he made up, with no supporting evidence. You might as well say the big bang theory is wrong because electrons are pink.

Strange,

....They are not arguments against the big bang theory. They are just things he made up, with no supporting evidence.....

Blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars, would seemingly be meaningless to everyone. If you have specific questions or wish references for specific statements of mine, please provide the statements. Otherwise no one can guess what you're talking about

You need to provide statements of mine above that you wish me to provide references for , without specifics your accusation that "I just made 'it' up," is meaningless

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars, would seemingly be meaningless to everyone. If you have specific questions or wish references for specific statements of mine, please provide the statements. Otherwise no one can guess what you're talking about

It doesn't read as if Strange had questions. Also, despite your claim, I encountered no difficulty "guessing" what Strange is talking about.

You need to provide statements of mine above that you wish me to provide references for , without specifics your accusation that "I just made 'it' up," is meaningless

His "accusations" are fair and meaningful. The burden of proof is on the party making the non-mainstream claim. In this case, that is you. Strange is simply pointing out that you haven't met that burden of proof in general. Nice try shifting the burden to Strange, but rewriting the rules to suit your ends won't quite fly, no matter how many smiley emoticons you sprinkle throughout.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars, would seemingly be meaningless to everyone.(

The van Flanden link you provided (which is what I was talking about) consists of 10 (*) "blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars" so perhaps you should consider them meaningless. I just looked through the list again and I note that several of them are the same unsupported assertions you have repeated in this thread and elsewhere.

I have given up arguing/discussing these things with you because when presented with evidence which shows that your (and van Flanden's) claims are wrong, you just ignore it. And the only "evidence" you can produce against the big bang is some popular articles that point out that we don't fully understand how galaxies are formed and evolve, for instance.

(*) Despite the title of the article being "top 30 problems". Maybe he died before he could invent another 20.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars, would seemingly be meaningless to everyone.(

The Van Flanden link you provided (which is what I was talking about) consists of 10 (*) "blanket statements of generalities without specific references to particulars" so perhaps you should consider them meaningless. I just looked through the list again and I note that several of them are the same unsupported assertions you have repeated in this thread and elsewhere.

I have given up arguing/discussing these things with you because when presented with evidence which shows that your (and van Flanden's) claims are wrong, you just ignore it. And the only "evidence" you can produce against the big bang is some popular articles that point out that we don't fully understand how galaxies are formed and evolve, for instance.

(*) Despite the title of the article being "top 30 problems". Maybe he died before he could invent another 20.

I understand that Van Flanden is not mainstream. The Steady State model is not mainstream. Anybody that proposes non-mainstream ideas or possible criticisms of the BB model, are either alternative mainstream or non-mainstream "theorists." By quoting a statement from someone outside the mainstream, or just to present what might be considered the "logical" arguments of the time, then one should present the logic or reason for the statement.

This is a thread to answer the question "Why is the Big Bang Theory better than Steady State?" In my first posting #8 above I gave a brief history along with my opinion as to some of the primary reasons why the BB model is favored over the SS models.

I also presented a listing of some of the differences between the two models based upon what BB theorists propose "XXX," some of the differences based upon what the SS model proposes "YYY," and a listing of some of the possible problems with each model based upon statements and/ or perceived perspectives of the other model.

Steady State theorists, like BB theorists, are a group of individuals that are not always in agreement with each other. Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi, for instance, did not agree on many SS details but came together and presented a general model that they all could agreed upon. A general summary of what the SS theorists might think or have thought, could be based upon what was said at the time or an analysis of the differences between the models. Posting #8 was my general summary of the OP question. My summary was of details concerning what theorists on both sides might propose. If you think Van Flandern's summary is valueless then consider the single point from his website that I quoted as my opinion and recollection of the related SS argument, whereby I used his wordings.

Remember, I personally have no preference between the two models since my own cosmological model is quite different from both the SS and BB models. Some aspects of my own model have agreement and disagreement with proposals of both models. My summary above is not based upon my personal views concerning facts, it is just my explanation of history and my opinion and proposal of "a summary of others opinions" in answer to the OP question. I'm not arguing in favor of anything.

If the OP just wants a brief mainstream summary/ opinion in answer to his question then some authoritative link would suffice such as the last link I posted (posted again below), or another of someone else's choice -- and he or those who choose, could ignore any other statements or comments.

Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If the OP just wants a brief mainstream summary/ opinion in answer to his question then some authoritative link would suffice such as the last link I posted, or another of someone else's choice -- and he or those who choose, could ignore any other statements or comments.

The OP didn't ask for a history, but you insisted on providing one (and a curiously distorted one, at that). In your lengthy post (appropriate brevity is a valuable quality; please consider it), you didn't do a competent job of pointing out the many strengths of BB cosmology. By failing to explain better why BB cosmology became mainstream, you failed to answer the OP's question. Instead, it seemed to me, you were damning with faint praise, almost as if you favored a third option (and we know that you do, because you've said so many times in many posts). The behavior of the CMB -- both its extraordinary isotropy and match to a blackbody spectrum, as well as the revealing tiny deviations from same -- strongly favors BB cosmology and poses unsurmounted (and perhaps unsurmountable) barriers for other cosmologies. That important fact was lost in the noise of your post.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

If the OP just wants a brief mainstream summary/ opinion in answer to his question then some authoritative link would suffice such as the last link I posted, or another of someone else's choice -- and he or those who choose, could ignore any other statements or comments.

The OP didn't ask for a history, but you insisted on providing one (and a curiously distorted one, at that). In your lengthy post (appropriate brevity is a valuable quality; please consider it), you didn't do a competent job of pointing out the many strengths of BB cosmology. By failing to explain better why BB cosmology became mainstream, you failed to answer the OP's question. Instead, it seemed to me, you were damning with faint praise, almost as if you favored a third option (and we know that you do, because you've said so many times in many posts). The behavior of the CMB -- both its extraordinary isotropy and match to a blackbody spectrum, as well as the revealing tiny deviations from same -- strongly favors BB cosmology and poses unsurmounted (and perhaps unsurmountable) barriers for other cosmologies. That important fact was lost in the noise of your post.

Please instead provide your own summary or details as you just did in this last posting. If you do not like my summary, point out particular quotes that you disagree with. Remember all that I wrote has a historical basis.

The behavior of the CMB -- both its extraordinary isotropy and match to a blackbody spectrum, as well as the revealing tiny deviations from same -- strongly favors BB cosmology and poses unsurmounted (and perhaps unsurmountable) barriers for other cosmologies. ...

Yes, I think this is probably the primary BB argument.

By the way, what is your first language? congratulations on your very good English

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[I understand that Van Flanden is not mainstream.

It's not a matter of whether he is mainstream or not. The question is: is it science? There are plenty of scientists looking at non-mainstream ideas ("bangless" cosmologies, MOND and relativistic variants, is inflation required, eternal inflation, etc).

van Flanden (and you, which is why you like his claims, I assume) just makes shit up. There is no evidence for any of his ideas (or yours). That means it is not science.

You just like to muddy the waters by throwing in anything (whether it has any evidence or not, even if some crackpot just made it up) that you think might throw some doubt on the big bang model and put it on the same footing as steady state theories. The trouble is, one of these models has masses of supporting evidence (and no contradictory evidence[*]) while the other has no supporting evidence and has been thoroughly falsified.

I'll leave you to work out which is which ... (but I'm not convinced you will get it right).

[*] Constantly repeating your own or van Flanden's lies and misconceptions does not count as evidence.

Strange,

van Flanden (and you, which is why you like his claims, I assume) just makes shit up. There is no evidence for any of his ideas (or yours). That means it is not science.

Based upon my knowledge, many of his ideas are not his alone but much of it is widely held veiws by many or most non-mainstream theorists. This is not a thread about non-mainstream views, it's based upon what BB and SS theorists think or thought. Many of Fred Hoyle's views are expressed in Van flanden's writings. This thread is based first upon the OP question, a simple answer could have been given such as the answer that tk421 gave on his last post. Kojak continued his questioning in his posting #6 which suggested that he had extended questions, and his questions involved alternative possibilities suggesting he wanted extended answers with alternative possibilities. His quotes:

I can imagine a number of ways for a detectable fingerprint to exist (re: microwave background radiation). However, I'm hoping you might know the answer to this, because I don't know where to begin looking. ....... (re: creation of new matter) It's not inconceivable that one could extend that sort of idea to allow expanding space to do something similar with a low probability per occurrence ............. Would the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium etc be explainable by neutrons appearing out of nowhere (and then decaying into protons)? Or would there still be too little helium?

(parenthesis added, taken out of context)

An extended answer such as the one that I gave might be more appropriate.

I do, however, think you are overstating the "strength" of the BB model.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Based upon my knowledge, many of his ideas are not his alone but much of it is widely held veiws by many or most non-mainstream theorists.

Why would it matter how many people believe that hogwash if there is no evidence?

Many of Fred Hoyle's views are expressed in Van flanden's writings.

Right. And they have been thoroughly falsified. The fact that van Flanden repeatedly ignored this is just more evidence of his non-scientific approach.

I do, however, think you are overstating the "strength" of the BB model.

You haven't yet produced any evidence against it. And, sorry, quoting the deluded fantasies of a dead man and misunderstanding popular science articles don't count as evidence.

I am almost certain that some fundamental aspects of the big bang model are likely to change in future; particularly if/when we have a viable theory of quantum gravity. However, this will not be a restitution of the steady state model. Because it doesn't work: it just contradicts too much data. Any future model will have to be consistent with all of current theory and data as well as any new observations or theories.

Unless they find that the accelerating expansion is caused by dark energy being phlogiston...

[QUOTE=Strange;335718]

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Why would it matter how many people believe that hogwash if there is no evidence?

There is evidence for most all non-mainstream theory. Whether you accept the evidence or not is another question. The same thing applies to the BB model.

You haven't yet produced any evidence against it. And, sorry, quoting the deluded fantasies of a dead man and misunderstanding popular science articles don't count as evidence.

I would gladly do so if you were really interested. This is not the correct forum however. Pick an appropriate forum and I will show the "evidence" against the mainstream BB model.

Any future model will have to be consistent with all of current theory and data as well as any new observations or theories.

Any future replacement model would need to better explain all the available evidence, but would not necessarily have to agree or be consistent with any part of present theory.

Originally Posted by Strange

[Unless they find that the accelerating expansion is caused by dark energy being phlogiston...

Nah. It's all a pink-tinted aether acting against a background of an electric universe, animated by a zero-point energy that suffuses a universal self-referential quantum consciousness.

(I tried to work in some other woo references, but my brain started to explode.)

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There is evidence for most all non-mainstream theory.

It's odd that van Flanden doesn't provide any then. He references his own papers and (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresents others work.

Any future replacement model would need to better explain all the available evidence, but would not necessarily have to agree or be consistent with any part of present theory.

