The nonsense about atoms expanding, is just that...nonsense. We recognise four forces. Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EMF and gravity The strong and weak nuclear forces are the strongest, but only have short operational distances. The strong force is responsible for holding atomic nuclei together and the weak nuclear force is responsible for nuclear decay. If the weak force were not to exist, many types of matter would become much more stable. Radioactive elements could be handled without protection if it did not exist, and the Sun would cease to operate. It is responsible for the fusion of protons and neutrons to form deuterium. The EMF is responsible for all other matter interactions as a result of molecular attraction and electrons along with protons and neutrons. Those three forces explain in no uncertain terms, why the rantings about atomic expansion is nonsense. The fourth force gravity, is more familiar, and although the weakest, has unlimited range, and is responsible for the large scale structure of galaxies and stars. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
So far, I see a lot of claim jumping. First the claim is one thing. Then it's another. Let's just see one simple prediction of what the background radiation is based on what the sources are in whatever this messed up hypothesis is.
It's not a prediction. I have many scores of those. It is a hypothesis why the microwave background exists the way we see it, and not more uneven in temperature. The microwave background is the temperature of starlight, probably from distant galaxies, period. Why this temperature is so uniform is another question. There are several proposed causes for this. Some of it is coming from an almost infinite quantity of distant unobservable galaxies, excepting for a remnant temperature of their existence coming through a thick fog of hydrogen. A second source includes stars in our galaxy and galaxies in the observable universe. Matter in the form of hydrogen in small atomic and molecular forms absorbs, re-radiates and distributes this background radiation from all radiating sources. A third distribution factor in my model relates to a physical aether, that through contact can dilute and absorb kinetic vibrations (heat), passing this kinetic motion relatively evenly throughout the field, given enough time. The aether itself cannot radiate but can affect a type of conduction which accordingly would even out background temperatures of atomic and molecular gas and dust. This mechanism does not exist in other steady-state models, nor is the universe expanding in this model like other steady-state models. Such expansion might lessen the effect of any of these mechanisms. I expect all of these mechanisms come to play, the only question in my model is which of these three proposed heat distribution mechanisms is the most influential, or are they all significant.
So you will go to any lengths to deny the Big Bang. That may work for ICR, but what does it have to do with science? If it were remotely true then COBE etc would paint in intensity the patterns of nearest "microwave stars" which is not the case. Now go figure out what the "microwave temperature for stars is". In any case, back to the drawing board, and let me know if ICR pays $10 per submission of junk science ideas. I would like to raise a quick million, and donate it to the promotion of science education. Evidently there is a crisis going on in the classrooms.
I i live 500 hunreds ears sgo, i think, it was very easy told how esrth moving with pencil and paper! it is also very easy tell with paper and pencil how and why denders ecpanding, because inside movement / pushing force! what is peer review? is Peer man name? EternalLove
This attitude here is why you will continue to produce nothing of value. You are presenting a hash of ideas, one after the other, jumping from one to another whenever someone asks a question, then jumping back to the first. Then you invoke your aether like it's some sort of magic. In the end, ideas are useless in physics unless they can be compared in some way to the physical. You wish to wallow in this uselessness. Given that each star is many orders of magnitude above the temperature of the CMB, this is clearly false. That have been tested and usually rejected. What remains is part of the standard cosmological model. Why do these galaxies have this fog but not ours? Why does this fog behave so unlike hydrogen? Why can we still see these galaxies and stars? How thick is this hydrogen? Why does it behave differently than hydrogen? How do these many, many different sources of different temperatures and distances happen to combine into what looks like a single temperature blackbody radiation that is redshifted? How can there be conduction without radiation? How can this aether do this one thing yet be detectable in no other way? Why doesn't this aether evenly distribute all the light that we see? If you can't produce predictions for how each of these things would work, then you don't have physics, because you can't describe these things as if they were part of physical systems.