Well if current theory explains X and the new theory explains X then the two theories are consistent (within limits). Newtonian gravity is consistent with relativity given certain constraints.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There is evidence for most all non-mainstream theory.

It's odd that van Flanden doesn't provide any then. He references his own papers and (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresents others work.

Any future replacement model would need to better explain all the available evidence, but would not necessarily have to agree or be consistent with any part of present theory.

Well if current theory explains X and the new theory explains X then the two theories are consistent (within limits). Newtonian gravity is consistent with relativity given certain constraints.

But the two explanations might be very different. One explanation might be a relatively valid perspective or analog of reality, both verbally and mathematically, while the other may incorrectly explain reality but could be a close approximation mathematically within constraints. Such "wrong theory" is easy to come by. All you need to do is develop a solely observation based theory.

Such an example that I once read was: if an ancient Greek would have had a very accurate record of centuries concerning the tides in known areas of the world, he might in time come up with a mathematical formula or related algorithm that would be able to predict the changes in tide in all known areas of the world. Following this he develops a theory that tides are caused by the changing seasons effecting currents of phlogiston which in turn causes the tides. His theory would be wrong but maybe his formulations quite accurate. He would not have a clue about how gravity works or how the moon's gravity really causes the tides.

Of course the classic example was Ptolemy's epicycles of the planets orbiting the Earth. The new theory of the Earth and planets all orbiting the sun did not make better predictions at the time but made about equally accurate predictions and the proposal was far simpler.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

His theory would be wrong but maybe his formulations quite accurate.

And therefore consistent with the new theory.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

How has this red shifting been observed? We would need evidence of what the light's original frequency was. Do we have any?

Sorry for the poorly worded answer. What I had intended to say was that the CMB's behavior at large redshift conforms to the predictions of BB cosmology, but is difficult to reconcile with SS theories.

"The light" is not a monochromatic source; it's the entire blackbody spectrum. In any event, the measurement is extremely tricky, but you can infer the temperature of the CMB at high-z by observing the absorption spectra of clouds interposed between us and quasars, e.g.. What you discover at high redshift is that the temperature was higher in the past, and by the right amount.

What do you mean by "observed subtle deviations"?

As I mentioned before, the CMB spectrum is a remarkably good match to a blackbody spectrum, indicating that thermal equilibrium had been achieved throughout the volume of the universe by the time of last scattering. But it isn't a perfect spectrum, and the deviations tell us additional things about the structure and evolution of the universe. Aside from inevitable small-amplitude random fluctuations about the blackbody spectral template, there are also systematic anisotropies. These anisotropies can provide information about details such as curvature of the universe, as well as an independent estimate of dark matter density.

I've been trying to examine this more closely so I can ask a clearer question. Black body radiation obeys Plank's Law.



H is Plank's Constant
K is Boltzman's Constant
C is the Speed of Light
V is the frequency of light we are expecting to observe
T is the temperature of the body.
e is the constant e, or 2.71828...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Planck.27s_law_of_black-body_radiation

V and T are the only variables, so a clearer way to rewrite the formula would be to put most of the constants in one place.



or




That way it's easier to see clearly how temperature and frequency change the result. (I don't know how to use tex very well. Is there a way I can make that bigger so it's easier for people to read?)

Going off of the equation, it looks like if you took light that had been emitted by a very hot object, and uniformly red shifted it down to much lower frequency..... the light you ended up with would no longer conform to that equation. So if the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation conforms to a perfect black body now, then it couldn't have originally conformed to it when it had not yet been red shifted. But if it conformed to it prior to being red shifted, then it shouldn't conform to it now.

T isn't functioning as a scalar in that equation (at least that doesn't appear to be its role. It's hard to tell with e functions.), so I'm thinking that that should mean if you took the light from a hot black body, and uniformly scaled all the frequencies down, you wouldn't arrive at light similar to that which ought to be emitted by a colder black body.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

At it's base though, the big bang scenario emerges simply from running the clock of expansion backwards. Whether inflation turns out to be true or not does not affect the base motivation for the big bang idea. To get a steady state universe on the other hand, you need to insert the unknown phenomenon of constant mass creation to get a steady state universe at all. Why do that though? Simply because the SST is older?

One possibility is maybe.... (but only maybe) vacuum fluctuations similar to those that are proposed to cause the Casimir Effect. If you read up on that effect, it proposes that photons are just appearing and disappearing all the time. (That is if I understand the article right.... which is a big "if").

Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even besides that, both models are predicting that new space is entering the system by magically appearing from nowhere, and caused by nothing. New space appearing is really no more or less bizarre a prediction than new matter appearing. The new matter's appearance could be a side effect of same process that is causing the new space's appearance.

However I have to admit that, in a purely emotional sense, it feels more reasonable for new space to appear out of nowhere than for matter to do so. (Not saying it's a good idea to put much stock in emotion.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by KALSTER

At it's base though, the big bang scenario emerges simply from running the clock of expansion backwards. Whether inflation turns out to be true or not does not affect the base motivation for the big bang idea. To get a steady state universe on the other hand, you need to insert the unknown phenomenon of constant mass creation to get a steady state universe at all. Why do that though? Simply because the SST is older?

One possibility is maybe.... (but only maybe) vacuum fluctuations similar to those that are proposed to cause the Casimir Effect. If you read up on that effect, it proposes that photons are just appearing and disappearing all the time. (That is if I understand the article right.... which is a big "if").

Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The crucial thing is that there is no permanent matter created that produces the Casimir effect. Vacuum fluctuations involve virtual particles. It does not happen often that a produced pair doesn't annihilate almost immediately. Specific interaction to prevent it has to happen. Crucially also as an example, the produced pairs at the event horizons of black holes do not represent matter created from nothing. The escaping particle is matter that is subtracted from the black hole, i.e. there is no new energy created. The modified SST proposes that new matter/energy created for which there is no real evidence.

Even besides that, both models are predicting that new space is entering the system by magically appearing from nowhere, and caused by nothing. New space appearing is really no more or less bizarre a prediction than new matter appearing. The new matter's appearance could be a side effect of same process that is causing the new space's appearance.

However I have to admit that, in a purely emotional sense, it feels more reasonable for new space to appear out of nowhere than for matter to do so. (Not saying it's a good idea to put much stock in emotion.)

The big bang model is at it'S base a result of a direct inference from a combination of known science and observation. The SST model at it's base requires new matter to be created, which requires new, unevidenced science to even become plausible. That is quite a difference imo.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by KALSTER

At it's base though, the big bang scenario emerges simply from running the clock of expansion backwards. Whether inflation turns out to be true or not does not affect the base motivation for the big bang idea. To get a steady state universe on the other hand, you need to insert the unknown phenomenon of constant mass creation to get a steady state universe at all. Why do that though? Simply because the SST is older?

One possibility is maybe.... (but only maybe) vacuum fluctuations similar to those that are proposed to cause the Casimir Effect. If you read up on that effect, it proposes that photons are just appearing and disappearing all the time. (That is if I understand the article right.... which is a big "if").

Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The crucial thing is that there is no permanent matter created that produces the Casimir effect. Vacuum fluctuations involve virtual particles. It does not happen often that a produced pair doesn't annihilate almost immediately. Specific interaction to prevent it has to happen. Crucially also as an example, the produced pairs at the event horizons of black holes do not represent matter created from nothing. The escaping particle is matter that is subtracted from the black hole, i.e. there is no new energy created. The modified SST proposes that new matter/energy created for which there is no real evidence.

The question is whether the particles self annihilate with 100% probability, or some probability less than 100%. If it's a probability less than 100%, even by a very small amount, then space is a big enough place for those odds to bear out. The other question is, if the two particles are created in an area of space that is presently expanding, how would that complicate the matter?

If they appear next to the event horizon of a black hole, the gravity of the black hole complicates the matter. Why shouldn't expansion complicated it?

Even besides that, both models are predicting that new space is entering the system by magically appearing from nowhere, and caused by nothing. New space appearing is really no more or less bizarre a prediction than new matter appearing. The new matter's appearance could be a side effect of same process that is causing the new space's appearance.

However I have to admit that, in a purely emotional sense, it feels more reasonable for new space to appear out of nowhere than for matter to do so. (Not saying it's a good idea to put much stock in emotion.)

The big bang model is at it'S base a result of a direct inference from a combination of known science and observation. The SST model at it's base requires new matter to be created, which requires new, unevidenced science to even become plausible. That is quite a difference imo.

Right, but both of them require for new space to be created. And to be clear: the BBT does *not* propose any mechanism for that. It just takes it as a brute fact that it must be occurring.

I know space isn't "something". It's more like "nothing", but even an increase in the amount of "nothing" requires some kind of explanation.

Originally Posted by kojax

I've been trying to examine this more closely so I can ask a clearer question. Black body radiation obeys Plank's Law.



H is Plank's Constant
K is Boltzman's Constant
C is the Speed of Light
V is the frequency of light we are expecting to observe
T is the temperature of the body.
e is the constant e, or 2.71828...

Yup -- except for the "Plank" part. His name was Planck, with a "c." Hope you don't mind the nitpick, but it's a common misspelling. Also, it's "Boltzmann," with a double "n."

Going off of the equation, it looks like if you took light that had been emitted by a very hot object, and uniformly red shifted it down to much lower frequency..... the light you ended up with would no longer conform to that equation. So if the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation conforms to a perfect black body now, then it couldn't have originally conformed to it when it had not yet been red shifted. But if it conformed to it prior to being red shifted, then it shouldn't conform to it now.

Here's what you do: If you know the redshift z, then you can undo the shift and compute the spectrum as it appeared when it was emitted. What is observed is that, at all z, the CMB conforms to a near-perfect blackbody spectral shape. Furthermore, the corresponding temperature was higher in the past than it is now. These measurements all fit with BB cosmology. SS cosmology always has a problem explaining the isotropy and conformance to a blackbody radiator (what is enforcing such remarkable thermodynamic equilibrium throughout all of space? "Iron whiskers" fail miserably, as does every other mechanism put forward by SS adherents).

As to your reference to Casimir, I'm always surprised when people read more into the Casimir effect than is there. The effect is fully understandable from a quasi-classical viewpoint. It's just a consequence of radiation pressure. Normally there isn't any net force, say, between the plates of an uncharged parallel-plate capacitor because the radiation pressure is uniform. However -- and this is where the "quasi" part comes in -- if the plate-to-plate spacing is "small enough," the quantized nature of light becomes noticeable. Fewer modes are supported in that narrow space than outside it, and thus there is less radiation pressure inside than out. A net attractive force then results between the uncharged plates. If the spacing is small enough, the net force can be measured with real instruments (although doing so is extremely difficult, as is evident by the still-large error bars). This real effect of virtual photons is a terrific demonstration of quantum effects, but does not have anything to do with supporting steady-state cosmological models, nor of extracting infinite energy from the zero-point field, etc.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

I've been trying to examine this more closely so I can ask a clearer question. Black body radiation obeys Plank's Law.



H is Plank's Constant
K is Boltzman's Constant
C is the Speed of Light
V is the frequency of light we are expecting to observe
T is the temperature of the body.
e is the constant e, or 2.71828...

Yup -- except for the "Plank" part. His name was Planck, with a "c." Hope you don't mind the nitpick, but it's a common misspelling. Also, it's "Boltzmann," with a double "n."

Going off of the equation, it looks like if you took light that had been emitted by a very hot object, and uniformly red shifted it down to much lower frequency..... the light you ended up with would no longer conform to that equation. So if the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation conforms to a perfect black body now, then it couldn't have originally conformed to it when it had not yet been red shifted. But if it conformed to it prior to being red shifted, then it shouldn't conform to it now.

Here's what you do: If you know the redshift z, then you can undo the shift and compute the spectrum as it appeared when it was emitted. What is observed is that, at all z, the CMB conforms to a near-perfect blackbody spectral shape. Furthermore, the corresponding temperature was higher in the past than it is now. These measurements all fit with BB cosmology.

Ah. Good. That is what I was wondering.

SS cosmology always has a problem explaining the isotropy and conformance to a blackbody radiator (what is enforcing such remarkable thermodynamic equilibrium throughout all of space? "Iron whiskers" fail miserably, as does every other mechanism put forward by SS adherents).

First we'd have to know what causes black body radiation to have the characteristics it has. If it's just one of nature's ideal patterns, like the Golden/Fibonacci Spiral, or something like that, then there's no reason that any process governed by a similar kind of randomness shouldn't also conform to it.

As to your reference to Casimir, I'm always surprised when people read more into the Casimir effect than is there. The effect is fully understandable from a quasi-classical viewpoint. It's just a consequence of radiation pressure. Normally there isn't any net force, say, between the plates of an uncharged parallel-plate capacitor because the radiation pressure is uniform. However -- and this is where the "quasi" part comes in -- if the plate-to-plate spacing is "small enough," the quantized nature of light becomes noticeable. Fewer modes are supported in that narrow space than outside it, and thus there is less radiation pressure inside than out. A net attractive force then results between the uncharged plates. If the spacing is small enough, the net force can be measured with real instruments (although doing so is extremely difficult, as is evident by the still-large error bars). This real effect of virtual photons is a terrific demonstration of quantum effects, but does not have anything to do with supporting steady-state cosmological models, nor of extracting infinite energy from the zero-point field, etc.

I have to agree that Casimir effect isn't very strong, but at least it's an attempt.

What attempt to BBT theorists make to explain where all the additional free space is cropping up from? Are we just supposed to accept it as having no cause/mechanism to it? How is the spontaneous addition of new empty space any less spectacular an event than the spontaneous disappearance of energy (such as that proposed by "tired light" theory.) ?

Originally Posted by kojax

First we'd have to know what causes black body radiation to have the characteristics it has. If it's just one of nature's ideal patterns, like the Golden/Fibonacci Spiral, or something like that, then there's no reason that any process governed by a similar kind of randomness shouldn't also conform to it.

Ah, but we do know what produces a blackbody spectrum. The story of how we acquired that knowledge is the story of Planck's great resolution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and of the very birth of quantum theory. The short and incomplete version of the story is that the spectrum is what you get from a system in thermal equilibrium. Classical physics invokes a principle known as equipartition, which can be expressed succinctly as "nature treats all buckets of energy equally." Since there are more buckets (spectral intervals) at higher frequency, classical physics predicted that the spectral energy density would increase with increasing frequency, without bound. This "ultraviolet catastrophe" is not observed and the inability to explain why was a major embarrassment to the physicists of the late 19th century.

Planck was among the many who tried to solve the problem. He failed in his first n-1 attempts, but on his nth attempt, he considered what would happen if energy were quantized. The quantitative implications matched measurement. Planck himself felt that his resolution was a temporary waystation on the path to a "real" theory, but quantum theory just keeps going.

The amazing match of the CMB spectrum to that of an ideal blackbody is a signature of thermal equilibrium. The equally amazing isotropy tells us that every part of the entire universe (at least what we can observe) was also in thermal equilibrium with every other part. The level of perfection is truly extraordinary -- the deviations are denominated in a few parts per million. It is that perfection that has killed off alternative explanations offered by SS theorists. The "iron whiskers" mechanism, for example, has failed on at least two counts: 1) We don't see these iron whiskers in anywhere near the required density; and 2) the computed deviations from a blackbody spectrum are much too large to work. Rather than ppm levels, the discrepancies are of the order of 10% at best. That's four or five orders of magnitude off.

Aside from the CMB's properties matching so well to BB cosmology, there's also the important ability of the BB theory to explain quantitatively light-element nucleosynthesis. He-4 levels are observed to be what BB theory says they should be. SS theories have not been able to match that predictive power without invoking completely ad hoc explanations. There's much more that supports BB cosmology, but those are enough for this post.

I have to agree that Casimir effect isn't very strong, but at least it's an attempt.

Attempts are to be commended, certainly, but you should know that a great many serious attempts to salvage SS cosmologies have been made for decades. Thus far, the predictions have failed to provide good matches to more than small bits of data, and always at the expense of matches elsewhere.

What attempt to BBT theorists make to explain where all the additional free space is cropping up from? Are we just supposed to accept it as having no cause/mechanism to it? How is the spontaneous addition of new empty space any less spectacular an event than the spontaneous disappearance of energy (such as that proposed by "tired light" theory.) ?

Great question. I wish I could give you a short, simple answer that is also correct. I can give you an answer that has two of three of those attributes. General relativity "explains" it; the F(L)RW metric is a solution to Einstein's GR field equations, and describes the "metric expansion of space." One might point out that the creation of space is not necessarily miraculous when one considers that we're talking about an expansion of "nothing."

As to the spontaneous disappearance of energy by "tired light," it's important to recognize that "tired light" is a failed theory, so there's no mystery, and thus no mystery to explain. If you then raise the objection that any redshift represents a violation of energy conservation, I'd have to retort mysteriously that energy conservation is a local concept. Applying it to the entire universe is difficult because we can't reconcile frames of reference as widely separated as that of the source and detector. But that's a discussion for another thread, perhaps.

Originally Posted by tk421

What attempt to BBT theorists make to explain where all the additional free space is cropping up from? Are we just supposed to accept it as having no cause/mechanism to it? How is the spontaneous addition of new empty space any less spectacular an event than the spontaneous disappearance of energy (such as that proposed by "tired light" theory.) ?

Great question. I wish I could give you a short, simple answer that is also correct. I can give you an answer that has two of three of those attributes. General relativity "explains" it; the F(L)RW metric is a solution to Einstein's GR field equations, and describes the "metric expansion of space." One might point out that the creation of space is not necessarily miraculous when one considers that we're talking about an expansion of "nothing."

As to the spontaneous disappearance of energy by "tired light," it's important to recognize that "tired light" is a failed theory, so there's no mystery, and thus no mystery to explain. If you then raise the objection that any redshift represents a violation of energy conservation, I'd have to retort mysteriously that energy conservation is a local concept. Applying it to the entire universe is difficult because we can't reconcile frames of reference as widely separated as that of the source and detector. But that's a discussion for another thread, perhaps.

Spontaneous generation of matter in proportion to the energy lost to expansion would preserve conservation of energy. So I suppose that's a good starting point if someone wanted to revive Steady State. If the amount of matter needed were the right amount exactly, that would be hard to refute. If it were the wrong amount, it would be another nail in the coffin.

I guess it might be hard to define the amount of energy that gets lost, though.

Originally Posted by kojax

Spontaneous generation of matter in proportion to the energy lost to expansion would preserve conservation of energy. So I suppose that's a good starting point if someone wanted to revive Steady State. If the amount of matter needed were the right amount exactly, that would be hard to refute. If it were the wrong amount, it would be another nail in the coffin.

I guess it might be hard to define the amount of energy that gets lost, though.

You've misread something somewhere. There is no "energy lost to expansion." I don't know where you got that idea. Again, conservation of energy is a local concept. I did not say that energy is not conserved.

You've invoked spontaneous matter generation (for which no mechanism has been identified, thus presenting grave problems for the idea) to solve a non-existent problem. That's not a sensible trade.

There are already more than enough nails in the steady-state coffin. The inability of SS theories to account for the well-characterized nature of the CMB is already enough by itself. Add to that the absence of a quantitative theory of nucleosynthesis, etc., and one must recognize that SS is done. Just stick a fork in it.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

Spontaneous generation of matter in proportion to the energy lost to expansion would preserve conservation of energy. So I suppose that's a good starting point if someone wanted to revive Steady State. If the amount of matter needed were the right amount exactly, that would be hard to refute. If it were the wrong amount, it would be another nail in the coffin.

I guess it might be hard to define the amount of energy that gets lost, though.

You've misread something somewhere. There is no "energy lost to expansion." I don't know where you got that idea. Again, conservation of energy is a local concept. I did not say that energy is not conserved.

Spontaneous loss of pressure/heat. At a minimum we'd both have to agree that the average energy density is diminishing. Whether it works for us to just say more "nothing" is appearing from nowhere to make that happen depends on how you view "nothing".

In art, they say the white space is just as important as the colors. That's because information is defined by contrast. Increasing the "white space" of the universe adds to the total size of the portrait.

You've invoked spontaneous matter generation (for which no mechanism has been identified, thus presenting grave problems for the idea) to solve a non-existent problem. That's not a sensible trade.

No mechanism has been identified for the expansion of space either. But that doesn't appear to bother BBT theorists. What scientific reason is there to believe that "nothing" appearing from nowhere and with no mechanism is any less miraculous? Is there any?

I think sometimes that the reason the BBT is so popular is because people really really want to believe that the conservation of energy/matter has exceptions. If not at the local level, then perhaps at the universe level at large. Maybe it gives them hope or something. But it would be staggeringly surprising if it could happen at the whole universe level and not at the local level, because whatever is causing it to happen at the universe level: shouldn't we be able to find a way to concentrate the effect and make it happen disproportionately at a local point? Shouldn't such concentrations occasionally happen in nature?

If not, then one has to wonder what enforces the uniformity.

Originally Posted by kojax

Spontaneous loss of pressure/heat. At a minimum we'd both have to agree that the average energy density is diminishing.

No, I don't necessarily agree with that statement at all. It may be true, but it does not have to be true. There's certainly no evidence (that I am aware of) that it's true. In fact, the total energy of the universe may very well be zero.

Whether it works for us to just say more "nothing" is appearing from nowhere to make that happen depends on how you view "nothing".

In art, they say the white space is just as important as the colors. That's because information is defined by contrast. Increasing the "white space" of the universe adds to the total size of the portrait.

BBT acknowledges the importance of the white space. The solutions to the EFE explicitly accommodate expansion.

No mechanism has been identified for the expansion of space either. But that doesn't appear to bother BBT theorists. What scientific reason is there to believe that "nothing" appearing from nowhere and with no mechanism is any less miraculous? Is there any?