That's why I call it a hypothesis. The theory is that the CMB temperature is the temperature of starlight from mostly distant galaxies. The hypothesis is how that temperature becomes evenly distributed. Where do you think that radiation of galactic light goes if not contributing to the heat of galactic and intergalactic mediums? That would be nice but try comparing the Big Bang beginnings and Inflation with something physical. Both are just hypothesis for the same reasons. Just observational interpretations are involved. Like you said, a theory requires tangible evidence. Intergalactic space has hydrogen and dust in it in all directions. If one takes maybe 10-100 billion light years thickness of this intergalactic material, the limit would an even fog in every direction. For the same reason the stars from these most distant galaxies at these distances, would be very faint, and the temperature they would produce would be very little. Matter is the source of all EM radiation. The same is true of DeBroglie waves, and of gravity waves if they exist. Conduction is based upon direct contact. Radiation involves EM radiation. As I said before, we detect the aether in a lab as the Zero Point Field. We also detect it in the Casimir effect. In my model, as in the aether models of the last century, the aether is the medium that "carries" light. It is comprised of horizontal and small (the thickness of an atom) vertical aether waves. The physics I use at the atomic scale is conventional physics. The reason their validity is explained differently is because their theoretical, or hypothetical causes would be different in my model. Predictions are most valuable when they are quantitative. To do this you need different equations. To derive new equations one should find fault/ error with the existing equations. This I have done at the macro scale.
Your hypothesis is that the radiation becomes the CMB. This might be a theory if it can possibly gain some sort of evidence. So far, we have yet to see any details linking the English words provided and physical phenomena. So you are just ignoring all the data produced in measuring relative element abundance, and in measuring redshift-vs.distance, and in particle physics, and in looking at the anisotropy of the CMB? Just because you would rather not do the reading, the rest of us can't just ignore the evidence that is there. Nor can we take your words seriously as something to do with physics if you make no effort to connect your words to physical phenomena. So work out how light would re-radiate in your hypothetical universe. Let's see the numbers. So far, there is no reason to believe that your overlapping blackbody radiation sources at different temperatures (or even if they are all magically the same temperature) would look like a redshifted blackbody spectrum. Well, since there has never, ever been a detection of the Zero Point field, your aether hasn't been detected. An effect that one can generate without zero point energy. You are invoking a theoretical interpretation of a phenomena while rejecting the theory that allws the interpretation. That's not right. But that is not true, since it also "conducts" energy in some manner different from radiation. Well, you seem to use the words of conventional physics, sometimes, while you seem to rejecting most of the content. You have done absolutely nothing of the sort. You have shown no fault. You have shown no alternative. In order to show a viable alternative, you need to show how your theory compares, in terms of measurement, with the observations. So far, you have made no attempt to seriously show that your fog can produce radiation of the sort observed. The standard cosmological model, on the other hand, shows not merely why we should see the type of radiation that we do, but it allows us to look to subtle differences in the radiation to measure cosmological parameters, parameters that we can also measure in other ways for comparison. So we can check our measurements. This provides confidence.
As I stated, I have my own theory concerning how the relative abundance of elements we observe were created. As I said, it is based upon unknown fission and fusion processes in galactic black-hole jets which accordingly creates the observed abundance of light elements. Again, anisotropies are easily explained by distant galaxy clusters that are too far to otherwise be observed. As to redshifts vs. distances, my theory simply says the Hubble formula, derived from Special Relativity, is wrong. There are countless contradictions in observations which have required my own distance and brightness formulations, based upon the tenets of my own model. These equations match observations very well, the Hubble formula calculations do not. Distances calculated by the Hubble formula are accordingly very wrong, up to 24% at a redshift of .6, and by factors of 10 at the farthest distances. This is the reason dark energy was proposed. Since the mechanisms are hypothetical, I could match calculations with observations. This is not