You have got this twisted up rather badly. BBT has multiple lines of evidence supporting it. GR has passed numerous experimental tests. GR applied to the universe leads to the EFE, whose solutions predict expansion. Redshift and measurements of the CMB are in exquisite accord with expansion. The amount of He-4 observed in the universe is correctly predicted by BBT.

SST, on the other hand, does not have experimental support. It fails to explain the observed CMB structure. It does not predict the observed amount of He-4. Etc.

If you still want to believe that BBT and SST are equally acceptable hypotheses, you are simply rejecting the scientific method, and employing an argument from ignorance ("I can't see how expansion would work, so I reject it"). You are certainly free to do so, of course, but understand that what you are doing is purely out of psychological need.

I think sometimes that the reason the BBT is so popular is because people really really want to believe that the conservation of energy/matter has exceptions.

Now you're just making up nonsense. Take your fingers out of your ears. I've told you several times now that BBT does not violate conservation of energy. I've told you several times now that BBT is the accepted mainstream theory because multiple lines of evidence support it. It's not a popularity contest. It's based on evidence.

If not at the local level, then perhaps at the universe level at large. Maybe it gives them hope or something. But it would be staggeringly surprising if it could happen at the whole universe level and not at the local level, because whatever is causing it to happen at the universe level: shouldn't we be able to find a way to concentrate the effect and make it happen disproportionately at a local point? Shouldn't such concentrations occasionally happen in nature?

I have no idea what you're talking about in the foregoing paragraph. What I would suggest is for you to carry out some actual study of the field. "Armchair cosmology" is perhaps a fun afternoon diversion, but it will not lead you to understanding why BBT is the best theory we currently have. There's no shortcut to understanding the universe. It always amazes me that people who find variational calculus daunting nonetheless feel completely free in making strong declarations about how the universe should behave.

If not, then one has to wonder what enforces the uniformity.

BBT -- plus Guth's inflation -- explains the uniformity. If you think that SST somehow does better, you've not been paying attention to what I've written. SST can't explain the uniformity to the level that has been observed.

I'm done now. I've given you the outline of our current understanding, as well as repeated explanations of why it's the current understanding and why competing theories fall far short.

If you still wish to cling to the fantasy that SST can still work, that's your choice. But evidence tells us that it would be an unscientific choice.

Originally Posted by tk421

You have got this twisted up rather badly. BBT has multiple lines of evidence supporting it. GR has passed numerous experimental tests. GR applied to the universe leads to the EFE, whose solutions predict expansion. Redshift and measurements of the CMB are in exquisite accord with expansion. The amount of He-4 observed in the universe is correctly predicted by BBT.

SST, on the other hand, does not have experimental support. It fails to explain the observed CMB structure. It does not predict the observed amount of He-4. Etc.

If you still want to believe that BBT and SST are equally acceptable hypotheses, you are simply rejecting the scientific method, and employing an argument from ignorance ("I can't see how expansion would work, so I reject it"). You are certainly free to do so, of course, but understand that what you are doing is purely out of psychological need.

I am somewhat surprised that SST continues to be proposed as a viable model by some people. The reason it was originally abandoned was because it offers no credible mechanism for the observed CMB, and that holds true to this day. Or am I missing something here ?

Markus Hanke,

I am somewhat surprised that SST continues to be proposed as a viable model by some people. The reason it was originally abandoned was because it offers no credible mechanism for the observed CMB, and that holds true to this day. Or am I missing something here ?

There are many reasons why the SST persists. The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old. This has continued to be the case for the Hubble Deep Field observations. Another reason is that the density of the universe appears to be the same no matter how far back in time we presently can look. In the Big Bang model(s) the universe should have been 8 times more dense 7 billion years ago, based upon the volume of an expanding sphere.

The Steady State proponents took the micro-wave background radiation for granted since it was of no importance in their model, simply the temperature of intra and intergalactic matter/space. SS theorists were not surprised by the discovery of the microwave background since the approximate temperature of intra galactic matter had been predicted for over a hundred years and radio-astronomy was then a new technology. The surprise to SS theorists was the uniformity of the background temperature. In all directions the temperature seemed to be almost exactly the same.

A few BB theorists had speculated on the possibility of observing the temperature of the original BB in the present universe. According to these theorists the CMBR, if observable, would be very uniform, whereby the SS model would seem to necessitate a greater variation in the background temperature radiation of space since galaxies, and the proximity to them, would seemingly cause a more variant background temperature. To explain what was observed, SS theorists and Hoyle in particular, proposed what was later called iron whiskers (iron dust) as a means for the observed even background temperature distribution. All knew this SS proposal was ad hoc to explain observations since the MWBR had no meaning for the SS model so was therefore never needed as a discussion in their theoretical material. Later others proposed that not only iron but also that graphite might radiate to accordingly bring about a uniform background temperature radiation of matter.

Many do not consider that SSTs are not just one model. There are seemingly countless different SS models that have not been disproved. Hoyle's models and other SS models also propose an expanding universe, but others again have different explanations for galactic redshifts and in these models the universe is accordingly not expanding.

If the James Webb telescope, like the Hubble Space telescope, observes ever distant old appearing galaxies and if the distant universe appears the same as our close by universe, then these observations would totally contradict the present BB models and in time all BB models would seemingly have to be replaced -- probably by a SS model of some kind. I believe these collectively are many of the main reasons why SS models will not go away

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There are many reasons why the SST persists.

I think you misunderstand the state of affairs. I said "continues to be proposed by some people", not "continues to persist". It has been well and truly abandoned by mainstream science, and for good reason. It doesn't persist, except maybe in science history books.

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

News to me. Got any references ?
All I know is that quasars and radio galaxies are found only at very large distances, i.e. in the early universe. Only very few such objects exist today - this cannot be easily explained by SST.

Another reason is that the density of the universe appears to be the same no matter how far we look

Again - got any references ?
Density of what, exactly ?

The Steady State proponents took the micro-wave background radiation for granted since it was of no importance in their model, simply the temperature of intra and intergalactic matter/space.

Several problems with this :

1. SST has no credible mechanism for why the CMB is here in the first place
2. If the CMB was the result of matter/radiation interactions, we ought to see the relevant scattering signatures, e.g. polarization. This is not the case
3. The CMB is almost perfectly smooth and homogenous, i.e. pretty much a perfect black body radiation. This cannot be explained by it originating from point sources like matter and ISM, which all have different temperatures.

Later others proposed that not only iron but also that graphite could radiate to accordingly bring about a uniform background temperature radiation of matter.

Again, such scattering processes would result in polarization of the CMB, which is not observed.

If the James Webb telescope, like the Hubble Space telescope, observes ever distant old appearing galaxies and if the distant universe appears the same as our close by universe, then these observations would totally contradict the present BB model and in time all BB models would seemingly have to be replaced -- probably by a SS model of some kind.

I think the presence of quasar and radio galaxies as mentioned above conclusively disproves this. The far-away, i.e. early, universe was not the same as the older, close by universe.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There are many reasons why the SST persists.

I think you misunderstand the state of affairs. I said "continues to be proposed by some people", not "continues to persist". It has been well and truly abandoned by mainstream science, and for good reason. It doesn't persist, except maybe in science history books.

I agree that there are very few presently active theorists still proposing SS possibilities.


(my quote)

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

(your quote)

News to me. Got any references ?

There are countless such observations. I have collected maybe a couple dozen of the more recent ones.

Strange new 'species' of ultra-red galaxy discovered
Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily
ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites
The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?
The Mystery of Omega Centauri: "Why Were the Early Galaxies Dense With Stars?"
Infrared camera reveals distant galaxy cluster

..... and many others.

All I know is that quasars and radio galaxies are found only at very large distances, i.e. in the early universe. Only very few such objects exist today - this cannot be easily explained by SST.

This statement is true. Such explanations are not easily explainable by SS models. But quasars greatly fall off in quantity at redshifts greater than 3. This is also not easily explainable by BB models.

(my quote)

Another reason is that the density of the universe appears to be the same no matter how far we look

Density of what, exactly ?

The comparative density of galaxies in the past, and the density of matter in the universe per volume -- should have been much greater in the past in an expanding universe model without the continuous creation of new matter.

(my quote)

The Steady State proponents took the micro-wave background radiation for granted since it was of no importance in their model, simply the temperature of intra and intergalactic matter/space.

(your quote)
[QUOTE]Several problems with this :

1. SST has no credible mechanism for why the CMB is here in the first place

Of course they do. It is easily explained as the temperature of intra and intergalactic matter that has been predicted by many dozens of theorists for more than a hundred years. It is the uniformity of this temperature that is more difficult to explain.

2. If the CMB was the result of matter/radiation interactions, we ought to see the relevant scattering signatures, e.g. polarization. This is not the case.

This is a BB model claim. SS theorists counter that such re-radiation has been re-radiated many times and therefore its original source would not necessarily be distinguishable.

3. The CMB is almost perfectly smooth and homogenous, i.e. pretty much a perfect black body radiation. This cannot be explained by it originating from point sources like matter and ISM, which all have different temperatures.

The uniformity of this radiation is thought to be the primary problem with known SS explanations.

(my quote)

Later others proposed that not only iron but also that graphite could radiate to accordingly bring about a uniform background temperature radiation of matter.

Again, such scattering processes would result in polarization of the CMB, which is not observed.

Yes, this is a BB contention -- but SS theorists have disagreed with this conclusion concerning ever continuous scattering.

(my quote)

If the James Webb telescope, like the Hubble Space telescope, observes ever distant old appearing galaxies and if the distant universe appears the same as our close by universe, then these observations would totally contradict the present BB model and in time all BB models would seemingly have to be replaced -- probably by a SS model of some kind.

I think the presence of quasar and radio galaxies as mentioned above conclusively disproves this. The far-away, i.e. early, universe was not the same as the older, close by universe.

If we continue to see the same things then I believe the BB will be replaced within a couple of decades thereafter. If instead we see what is presently expected such as all blue stars, small galaxies, and a totally young appearing universe, then this will be strong evidence in favor of a universe of roughly the age that BB theorists presently predict -- which would be strong evidence against a SS model. In another dozen years we should know one way or the other.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There are countless such observations. I have collected maybe a couple dozen of the more recent ones.

Ok, I have looked at the links you have provided, thanks for that.
I hate to tell you this, but none of the phenomena referenced are too old to be plausible in a BB universe. I cannot accept these as refutation of my original argument. Furthermore, these galaxies are different then galaxies close to us, which really proves my point rather than defeats it. Or how many ultra-red dwarf galaxies do you know of in our vicinity ( for example ) ?

This is a BB model claim. SS theorists counter that such re-radiation has been re-radiated many times and therefore its original source would not necessarily be distinguishable.

I think you are missing the point. For one thing, polarization happens during the scattering process, not at point of emission, thus it is irrelevant how many times it has been scattered. We should still see at least some polarization effect, but we aren't. The CMB is as close to a black body signature as one can get in nature. Also, every scattering will lead to loss of energy - so why is there a CMB at all ?

Yes, this is a BB contention -- but SS theorists have disagreed with this conclusion concerning ever continuous scattering.

How can anyone disagree with this ? Both scattering and polarization are basic facts of physics.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The uniformity of this radiation [CMB] is thought to be the primary problem with known SS explanations.

The uniformity (and conformance to blackbody spectral density) of this radiation has been fatal to all known SS explanations. Iron whiskers, graphite, etc. -- even setting aside their grossly insufficient density --- can't explain the conformance, despite many creative efforts by a lot of very smart people. Some continue to try, despite the perfect record of failure, but don't overlook that perfection. So the answer to the original question posed by the OP -- "Why is the BBT better than Steady State?" -- has already been answered. The rest of your post is another in a long sequence of your efforts to proselytize. Frankly, it's tiresome, and a bit rude. Just start your own thread.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The comparative density of galaxies in the past, and the density of matter in the universe per volume -- should have been much greater in the past in an expanding universe model without the continuous creation of new matter.

I would like to see this discrepancy, because I don't quite believe it.
Do you have any references to reliable data about what the density should be at a given age of the universe as compared to what it is observed to be, clearly showing an unexplainable discrepancy ?

But quasars greatly fall off in quantity at redshifts greater than 3. This is also not easily explainable by BB models.

How is this not easily explainable ? Quasars are supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies, and their immediate surrounds. Such supermassive black holes form over time through accretion, so prior to a certain time in the past there wouldn't have been any quasars, simply because there wasn't enough time for them to have formed. In fact, this is actually evidence in favor of BB, because in a SS universe there should be an equal number of quasars before and after the threshold you mention.
Thanks for bringing this up, I did not even think of this.

Yes, this is a BB contention -- but SS theorists have disagreed with this conclusion concerning ever continuous scattering.

Just to add to my previous post - a good example of this effect is the scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere. It is scattered and re-scattered countless times, yet when it arrives at the surface of the earth is it partially polarized, despite the many scatterings ( use sunglasses with polarization filter, if you don't believe this ). The same should happen with the EM radiation of the CMB if it was the result of scattering processes - but no such polarization has been observed. It is perfectly smooth.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There are countless such observations. I have collected maybe a couple dozen of the more recent ones.

Ok, I have looked at the links you have provided, thanks for that.
I hate to tell you this, but none of the phenomena referenced are too old to be plausible in a BB universe. I cannot accept these as refutation of my original argument.

If they were an accepted refutation then the BB model would already be on its way out. What most of these articles/ papers are stating is that some of these observations are hard to explain via the BB model.

Furthermore, these galaxies are different then galaxies close to us, which really proves my point rather than defeats it.

This has been the contention since all observations are generally made with the BB model assumption.

Or how many ultra-red dwarf galaxies do you know of in our vicinity ( for example ) ?

Of course such close galaxies cannot appear that red because a good part of their red appearance has to do with the redshifting based upon their distance.

This is a BB model claim. SS theorists counter that such re-radiation has been re-radiated many times and therefore its original source would not necessarily be distinguishable.

I think you are missing the point. For one thing, polarization happens during the scattering process, not at point of emission, thus it is irrelevant how many times it has been scattered. We should still see at least some polarization effect, but we aren't

.
We do see some polarization of the microwave background.

WMAP Goals: Microwave Background Polarization

The contention is that this polarization is more consistent with the BB model.

The CMB is as close to a black body signature as one can get in nature. Also, every scattering will lead to loss of energy - so why is there a CMB at all ?

I think the collective of galactic light/ temperatures via the microwave background, are supposedly explained and necessary in SS models. The uniformity of it, I believe, is the major point of contention. Some SS models are aether models which have an aether (dark-matter-like) temperature distribution mechanism.

(my quote)

Yes, this is a BB contention -- but SS theorists have disagreed with this conclusion concerning ever continuous scattering.

How can anyone disagree with this ? Both scattering and polarization are basic facts of physics.

They disagree with BB conclusions concerning SS proposals, and they dissagree with each other offering different proposed mechanisms of MBR temperature distributions.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The uniformity of this radiation [CMB] is thought to be the primary problem with known SS explanations.

The uniformity (and conformance to blackbody spectral density) of this radiation has been fatal to all known SS explanations. Iron whiskers, graphite, etc. -- even setting aside their grossly insufficient density --- can't explain the conformance, despite many creative efforts by a lot of very smart people. Some continue to try, despite the perfect record of failure, but don't overlook that perfection. So the answer to the original question posed by the OP -- "Why is the BBT better than Steady State?" -- has already been answered.

Yes, the uniformity of the microwave background is hard to explain by well-known SS models, using known possible mechanisms. Other mechanisms would be considered hypothetical, such as (dark-matter-like/ Higg's particle like, or other) particle field mechanisms.

......The rest of your post is another in a long sequence of your efforts to proselytize. Frankly, it's tiresome, and a bit rude. Just start your own thread

When questions are honestly asked concerning alternative models, such as Markus Hanks question in posting #58, I will give an answer if I know it, and if I have time.

Since all that has been said concerning beliefs of the BB model have been generally accurate in this thread so far, in my opinion, I can only provide insight concerning models that most members are not familiar with -- in this case perspectives of SS models.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

Spontaneous loss of pressure/heat. At a minimum we'd both have to agree that the average energy density is diminishing.

No, I don't necessarily agree with that statement at all. It may be true, but it does not have to be true. There's certainly no evidence (that I am aware of) that it's true. In fact, the total energy of the universe may very well be zero.

If the total energy of the universe were zero, then its temperature would be zero. According to BBT, the temperature is not zero, but appears to have been higher in the past, and will likely continue to diminish as time moves onward.

How is that not energy loss?

No mechanism has been identified for the expansion of space either. But that doesn't appear to bother BBT theorists. What scientific reason is there to believe that "nothing" appearing from nowhere and with no mechanism is any less miraculous? Is there any?

You have got this twisted up rather badly. BBT has multiple lines of evidence supporting it. GR has passed numerous experimental tests. GR applied to the universe leads to the EFE, whose solutions predict expansion. Redshift and measurements of the CMB are in exquisite accord with expansion. The amount of He-4 observed in the universe is correctly predicted by BBT.

SST, on the other hand, does not have experimental support. It fails to explain the observed CMB structure. It does not predict the observed amount of He-4. Etc.

If you still want to believe that BBT and SST are equally acceptable hypotheses, you are simply rejecting the scientific method, and employing an argument from ignorance ("I can't see how expansion would work, so I reject it"). You are certainly free to do so, of course, but understand that what you are doing is purely out of psychological need.

Mostly I am trying to understand how the BBT is better supported. This thread has been very productive toward that end. Now I understand how it is that if the CMBR were not caused by an actual hot body, then it would have to be the result of something nearly identical (like the "iron whiskers" model that apparently didn't pan out.) That is strong evidence, and the only reason I know about it is that I posed the question. The reason the psychology interests me, on the other hand, is because the model appears to have been widely accepted even before the CMBR was discovered.

Lack of a mechanism is a valid criticism. It's not reason enough to reject the theory, though. Gravity also had no mechanism for a while (and some may argue it still doesn't have a very compelling one), but everyone still had to agree that gravity existed.

BBT -- plus Guth's inflation -- explains the uniformity. If you think that SST somehow does better, you've not been paying attention to what I've written. SST can't explain the uniformity to the level that has been observed.

I'm done now. I've given you the outline of our current understanding, as well as repeated explanations of why it's the current understanding and why competing theories fall far short.

If you still wish to cling to the fantasy that SST can still work, that's your choice. But evidence tells us that it would be an unscientific choice.

At this point asking about the SST is just a good way of narrowing the question. I could have asked: "What makes the BBT better than all the other expansion theories?'. Indeed I should have asked about SST in the plural, as being "All the various SST scenarios", since there are a number of them.

However, I will ask one very serious question:

If the CMBR was all emitted in a single burst the moment the matter on the universe became cool enough to be sufficiently transparent....... it couldn't have been perfectly transparent at that moment. Wouldn't a lot of the CMBR have still been re-absorbed, and then re-emitted as the matter was cooling? Wouldn't portions of the CMBR that got absorbed and re-emitted by cooler matter then conform to the spectrum of a cooler black body? Wouldn't the light from the cooler matter also fill all of space, coming from all directions? Wouldn't the admixture from that break up the uniformity so it didn't conform quite so perfectly to an ideal black body at one temperature?

I hope I'm not supposed to believe that the matter in space immediately jumped from being so tightly compacted that light couldn't pass through it to being clumped into galaxies and clusters and etc, in a split second.

Shouldn't we see more of a mixing by degrees. Suppose (just for a basic round number) at one temperature, light can pass through with 95% getting absorbed and re-emitted, and 5% passing through without ever encountering another absorbing object. So the temperature drops and 10% can pass through, then it drops again so 15% can pass through..... and etc.

Now the math probably wouldn't be that ideal. But you see where I'm going with this? The temperatures should vary across a range as the universe became increasingly transparent until it reached a point of transparency where the rate of re-absorption was negligibly small. Absorption and re-emission should have continued until the matter in the universe was no longer evenly distributed. I mean, at present, gas clouds have a readable heat signature. If the universe was ever one big gas cloud, that would be enough matter density spread evenly enough to have a signature that fills all of space.

If the CMBR was all emitted in a single burst the moment the matter on the universe became cool enough to be sufficiently transparent....... it couldn't have been perfectly transparent at that moment....


I hope I'm not supposed to believe that the matter in space immediately jumped from being so tightly compacted that light couldn't pass through it to being clumped into galaxies and clusters and etc, in a split second.
....

It wasn't because the matter was so compacted. Up until that time, the universe was too hot for protons and electrons to form atoms, so what you had was a universe filled pretty uniformly with charged particles. Light only interacts with charged particles. Once the temp dropped far enough for the protons and electrons to unite, the universe was suddenly filled with a fog of neutral particles. The light doesn't react with neutral particles, and so space became transparent.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

(my quote)

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

(your quote)

News to me. Got any references ?

There are countless such observations. I have collected maybe a couple dozen of the more recent ones.

Strange new 'species' of ultra-red galaxy discovered
Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily
ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites
The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?
The Mystery of Omega Centauri: "Why Were the Early Galaxies Dense With Stars?"
Infrared camera reveals distant galaxy cluster

..... and many others.*

Sigh.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it is still false.

None of these articles provide any evidence contradicting the big bang model. For example, none of them have evidence for objects older than the universe (one of the things you like to claim). They may, in some cases, show that we do not fully understand the formation of stars and galaxies. Especially in the early universe when conditions were very different than they are now. One thing all these articles show is that the early universe was very different from the current one; early galaxies were different from modern ones and, as far as we can tell, early stars were different from modern ones (for example, often very much larger and therefore sorter lived).