how science is done. No one could have a clue whether my calculations were right or wrong. Of course it has. In this you are misinformed. We have observed the energy of the Zero Point Field in the lab. We have observed the particles in the form of virtual particles. Whether there are other particles in it like dark matter, Higgs particles, or much smaller particles as in my model, that is theory. If you still assert otherwise please provide references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Do you then deny the existence of dark matter and the Higgs field? Both would be part of a presently unobserved background field if they existed. My model generally does not challenge classical physics, for the most part it is an alternative to modern physics, physics formulated since the beginning of the 20th century. Hydrogen absorbs and radiates at 21 cm., in the microwave range. Remember I am just one person and in my view this is easy to understand. Hoyle, Narlikar and others have offered similar opinions concerning the MBR being the re-distribution of the temperature of galactic starlight. The answer is easier to understand in my model since the universe would not be expanding. Granted there have been many people working on this, but their interpretations must lie within the confines of the BB model. If their findings should not be in accord with theory, they will find a different way to explain their findings. I consider all of that hypothetical based upon the assumed source of the radiation. "The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology" (underline added). The MBR supposedly dates back to the Epoch of Recombination. Since it cannot be directly observed except by interpretation or assumption, it is hypothetical IMO. Of course many consider it theory because they believe the MBR is strong evidence for a Big Bang event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
You have your own hypothesis about this. An untested hypothesis that, I suspect, does not yet have a relationship to physical phenomena strong enough that it can be tested. Yes & no. Yes, we expect that background radiation of the type you describe is anisotropic. No, we should not expect it to be as isotropic as we see it. Neither should we expect to see it anisotropic in exactly the right way to give us measurements of cosmological parameters of the standard cosmological model that match other parameters of the model. Of course such a formula is wrong. The correct formula would be derived from general relativity. Well, no, it's not the reason that dark energy is proposed; it was proposed for very different reasons. Pretty much everyone expected that the relationship between redshift and distance would change over cosmological time and everyone knew that its change over time allowed one to measure the overall density parameters of the universe. So this allows us to measure the amount of so-called dark energy, regardless of whether or not one believed it would be there before the observations. It's like you told people that your house was 2000 square feet, and when they measured it to be something different, you told them that their tape measures were incorrect because you really wanted the house to be 2000 square feet. No, this is exactly how science is done. Figure out how hydrogen re-radiates, at least guess a distribution of galaxies, and see what the result it. See if there is any distribution of galaxies that produces the results we observe. This is what people who considered alternatives of your type did before you. Why you insult their work while doing none of the requisite work yourself is beyond me. Please read your own citations, even if they are only wikipedia. We do not need to observe everything in order to believe that it exists. But there is observational evidence for both of these things. This type of evidence is dependent on theory, yes. The difference between the use of theory in these cases and the use of theory in your case is that you are accepting the theoretical results but denying the theory, e.g., with your adoption on an aether theory inconsistent with contemporary physics. One cannot merely accept theoretical conclusions without accepting, at least in part, the theory that produces the conclusion. And have you read any of the work of Hoyle, Narlikar, and others on this topic? I have, and this, in part, is the basis for my questions to you. You are blatantly ignoring their work, yet you try to invoke them as some kind of talisman. You and your fucking wikipedia. I do not give a shit if you add an underline to some pop science article. Regardless of some Big Bang event that may or may not exist and that most cosmologists don't care about, the presence of the background radiation and its specific properties are amazing evidence for the past expansion of the universe. So amazing that it would take a lot of evidence to undermine this conclusion. Where is the evidence that any distribution of matter in an unexpanding universe could produce a CMB like we see? To the fine details?