And just to go back to your original statement:

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

So, all you are saying is that early on there were some old galaxies. Which means that galaxies formed very early one. That is really useful information for understanding both the early universe and galaxy formation. But how is it supportive of, or even relevant to, steady state theories?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

When questions are honestly asked concerning alternative models, such as Markus Hanks question in posting #58, I will give an answer if I know it, and if I have time.

The trouble is, that your responses are always phrased to suggest that any alternative theory is just as good as the models which are supported by evidence. Even if those alternatives have been thoroughly discredited or are just idle fantasy.

It would be more honest and useful to point out (as others have done) that there are alternative models but they have all been falsified or haven't yet got as much supporting evidence (if any) as the big bang.

Typical of the sort of thing you do is to say:

Since all that has been said concerning beliefs of the BB model ...

Which is either just poor writing or a rather transparent attempt to subtly represent mainstream science as some sort of faith system.

I can only provide insight concerning models that most members are not familiar with -- in this case perspectives of SS models.

You do even this very badly because (a) you are motivated to support "alternative" theories as anything that might be seen to discredit real science might boost your own personal junk theory and (b) you do it based on a depressing level of ignorance. This is, presumably, wilful ignorance as I have seen many people here and on other forums repeatedly correct your misunderstandings only to have you repeat them again soon afterwards.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

(my quote)

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

(your quote)

News to me. Got any references ?

There are countless such observations. I have collected maybe a couple dozen of the more recent ones.

Strange new 'species' of ultra-red galaxy discovered
Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily
ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites
The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?
The Mystery of Omega Centauri: "Why Were the Early Galaxies Dense With Stars?"
Infrared camera reveals distant galaxy cluster

..... and many others.*

Sigh.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this, it is still false.

None of these articles provide any evidence contradicting the big bang model. For example, none of them have evidence for objects older than the universe (one of the things you like to claim). They may, in some cases, show that we do not fully understand the formation of stars and galaxies. Especially in the early universe when conditions were very different than they are now. One thing all these articles show is that the early universe was very different from the current one; early galaxies were different from modern ones and, as far as we can tell, early stars were different from modern ones (for example, often very much larger and therefore sorter lived).

And just to go back to your original statement:

The main reason, I believe, is because some of the most distant galaxies, therefore the youngest, appear to be very old.

So, all you are saying is that early on there were some old galaxies. Which means that galaxies formed very early one. That is really useful information for understanding both the early universe and galaxy formation. But how is it supportive of, or even relevant to, steady state theories?

Yes, I think few theorists presently think any of these observations yet contradict the BB model but after the James Webb telescope is up and if the same kinds of galaxies are seen as are presently being seen at the furthest distances, then I think the BB model will have to change. First I expect they will figure out how to make an older universe fit within the present BB framework, but afterwards my expectation is that the BB model would be replaced.

.... But how is it supportive of, or even relevant to, steady state theories?

If it is ever believed that the most distant observable galaxies on an average appear to be just the same as close by galaxies (excepting for large redshifts), then I believe a SS model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model.

Granted, right now that possibility is considered a very very big "if." --- I betha I could get odds of a hundred to one all over the place.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

When questions are honestly asked concerning alternative models, such as Markus Hanks question in posting #58, I will give an answer if I know it, and if I have time.

The trouble is, that your responses are always phrased to suggest that any alternative theory is just as good as the models which are supported by evidence. Even if those alternatives have been thoroughly discredited or are just idle fantasy.

No, what I am saying is that I think some SS model will eventually replace the BB model, but it will not necessarily be any presently known
SS model.

It would be more honest and useful to point out (as others have done) that there are alternative models but they have all been falsified or haven't yet got as much supporting evidence (if any) as the big bang.

I will say it almost the same way as you said it: There are alternative cosmological models but none have as much supporting evidence or adherents as the mainstream Big Bang, Lambda, Cold Dark Matter model.

(my quote)

I can only provide insight concerning models that most members are not familiar with -- in this case perspectives of SS models.

You do even this very badly because (a) you are motivated to support "alternative" theories as anything that might be seen to discredit real science might boost your own personal junk theory and (b) you do it based on a depressing level of ignorance. This is, presumably, wilful ignorance as I have seen many people here and on other forums repeatedly correct your misunderstandings only to have you repeat them again soon afterwards.

I do not want any wrong cosmological model waisting humanities valuable time and money. I feel the same way about the BB model, my own model, or any cosmological model that could be wrong. As far as I am concerned the faster any cosmological model can be disposed of the better. Only one model will eventually prevail based upon observations -- right now the prevailing model is the BB.

I believe most science minded people would want the most valid perspective of reality to prevail, regardless of the details.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Yes, I think few theorists presently think any of these observations yet contradict the BB model but after the James Webb telescope is up and if the same kinds of galaxies are seen as are presently being seen at the furthest distances, then I think the BB model will have to change.
...
If it is ever believed that the most distant observable galaxies on an average appear to be just the same as close by galaxies (excepting for large redshifts), then I believe a SS model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model

So all you have is wishes not evidence. Can you really not see how poor those arguments are?

IF it is ever found that invisible unicorns are blue and not pink...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I do not want any wrong cosmological model waisting humanities valuable time and money.

Then stop promoting theories and speculation which, at best, have little or no evidence and usually have been utterly refuted.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Yes, I think few theorists presently think any of these observations yet contradict the BB model but after the James Webb telescope is up and if the same kinds of galaxies are seen as are presently being seen at the furthest distances, then I think the BB model will have to change.
...
If it is ever believed that the most distant observable galaxies on an average appear to be just the same as close by galaxies (excepting for large redshifts), then I believe a SS model of some kind will eventually replace the BB model

So all you have is wishes not evidence. Can you really not see how poor those arguments are?

I consider that there is lots of evidence that the distant universe is the same or similar to the nearby universe, and secondly if the universe is expanding there is no evidence that I know of that the observable universe was more dense in the past. In my opinion this evidence against the BB model(s) far outweighs the supposed evidence in favor of the model. Bottom line is that I think that these same observations support a SS model of some kind while contradicting the BB model.

It is my opinion BB proponents need to look at the evidence that I pointed out with a more critical eye. I'm sure you realize that all "standard models" in all of science have been greatly changed or replaced over time, and the possibility that our own times may not be as "special" as most people think. The only theories that I think will survive another century is general chemical theory, plate tectonics, and natural selection. I think, based upon the evidence, that all major theories in physics today will be almost totally replaced and that the last century will be remembered as a step backwards for physics. I think we only have to wait maybe a dozen years (after the James Webb is up for maybe 6 years) to see the beginnings of the replacement of the BB model which I believe will be a harbinger of another science revolution with a return to the merits of simplicity.

.....stop promoting theories and speculation which, at best, have little or no evidence and usually have been utterly refuted.

My only purpose here is to explain possible merits of SS models while acknowledging their perceived deficiencies. What would be the purpose of a discussion if everyone knew and agreed upon the same "facts?"

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I consider that there is lots of evidence that the distant universe is the same or similar to the nearby universe, and secondly if the universe is expanding there is no evidence that I know of that the observable universe was more dense in the past. In my opinion this evidence against the BB model(s) far outweighs the supposed evidence in favor of the model. Bottom line is that I think that these same observations support a SS model of some kind while contradicting the BB model.

Once again you are ignoring the evidence already presented. How do you explain the presence of quasars and radio galaxies at certain red shift levels, and their absence before and after that time period ? How many quasars and ultra-red galaxies are you seeing close by ? Why are you ignoring all the points about CMB I presented earlier ? There is plenty of evidence in support of BB and expansion, the problem is just that you are trying hard to ignore it. There is not one shred of evidence actually contradicting BB, but plenty of evidence in its support. For SST on the other hand it rather the other way around...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I consider that there is lots of evidence that the distant universe is the same or similar to the nearby universe

Then why have you never presented any? Or have you really misunderstood those articles that badly (you know, the ones that point out how different the early universe was).

If you really believe that, please indicate the precise wording where any of those articles say that the information falsifies the big bang model. Because I haven't been able to find it.

and secondly if the universe is expanding there is no evidence that I know of that the observable universe was more dense in the past.

CMB, nucleosynthesis, and loads more. But as you are appear to be unable to understand and/or remember the facts that you have had these things explained to you multiple times, there is not point repeating it all here.

In my opinion this evidence against the BB model(s)

You haven't provided any such evidence.

Bottom line is that I think that these same observations support a SS model of some kind while contradicting the BB model.

Why anyone would take what you think seriously is beyond me,

My only purpose here is to explain possible merits of SS models while acknowledging their perceived deficiencies.

There are no possible merits because the "perceived deficiencies" are that they have been thoroughly falsified by multiple lines of contradictory evidence.

What would be the purpose of a discussion if everyone knew and agreed upon the same "facts?"

As someone has in their sig, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

If you want to believe that red-shift or the CMB doesn't exist, or that matter is continually created (in violation of basic physics) then feel free. But when your beliefs contradict reality that badly, maybe you need help.

Markus Hanke,

I consider all your questions good ones.

Once again you are ignoring the evidence already presented. How do you explain the presence of quasars and radio galaxies at certain red shift levels, and their absence before and after that time period ?

Radio galaxies are a little different from quasars concerning their number at great distances. Quantities of Radio galaxies generally increase with distances. The standard alternative explanation is that some of these galaxies simply have more dust in them to produce these radio waves as EM radiation passes through them in the first place, but that most of these radio wave galaxy observations accordingly represent intervening galaxy dust for the EM radiation to pass through on its way toward us.

Quasars are a different story. Here there is no mainstream standard explanation as to why quasars center around a redshift of 2+, with their percentages falling off both closer and farther away. One alternative explanation is Halton Arp's idea that some or most quasars have a different origin than being the centers of active galaxies. He believes that many or most quasars have an intrinsic redshift to add to their real redshift. His idea is that quasars were originally part of a black hole "mass" at the center of a galaxy and that a piece spun off and ejected out of the initial galaxy and then start their new life as a naked quasar/ black-hole that has strongly condensed gravity that causes an intrinsic redshift for any light escaping it.

Accordingly as it ages this gravitational quasar redshift decreases as stars form around it. In time it accordingly would become an ordinary galaxy. A plotting of quasars vs. redshifts could have a normal correlation of quasars to distance if maybe 80% of the quasars with redshifts between maybe 1.7 to 3, were pulled out of the plotting. Here is one such study. Other such proposals can be found by inputting into any search engine "quasars vs. redshifts." Of course all realize that Harps ideas are not well-received by most mainstream astronomers and theorists. Whether his particular model has any validity or not, intrinsic redshifts are well known. The largest galaxy in a cluster often has a greater redshift than the galaxies surrounding it. Not, however, to the extent that quasars vary in redshift.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/in...d_galaxies.pdf

How many quasars and ultra-red galaxies are you seeing close by ?

There are primarily three known and accepted reasons for galacitic redshifts. One is a great deal of dust in a galaxy, the second is that the galaxy is very old and has mostly old red stars, and the last is that the greater the distance the greater the redshift. Gravitational redshifts concerning galaxies is presently thought to be a minor factor. So close by galaxies cannot have distance redshifts, which is the major factor making galaxies red. This is why the appearance of such galaxies do not exist close by.

Why are you ignoring all the points about CMB I presented earlier ?

I think your points concerning the CMB are all valid. SS models do have difficulty explaining all the nuances of the CMB. They have there own explanations that may or may not have some validity, but also there are other less known hypothetical proposed SS background temperature distribution/ equilibrium mechanisms as mentioned in my other postings.

I also think that nearly all theorists as of this date, agree with your opinion and the general standard BB model. Most of my own theoretical model, which I won't go into in this thread, is quite different from both the BB model and the standard SS models.

There is not one shred of evidence actually contradicting BB

This statement I disagree with but hey, we can't agree on everything Dialog is generally for the purpose of discussing perspective differences in a subject rather than the agreements anyway.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I consider that there is lots of evidence that the distant universe is the same or similar to the nearby universe

Then why have you never presented any? Or have you really misunderstood those articles that badly (you know, the ones that point out how different the early universe was).

If you really believe that, please indicate the precise wording where any of those articles say that the information falsifies the big bang model. Because I haven't been able to find it.

and secondly if the universe is expanding there is no evidence that I know of that the observable universe was more dense in the past.

CMB, nucleosynthesis, and loads more. But as you are appear to be unable to understand and/or remember the facts that you have had these things explained to you multiple times, there is not point repeating it all here.

In my opinion this evidence against the BB model(s)

You haven't provided any such evidence.

Bottom line is that I think that these same observations support a SS model of some kind while contradicting the BB model.

Why anyone would take what you think seriously is beyond me,

My only purpose here is to explain possible merits of SS models while acknowledging their perceived deficiencies.

There are no possible merits because the "perceived deficiencies" are that they have been thoroughly falsified by multiple lines of contradictory evidence.

What would be the purpose of a discussion if everyone knew and agreed upon the same "facts?"

As someone has in their sig, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

If you want to believe that red-shift or the CMB doesn't exist, or that matter is continually created (in violation of basic physics) then feel free. But when your beliefs contradict reality that badly, maybe you need help.

I have presented lots of related links as evidence, apparently you are not reading my postings. The last links I posted you quoted several times, which was initiated in my posting #61.

Of course none say their observations contradict the BB model. They choose wording such as "it's very difficult to explain," "near impossible galaxy cluster," "strange new galaxies" and similar such wordings. The strongest wording that I know of to date was this quote by the Royal Astronomical Society whereby they said: "Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in galaxies, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit.”

Do the Milky Way

..............maybe you need help.

(taken out of context )

Yes, maybe referrals to amenable "alternative theorists" to assist in my "research." New-graduate females are encouraged to apply. A stipend may be involved

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I have presented lots of related links as evidence, apparently you are not reading my postings. The last links I posted you quoted several times, which was initiated in my posting #61.

And, as I say every time you post them, none of them show any evidence that contradicts the big bang model. If you believe they do, please state explicitly what you think that is. Just throwing a load of random and irrelevant articles around doesn't really help.

Of course none say their observations contradict the BB model.

Because they don't.

They choose wording such as "it's very difficult to explain," "near impossible galaxy cluster," "strange new galaxies" and similar such wordings. The strongest wording that I know of to date was this quote by the Royal Astronomical Society whereby they said: "Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in galaxies, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit.”

All of those are talking about our understanding of galaxies. Even if Kroupa's team are correct (note that the sentence you quote is them promoting themselves; not exactly an objective analysis) it doesn't do anything to disprove dark matter - there are too many other observations it doesn't even begin to address.

Please show me where any of that is evidence against the big bang theory. I don't see it.

Originally Posted by kojax

If the total energy of the universe were zero, then its temperature would be zero. According to BBT, the temperature is not zero, but appears to have been higher in the past, and will likely continue to diminish as time moves onward.

How is that not energy loss?

I don't mean to sound too critical, but it's questions/statements like the above that compel me to recommend a serious course of study. You make the declaration that the temperature must be zero if the energy were zero. That's simply wrong, and you shouldn't feel so confident about making such statements.

When looking at energy, one must be incredibly careful to perform the accounting properly. Energy can be "hidden" in many forms, so if you are sloppy, you can get very wrong answers. In this case, you have completely neglected the gravitational energy, which could cancel out the term that you considered alone. I recommend doing a search for terms like "zero net energy for the universe" or some such thing.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I have presented lots of related links as evidence, apparently you are not reading my postings. The last links I posted you quoted several times, which was initiated in my posting #61.

And, as I say every time you post them, none of them show any evidence that contradicts the big bang model. If you believe they do (contradict the BB model), please state explicitly what you think that is. Just throwing a load of random and irrelevant articles around doesn't really help.

(bold and parenthesis added)

Please show me where any of that is evidence against the big bang theory. I don't see it.

Sure Strange, that's certainly a fair request embolden above -- my opinion of what I think the "evidence" against the BB model is in the links that I posted.

CfA Press Room

I believe these group of galaxies is simply a close clustering of three very old galaxies in the distant universe and exactly what has been predicted by every SS model of an older universe. Instead they suggest some new kind of galaxy, since old galaxies at these distances would totally contradict the BB model.

Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily

To find "a massive cluster of galaxies" at 10 billion light years away seems highly contrary to the BB model. I think this is why they called the article "near-impossible galaxy cluster."

ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites

These observations involve observing/ interpreting the metallicity of a galaxy 12 Billion light years away as similar to galaxies in the local universe. This was a surprise in that a galaxy only supposedly less than 1.7 billion years of age would have the same proportion of elements as the Milky Way. This is exactly what SS models would predict but contrary to an evolving distant universe.

They say that: "the metallicity of this galaxy is similar to the metallicity of our Sun, suggesting that the chemical evolution has progressed very rapidly in this system, considering how young it is compared with our Sun."

This kind of observation is exactly what would be expected and predicted by a SS model, and I think very hard to explain for the BB model.

The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?

This is a galaxy thought to be 13.2 billion light years away. Their conclusion was their amazement in that in only a period of 170 million years the rate of star production seems to have increased ten fold. This conclusion might seem unlikely. Instead SS models predict that looking that far back in time one should see star productions of all rates and galaxies of all ages, just as we see in the local universe. This observation fits far better with SS models, in my opinion.

The Mystery of Omega Centauri: "Why Were the Early Galaxies Dense With Stars?"

This link is based upon a study where the most distant galaxies seem to be more dense than close-by galaxies. According to the BB model first gas and dust move together to form a cloud of matter and then a galaxy of stars begin to form, therefore older galaxies should be less dense. There quote is this surprise:
"Astronomers are puzzled why it appears that some of the most distant galaxies in the universe are more dense with stars than expected." SS models predict varying ages and densities of galaxies everywhere in the universe.

Infrared camera reveals distant galaxy cluster

This link related to the observation of a cluster of galaxies 13.1 billion years away. This was their quote:

"The theoretical expectation is (was) indeed that these systems may grow into massive galaxies clusters at later times, but it remains a large extrapolation. Our new cluster actually already contains massive red galaxies with mature stellar populations." (parenthesis)

This observation is exactly what would be expected by SS models but seems very contrary to BB models at such a great distance.

All of those are talking about our understanding of galaxies. Even if Kroupa's team are correct (note that the sentence you quote is them promoting themselves; not exactly an objective analysis) it doesn't do anything to disprove dark matter - there are too many other observations it doesn't even begin to address.

It, however, provides evidence against the CDM model, and their statement I think indicates how much of a blow they think this study is to present CDM models, by which the BB is the primary adherent.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

CfA Press Room

I believe these group of galaxies is simply a close clustering of three very old galaxies in the distant universe and exactly what has been predicted by every SS model of an older universe. Instead they suggest some new kind of galaxy, since old galaxies at these distances would totally contradict the BB model.

Riiight. So they find some galaxies that appear to be unlike modern galaxies and are at great distance. You arbitrarily claim these are just normal galaxies that are very old - with no supporting evidence at all - so that you can pretend it contradicts the big bang. Nothing here contradicts the big bang.

Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily

To find "a massive cluster of galaxies" at 10 billion light years away seems highly contrary to the BB model. I think this is why they called the article "near-impossible galaxy cluster."

On what basis do you say this is contrary to the big bang model. This appears to be a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence. I see nothing in this article to suggest that. It is described as "near impossible" simply because it is expected to be rare. Why does this contradict the big bang?

ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites

These observations involve observing/ interpreting the metallicity of a galaxy 12 Billion light years away as similar to galaxies in the local universe. This was a surprise in that a galaxy only supposedly less than 1.7 billion years of age would have the same proportion of elements as the Milky Way. This is exactly what SS models would predict but contrary to an evolving distant universe.

The only similarity is the degree of metallicity (I seem to remember that the article on this you linked to before highlighted how these galaxies are different from modern galaxies in many other ways). Again, all this says is that there was rapid period of formation of short lived stars early on - very different from modern populations of stars. Again, nothing that contradicts the big bang.

They say that: "the metallicity of this galaxy is similar to the metallicity of our Sun, suggesting that the chemical evolution has progressed very rapidly in this system, considering how young it is compared with our Sun."

This kind of observation is exactly what would be expected and predicted by a SS model, and I think very hard to explain for the BB model.

It isn't hard to explain: they just explained it.

The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?

This is a galaxy thought to be 13.2 billion light years away. Their conclusion was their amazement in that in only a period of 170 million years the rate of star production seems to have increased ten fold. This conclusion might seem unlikely. Instead SS models predict that looking that far back in time one should see star productions of all rates and galaxies of all ages, just as we see in the local universe. This observation fits far better with SS models, in my opinion.

So, again, evidence that the early universe was very different from today is somehow evidence against the big bang? That makes no sense at all. If anything, evidence of a massive increase in the rate of star formation would contradict a steady state view.

And the fact you think it "unlikely" is of zero value as it clearly based on nothing but ignorance and wishful thinking.

I give up. You are simply determined to misunderstand and/or misrepresent the evidence. In all these cases the evidence shows that the early universe was very different in many ways and the rate of star formation was many times greater than today. Once again, you just demonstrate how futile any debate with you is.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

CfA Press Room

I believe these group of galaxies is simply a close clustering of three very old galaxies in the distant universe and exactly what has been predicted by every SS model of an older universe. Instead they suggest some new kind of galaxy, since old galaxies at these distances would totally contradict the BB model.

Riiight. So they find some galaxies that appear to be unlike modern galaxies and are at great distance. You arbitrarily claim these are just normal galaxies that are very old - with no supporting evidence at all - so that you can pretend it contradicts the big bang. Nothing here contradicts the big bang.