As you know, I make a strong distinction between theory and hypothesis. If there are observations to support it it can be theory. This is clearly theory in my model. All matter that exists was accordingly created from the field surrounding galactic black holes. Other like proposals were the 'C' fields of quasi steady state theory, and the proposal of Hawking radiation and creation of electrons, positrons, and maybe protons and anti-protons. many galactic jets are observable and it is completely reasonable that both fusion and fission processes could be occurring concerning the recycling of existing matter. This can readily explain the abundance of light elements. OK References References It's like you told people that your house was 2000 square feet, and when they measured it to be something different, you told them that their tape measures were incorrect because you really wanted the house to be 2000 square feet. No, this is exactly how science is done. Figure out how hydrogen re-radiates, at least guess a distribution of galaxies, and see what the result it. See if there is any distribution of galaxies that produces the results we observe. This is what people who considered alternatives of your type did before you. Why you insult their work while doing none of the requisite work yourself is beyond me. Please read your own citations, even if they are only wikipedia. We do not need to observe everything in order to believe that it exists. But there is observational evidence for both of these things. This type of evidence is dependent on theory, yes. The difference between the use of theory in these cases and the use of theory in your case is that you are accepting the theoretical results but denying the theory, e.g., with your adoption on an aether theory inconsistent with contemporary physics. One cannot merely accept theoretical conclusions without accepting, at least in part, the theory that produces the conclusion. And have you read any of the work of Hoyle, Narlikar, and others on this topic? I have, and this, in part, is the basis for my questions to you. You are blatantly ignoring their work, yet you try to invoke them as some kind of talisman. You and your fucking wikipedia. I do not give a shit if you add an underline to some pop science article. Regardless of some Big Bang event that may or may not exist and that most cosmologists don't care about, the presence of the background radiation and its specific properties are amazing evidence for the past expansion of the universe. So amazing that it would take a lot of evidence to undermine this conclusion.[/quote] OK, that's your opinion. Please change your attitude if you want to continue this dialog. I will be glad to answer anyone's questions who is polite and courteous. There is no need for vulgarity. When you know the results as we know them, it can be explained according to almost any theory, given enough manpower and time. The trick is to predict the details of the microwave background before it was observed. For the steady state model such background radiation was the relatively meaningless temperature of starlight until they were asked to explain its uniformity. That was more difficult but they still came up with some good answers IMO, but a little too late.
Not in the least....Certainly not in regards to the CMBR. How anyone could hypothesise that the CMBR was from background stars, does not in anyway account for the properties of the CMBR. If that was the case, it would not be anywhere near so uniform. In fact the variations would be large. I also see "shrinking rulers" in the same mould. Once again, forrest, I'm sorry to say as is the case with others trying to rewrite present cosmology, your fault appears that you are too close to your model, and like a baby in arms, you see the need to protect it at all costs, despite having to manipulate facts, figures and known data. Cosmology as a whole, including the BB, accelerated expansion and GR is reasonably solid and has undergone its period of "doubt" and questionability and has emerged triumphant for obvious reasons. If you seriously have anything worth considering, you need to submit it and let it stand or fall on its merits, just as the BB, and GR has done.
Yes, the microwave background is easy to explain as the absorbed temperature of starlight and galactic star light but its uniformity was more difficult to explain. But it is explainable by various means other than as a big bang remnant. All explanations for all cosmologies are based upon theory or hypothesis rather than observation or evidence IMO. Because I wrote the book, I have thought about almost every possible question that could be asked about cosmology and modern physics, and have provided the answers in my book. I believe my model is vastly simpler, and IMO matches observations better than mainstream models. As you know it is a TOE so cosmology is only half of the theory. By about 2024, when the James Webb space telescope has been up for maybe 5-6 years, they could find at the farthest possible distances, some very old, large, red, old looking spiral and elliptical galaxies, and some with metallicity like the Milky Way. If so the Big Bang model would probably be the wrong model of cosmology. After that some would be proposing new hypotheses to increase the age of the Big Bang model by at least double, while others will be looking for other cosmologies to replace the Big Bang model. If, on the other hand, the James Webb at the farthest distances finds only small, young looking blue galaxies, just large blue stars, or nothing at all, then all other models of an older or infinite age universe, would likewise probably all be wrong. Time will tell, but IMO we won't have to wait longer than 10 years. All theories must be kept up to date. That's why the BB has added dark matter, dark energy, and Inflation. During that same period I made little change to my overall model. But if observation contradicts a model like then changes must be made. The same thing would apply to my own model if contradictions were to surface. Like I said above, it's possible that some contradictions can be the end of a theory or cosmology.