Astronomers discover 'near-impossible' galaxy cluster | TG Daily

To find "a massive cluster of galaxies" at 10 billion light years away seems highly contrary to the BB model. I think this is why they called the article "near-impossible galaxy cluster."

On what basis do you say this is contrary to the big bang model. This appears to be a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence. I see nothing in this article to suggest that. It is described as "near impossible" simply because it is expected to be rare. Why does this contradict the big bang?

ALMA’s look at a distant galaxy reveals similarities to nearby galaxies | astrobites

These observations involve observing/ interpreting the metallicity of a galaxy 12 Billion light years away as similar to galaxies in the local universe. This was a surprise in that a galaxy only supposedly less than 1.7 billion years of age would have the same proportion of elements as the Milky Way. This is exactly what SS models would predict but contrary to an evolving distant universe.

The only similarity is the degree of metallicity (I seem to remember that the article on this you linked to before highlighted how these galaxies are different from modern galaxies in many other ways). Again, all this says is that there was rapid period of formation of short lived stars early on - very different from modern populations of stars. Again, nothing that contradicts the big bang.

They say that: "the metallicity of this galaxy is similar to the metallicity of our Sun, suggesting that the chemical evolution has progressed very rapidly in this system, considering how young it is compared with our Sun."

This kind of observation is exactly what would be expected and predicted by a SS model, and I think very hard to explain for the BB model.

It isn't hard to explain: they just explained it.

The Most Distant Galaxy Yet?

This is a galaxy thought to be 13.2 billion light years away. Their conclusion was their amazement in that in only a period of 170 million years the rate of star production seems to have increased ten fold. This conclusion might seem unlikely. Instead SS models predict that looking that far back in time one should see star productions of all rates and galaxies of all ages, just as we see in the local universe. This observation fits far better with SS models, in my opinion.

So, again, evidence that the early universe was very different from today is somehow evidence against the big bang? That makes no sense at all. If anything, evidence of a massive increase in the rate of star formation would contradict a steady state view.

And the fact you think it "unlikely" is of zero value as it clearly based on nothing but ignorance and wishful thinking.

I give up. You are simply determined to misunderstand and/or misrepresent the evidence. In all these cases the evidence shows that the early universe was very different in many ways and the rate of star formation was many times greater than today. Once again, you just demonstrate how futile any debate with you is.

By far the easiest way to understand these observations is that every one of them can be explained by simple predictions of SS models, but none can be predicted and are surprises according to the BB model. This is one of the primary problems with the BB model. There are no new published consensus predictions but continuous surprises concerning new observations.

I never make arbitrary claims as you suggest. My claim is that observations of reality seem to be better explained by SS models, and these links were a few of my many possible examples. Of course mainstream theorists all think otherwise, or else they could not be called mainstream theorists I provided all links in answer to specific questions concerning what I thought was evidence in support of SS models, or evidence that seems contrary to the BB model. In presenting arguments from non-mainstream sources you called one source crackpot, meaning apparently the source or mainstream opinion seems to be more important to you than the related observations or arguments

Time will certainly tell which argument is more correct.

I will bet a six pack of XX beer with anyone, even odds, that the BB model will be in trouble within 12 years from now. Further details of what would be evidence to support the words "in trouble" can be defined for each bet.

Originally Posted by AlexG

If the CMBR was all emitted in a single burst the moment the matter on the universe became cool enough to be sufficiently transparent....... it couldn't have been perfectly transparent at that moment....


I hope I'm not supposed to believe that the matter in space immediately jumped from being so tightly compacted that light couldn't pass through it to being clumped into galaxies and clusters and etc, in a split second.
....

It wasn't because the matter was so compacted. Up until that time, the universe was too hot for protons and electrons to form atoms, so what you had was a universe filled pretty uniformly with charged particles. Light only interacts with charged particles. Once the temp dropped far enough for the protons and electrons to unite, the universe was suddenly filled with a fog of neutral particles. The light doesn't react with neutral particles, and so space became transparent.

Yet, we can see fairly un-compact gas clouds out in space emitting black body radiation and absorbing light. Even the atmosphere of the Earth itself does this.

If all of space were to become filled with a cloud of neutral atoms, and an intense, bright, light were continually passing through that cloud (since both the light, and the cloud fill all of space), a lot of that light would get absorbed as heat, and then re-emitted. This cooler cloud of gas should emit a black body spectrum of its own that also fills all of space, overlapping with the CMBR from the moment you described (or well... whatever portion of that original light managed to not get absorbed and re-emitted). Why doesn't it?


If a theory makes predictions that are observed to be inaccurate, ..... that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of it. Wouldn't it?

If all of space were to become filled with a cloud of neutral atoms, and an intense, bright, light were continually passing through that cloud (since both the light, and the cloud fill all of space), a lot of that light would get absorbed as heat, and then re-emitted.

No. Photons do not interact with neutral atoms. They only interact with charged particles. When the interact with electrons, the energy quanta of the photon must be completely absorbed by the electron, or else there is no interaction.

If a theory makes predictions that are observed to be inaccurate, ..... that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of it. Wouldn't it?

It would, except the theory is not observed to be inaccurate. Why do you think it is? The observations of the black body spectrum of the CMBR match the predictions of the BB theory so closely that the error bars on the graph are points. It's as close to an exact match as you can get.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

By far the easiest way to understand these observations is that every one of them can be explained by simple predictions of SS models, but none can be predicted and are surprises according to the BB model.

Nonsense, Forrest. It requires a willful disregard of the CMB evidence, which is fatal to SS theories, to consider the SS "better." You are so blinded by your personal beliefs that you grasp at straws to maintain the fiction that the BBT has flaws so serious as to admit another contender. Without claiming that the BBT is the be-all and end-all of theories, it is the case that every alternative is inferior. That's precisely why BB cosmology is the front-runner.

I never make arbitrary claims as you suggest.

Of course you do. It's your trademark, Forrest.

My claim is that observations of reality seem to be better explained by SS models,

Yes, we all know that this is your claim. It is simply and absurdly an incorrect one. Repeat to yourself: CMB. CMB. CMB. The rest doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong. You can't selectively cherry-pick the seemingly good while simultaneously ignoring the fatally bad. Well, I guess you can, but a scientist doesn't have that luxury. Perhaps you still cling to the caloric theory of heat. Phlogiston, anyone? Shall we rebalance your bodily humours?

Originally Posted by kojax

If all of space were to become filled with a cloud of neutral atoms, and an intense, bright, light were continually passing through that cloud (since both the light, and the cloud fill all of space), a lot of that light would get absorbed as heat, and then re-emitted. This cooler cloud of gas should emit a black body spectrum of its own that also fills all of space, overlapping with the CMBR from the moment you described (or well... whatever portion of that original light managed to not get absorbed and re-emitted). Why doesn't it?

The CMB is a reflection of the equilibrium that existed at the time of the last scattering.

If a theory makes predictions that are observed to be inaccurate, ..... that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of it. Wouldn't it?

Absolutely. But your problem is that you aren't sufficiently schooled in this subject to understand correctly what predictions it actually makes, so you keep contriving false conundrums. Rather than indicting a theory you clearly do not understand well, you should be exerting more effort to learn something first. If someone talks about, say, basketball, but keeps using terms like "base hit" and "touchdown," that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of that person, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by forrest noble

[By far the easiest way to understand these observations is that every one of them can be explained by simple predictions of SS models

As they all involve earlier stars, galaxies and rates of formation being drastically different from today I don't see how they can possibly support a steady state model (especially as there already multiple other lines of evidence that falsify such theories). You appear to live in a reality distortion field.

In presenting arguments from non-mainstream sources you called one source crackpot, meaning apparently the source or mainstream opinion seems to be more important to you than the related observations or arguments

No. He was a crackpot because he invented evidence, made arbitrary statements with no support and denied existing evidence.

I give up. I don't why I let myself get dragged into a pointless dialogue with you again.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

If all of space were to become filled with a cloud of neutral atoms, and an intense, bright, light were continually passing through that cloud (since both the light, and the cloud fill all of space), a lot of that light would get absorbed as heat, and then re-emitted. This cooler cloud of gas should emit a black body spectrum of its own that also fills all of space, overlapping with the CMBR from the moment you described (or well... whatever portion of that original light managed to not get absorbed and re-emitted). Why doesn't it?

The CMB is a reflection of the equilibrium that existed at the time of the last scattering.

So "last scattering" could mean the last point at which the light would be absorbed and then emitted again? This appears to be the part I'm having trouble understanding.

Imagine we have a box with mirrors on the inside. Let's say they are perfect mirrors that reflect every wavelength (clearly no such mirrors exist, but this is a thought experiment.) Into that box we put a gas. Then we expose it to a super amazingly bright light, and close the box. As the light bounces around in there and continually passes through the gas, how long do you think it would take before all of it had eventually transferred its heat to the gas, and then been re-emitted as black body radiation again?

Now just imagine this box is allowed to slowly grow for a while. At each new size the gas would be slightly more spread out. More of the light would be in transit any given moment, and less of it taking the form of heat in the gas. Eventually there would be gaps large enough that the continued expansion, together with the gaps, allowed a small fraction of the light to pass through and not be reabsorbed ever, allowing the gas to begin to cool even more. But I don't see how that would be an instantaneous point in time. Wouldn't a fraction of it pass through, and a fraction be reabsorbed at first? Then the fraction might increase over time. (Even at present the fraction is not quite 100%, but close enough.)

The BBT's universe is very much like that box. It's not being reflected, exactly. It's doing more like on a Pac Man screen, but it's still being perfectly contained and allowed to pass continually through the gas.

If a theory makes predictions that are observed to be inaccurate, ..... that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of it. Wouldn't it?

Absolutely. But your problem is that you aren't sufficiently schooled in this subject to understand correctly what predictions it actually makes, so you keep contriving false conundrums. Rather than indicting a theory you clearly do not understand well, you should be exerting more effort to learn something first. If someone talks about, say, basketball, but keeps using terms like "base hit" and "touchdown," that would usually be a good reason to be skeptical of that person, wouldn't it?

This sort of sanctimony always crops up in these threads after a while, and can be rather tiresome. I am working my way through the equations for harmonic resonance in my free time, and do intend to invest "sufficient study", but in order to avoid thread necromancy 3-5 months from now when I've ultimately finished that process, I thought I might ask my questions now.

In the meantime, I'm noting that the BBT predicts that light has no way to escape from the universe, and matter had to undergo a period of being a gas that permeated that space. However, if that were true, I would think that most of the CMBR would have been absorbed by the gas, and then emitted again. It's consistent with what (little) I know about gas clouds, including the Earth's own, very observable atmosphere.

However, if that were true, I would think that most of the CMBR would have been absorbed by the gas, and then emitted again. It's consistent with what (little) I know about gas clouds, including the Earth's own, very observable atmosphere.

But the gas is electrically neutral hydrogen, which is transparent to all electromagnetic radiation.