Okay, some text with just googletranslation, you know. However, nobody is able to tell what makes expanding the space to expand, or how does it do it! Nobody is able to tell what expanding to space occurs when it expands! Onesimpleprinciple model is able to tell how the visible universe form the Population concentrations are expanding all the time in three dimensions out onto an existing space which is eternal and infinite space which is not anything at all! Each system / contains a condensation of the movement that is always pushing the power! This built-in shops, is the / a pushing power-expanding system / condensation of capable hidastaamaan ( Slow down ) the exterior of the projecting motion / energy / pushing force the pace and get the part from the outside projecting the movement its own internal liikkeekseen ( own movement ) and being able to exercise the same issue and getting more all the time a motion / energy that its internal movement is the object of the internal compressive strength / pressure that causes a condensation of expanding to a larger and larger area! Thus, a cluster itself is composed of still smaller than a condensation of that recycle the eternal movement of the same way and thus densify the internal motion / pressure causes the system to the matter haajantumaan ( expanding )a larger and larger area of the pushing force of the! What the larger area of the expanding movement of the object is diffused, the more the background of all the movement is pushed through it and the more it is to be due to its own internal liikkeekseen ( get own movement )/ energiakseen ( get the own energy ) / Strength of a push! That is, all the background movement form the Population concentrations are no longer expanding in the same proportions as the visible universe form the Population concentrations are expanding! This Onesimpleprinciple model is able to tell how and why the expansion Population concentrations are expanding out onto an existing space, and because some of the internal motion is directed out of the expanding range of concentrations, acts that expanding business / energy driving force behind expanding to a condensation able to push other similar expandable tion densities away from themselves! So Onesimpleprinciple model is able to kyykyttämään the Big Bang theory of supporters coming and going, because Onesimpleprinciple model tells which may expand Population concentrations to expand and what expanding to densify happens when they expand! They are simple questions, but these questions do not believe in the expanding space are unable to pay because they can not tell anything about expanding for space in a place where it expands! They do not tell us anything about what makes expanding the space to expand, and how does it do it! What is the dark energy that makes most expansive space to expand, and how it interacts with the expanding space? Anyone who is considering this issue with the idea, soon discovers that the expanding space is equivalent to the concept than what the gods are! EternalLove I put some english words between this ( ), you know. Love "space which is eternal and infinite space which is not anything at all!" = Space is nothing at all. Space cant changing, because is eternal and infinity place which is nothing! Love
forrest noble. I think, you also need new model an atoms! Maybe yours shrinking theory working, but i think it cant working with today physics model of atoms! Or do you have a different kind of model of atoms? Of course, yours atoms shrinking, but do you using electrons outside nucleus of atoms? I dont! This is because i think expanding nucleus of atoms recycling expanding movement and that expanding movement which pushing out from expanding nucleus of atoms have a potentially to change, when can born new expanding electron or new expanding photon! EternalLove
The JWST will further enforce and support the BB/Inflationary model and GR. In the meantime, the observational evidence we have for the BB/Inflationary expanding model still reigns supreme. But sure, if the JWST finds as you speculate, then furthe research into the model will be needed and will take place. My point forest, is any new findings will be from within the mainstream circles as has always been the case.
http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? by FRASER CAIN on NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang, that the entire Universe is spreading apart, with distant galaxies speeding away from us in all directions. Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today. But to call this concept merely a theory is to misjudge the overwhelming amount of evidence. There are separate lines of evidence, each of which independently points towards this as the origin story for our Universe. The first came with the amazing discovery that almost all galaxies are moving away from us. In 1912, Vesto Slipher calculated the speed and direction of “spiral nebulae” by measuring the change in the wavelengths of light coming from them. He realized that most of them were moving away from us. We now know these objects are galaxies, but a century ago astronomers thought these vast collections of stars might actually be within the Milky Way. In 1924, Edwin Hubble figured out that these galaxies are actually outside the Milky Way. He observed a special type of variable star that has a direct relationship between its energy output and the time it takes to pulse in brightness. By finding these variable stars in other galaxies, he was able to calculate how far away they were. Hubble discovered that all these galaxies are outside our own Milky Way, millions of light-years away. So, if these galaxies are far, far away, and moving quickly away from us, this suggests that the entire Universe must have been located in a single point billions of years ago. The second line of evidence came from the abundance of elements we see around us. In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, there was nothing more than hydrogen compressed into a tiny volume, with crazy high heat and pressure. The entire Universe was acting like the core of a star, fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements. This is known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. As astronomers look out into the Universe and measure the ratios of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements, they exactly match what you would expect to find if the entire Universe was once a really big star. Line of evidence number 3: cosmic microwave background radiation. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a 6-meter radio telescope, and discovered a background radio emission that was coming from every direction in the sky – day or night. From what they could tell, the entire sky measured a few degrees above absolute zero. Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today. The final line of evidence is the formation of galaxies and the large scale structure of the cosmos. About 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to the point that the gravitational attraction of matter was the dominant form of energy density in the Universe. This mass was able to collect together into the first stars, galaxies and eventually the large scale structures we see across the Universe today. These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology. But there are more lines of evidence. There are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we don’t see any stars older than 13.8 billion years, the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, along with how the light curves from distant supernovae. So, even though it’s a theory, we should regard it the same way that we regard gravity, evolution and general relativity. We have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, and we’ve come up with a good way to understand and explain it. As time progresses we’ll come up with more inventive experiments to throw at. We’ll refine our understanding and the theory that goes along with it. Most importantly, we can have confidence when talking about what we know about the early stages of our magnificent Universe and why we understand it to be true. http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
"Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang, that the entire Universe is spreading apart, with distant galaxies speeding away from us in all directions. Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today. But to call this concept merely a theory is to misjudge the overwhelming amount of evidence." I think, this is wrong way to say! "In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today" Expanding space theory say, nothing expanded outward! Not even expanded space. there was no outside of the! EternalLove
Let's talk about the difference between theory and hypothesis. Some things are theoretical, regardless of whether or not we should believe in them. Mass, for example, is something that is theoretical: we measure mass only indirectly, because of the role it plays in our theories of physics. Phlogiston is also theoretical, even though the evidence now weighs against it. A hypothesis is a conjecture that purports to explain something. If one is offereing up an explanation, one is offering up a hypothesis. One can be said to be offering up a mere hypothesis if one is offering an explanation for which there is no significant evidence. I suggest that in physics, following in the footsteps of giants, that in order to be significant evidence, this evidence should be epirical evidence that is at least as good as that available for the accepted physics of the time. Today's physics is supported by very, very precise measurements, measurements of physical phenomena that translate into more-or-less precise determinations of the theoretical parameters of physical theory (e.g., how much mass is in a certain area). Without something similar, regardless of how much gee-whiz physics one can invoke using words a hypothesis is a mere hypothesis. As it stands, you have a fine word salad. There is absolutely no reason to believe it, because it has no physical content. Until you can tell us, even in a rough way, how much of each element does each of your identified sources produces, how it scatters these elements, and what the distribution of these sources is, we can't hope to evaluate it with the observations we see. You are telling a story, but not one that is compelling as physics. On the origin of the cosmological constant/dark energy: Einstein introduced this in 1917 in his first full book on general relativity. Well before the 1990s, it was realized that the cosmological constant could be mathematically identified with an energy term. A great history is "Lambda: The Constant That Refuses to Die", John Earman, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 55 (2001) 189–220. On the Hubble constant and general relativity: If one looks into literally any cosmology textbook not written by a crackpot, one sees that the standard cosmological model, which is often referred to as the big bang theory, is a general relativistic theory. If someone is offering an alternative cosmological model and they do not understand this, then this is evidence that they are not competent in cosmology and their alternative is a complete waste of time. It is not merely my opinion. You conveniently ignore actual science in favor of wikipedia, but just because you don;t look doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. Sadly, there was. You are presenting us with a word salad, referencing only wikipedia, and insultingly claiming that your poor intellectual labors are the equal of decades of work on mathematical details and sophisticated instrumentation. Please give the scientists who work hard on this area that respect they deserve. So look at the manpower already allocated. You invoked Hoyle and Narlikar, so go read them and the people who responded to them. Your questions were answered decades ago, you just do not want to know. That is ridiculous. The trick is to turn observations, new or old, into evidence for a theory. For General Relativity, one of the most powerful pieces of evidence was that GR is able to produce exactly the perihelion shift of Mercury exactly from the measurements of solar system masses and the theoretical components of GR. The perihelion shift of Mercury was a well-known phenomena. For the steady state theory, the background radiation didn't exist. It did for what became the standard cosmological model. When it was discovered, the steady state theory added it, or rather attempted to add it. No explanation offered was able to match the observations. (See, for example, "The case for the relativistic Big Bang cosmology", Peebles et al., Nature Vol 352, 29 August 1991, pp. 769-776. See also letters following article in Correspondence, Nature Vol 357, 28 May 1992, 287-288. Lots of citations there to articles about re-radiating dust, optical depths, and what is required to create a background radiation that looks like the one we see.)
I would say now Phlogiston is no longer theoretical as it once was. It is generally disproved. OK Yes, there is every effort to be precise in measurements, and experiments, but as an alternative theorist IMO it is not uncommon for the results of measurement and observation to be misinterpreted, which if true would compromise the related work. I agree; hypothesis are not compelling. I put Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and a Big Bang beginning also in that category. The theory instead starts from a hot dense beginning. I will repeat myself concerning the microwave background and my own theory. The microwave background radiation, in prior steady-state models, and in my own model, is theoretically the temperature of starlight in our galaxy and all others, that has been absorbed and re-radiated almost an infinite number of times. Hydrogen and dust are accordingly the primary absorbers and distributors of this temperature. I offered three different hypothesis concerning the details of how this is accomplished. Hoyle et. al. in their investigations, believed that iron and maybe carbon were the best distributors of an even temperature. I have no reason to disagree with them, but my hypothesis emphasizes hydrogen as maybe a more likely candidate since time is in favor of a uniform temperature in a non-expanding universe. The second hypothesis I offered was the great background of galaxy clusters. Since in my model the universe is vastly older, galaxy clusters with their stars could totally fill the sky with radiation like in Olber's paradox, excepting very greatly redshifted. The radiation would be passing through almost an infinity of hydrogen fog and dust in all directions. This would result in blackbody absorption so that only a faint temperature would remain. The third hypothesis I offered involves the existence of the Zero Point Field, with virtual particles , maybe dark matter, Higgs particles, or a non-matter particulate field as in my own model. This field accordingly through contact could absorb kinetic energy in the form of heat, and distribute it evenly throughout the field given enough time. The hypothesis also suggests that all of these possibilities are involved in different proportions, with no prediction concerning which might be the most influential. On dark energy, I and an associate did our own study that lasted over 3 years from the time of our first research until the time of publication of our results. From type 1a supernova data I was able to derive my own distance, brightness, and time dilation formulas that have very different results from the standard model. Our conclusion in the research paper and press release was that dark matter does not exist and the perception of its existence is only the result of using the wrong distance formula, the Hubble formula, to calculate distances. The new formulations were published in the same paper. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463 http://www.send2press.com/newswire/...robably-Does-Not-Exist_2014-03-0307-001.shtml Yes, General Relativity is the mathematical foundation of the Big Bang model. I have no reason to challenge the equations of General Relativity, or Newtonian gravity with its minor imperfections. I challenge instead the foundation basis for General Relativity, that space warps and bends. In my model space is simply the distance between matter. I also have my own gravity equations that by their application according shows no need for non-baryonic dark matter. Anyone who works hard for years to find the truth concerning theory, deserves respect. Hoyle and Narlikar's work on the microwave background concentrated on iron, and later carbon, as the probable blackbody absorbers and distributers of the background microwave temperature. By the time of their Quasi-steady state proposal which included the Olber's paradox inclusion, nobody was listening. OK The microwave background was inconsequential for the steady state model. Only its uniformity required explanation, according to the model. It is easier IMO to explain the uniformity of the microwave background in a non-expanding universe model like my own, different from Hoyle and Narlikar's model. I think we will be continuously seeing some red, large, old looking galaxies at the farthest distances. Before the James Webb goes up, the Atacama and other radio scope arrays will be able to see them. As this continues IMO it will continue to foretell the beginning of the end for the BB model. Recently I and an associate wrote a paper (20 pages) on Big Bang problems and related observations. I will be able to post it maybe within a month if anyone is interested.
