Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

As someone who worked in radio/radar systems all their life, I personally have never dismissed 'tired light' as an explanation for the apparent cosmological redshift rather than expansion from the moment I came accross it, my intuition rarely is wrong. For those who say that astronomy and BB science can't be wrong, I say they are like any religious cult in this respect, an expanding universe is a part of the dogma.

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

Ad hoc explanations without any evidence are easily dismissed.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am afraid that’s the way I think this way about the OP.

lol, that's ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am afraid that’s the way I think this way about the OP.

But let me put it this way, even though I laughed at your comment about the OP: so you think it's possible based on physics that all the adaptations of living things resulting in humans may have occurred somewhere else in the universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ad hoc explanations without any evidence are easily dismissed.

It is no ad hoc explanation, and it appears to be correct. If the JWST evidence shows that fully developed galaxies existed at a time when BB cosmology claimed they were just being formed, guess what, the steady state universe begins to be validated. While BB cosmology predicted no fully developed galaxies this early since the hypothetical BB, SS theory predicts that fully developed galaxies are everywhere in the universe always, and the JWST may be the instrument to prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is no ad hoc explanation, and it appears to be correct. If the JWST evidence shows that fully developed galaxies existed at a time when BB cosmology claimed they were just being formed, guess what, the steady state universe begins to be validated. While BB cosmology predicted no fully developed galaxies this early since the hypothetical BB, SS theory predicts that fully developed galaxies are everywhere in the universe always, and the JWST may be the instrument to prove it.

I seriously doubt it. Tell me, from your explanation, what possible test could refute it based upon its own predictions?

And no, the Big Bang theory itself does not give us a timeline. You were already corrected on that more than once by @Polymath257 . That claims of yours indicates also that you have a purely ad hoc explanation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I seriously doubt it. Tell me, from your explanation, what possible test could refute it based upon its own predictions?

And no, the Big Bang theory itself does not give us a timeline. You were already corrected on that more than once by @Polymath257 . That claims of yours indicates also that you have a purely ad hoc explana

The BB theory does have a timeline, and galaxies have to evolve, they do not come out of the BB fully formed!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-grapple-with-jwsts-discovery-of-early-galaxies

Astronomers Grapple with JWST’s Discovery of Early Galaxies​

Researchers are convinced the James Webb Space Telescope has glimpsed an unexpected population of galaxies in the early universe. Now they’re trying to decide what this means for understanding of our universe.

In their quest to understand the first stars and galaxies that lit up the cosmos, astronomers are still in the dark—but getting closer to enlightenment one discovery at a time.
That’s the almost inescapable conclusion from initial observations by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the $10-billion observatory that began science operations in July. Designed to glimpse the faint infrared glow of the universe’s earliest luminous objects, JWST’s vision reaches back into the first few hundred million years after the big bang, allowing it to obtain more and better data about newborn galaxies than any other facility yet built. But its haul of galactic “baby pictures” has proved more bountiful than most researchers dared to dream. Simply put, candidate galaxies in the early universe are popping up in numbers that defy predictions, with dozens found so far. Explaining this excess may require substantial revisions to prevailing cosmological models, changes that could involve the first galaxies forming sooner, their stars shining brighter—or perhaps the nature of dark matter or dark energy being even more complex and mysterious than previously thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The BB theory does have a timeline, and galaxies have to evolve, they do not come out of the BB fully formed!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-grapple-with-jwsts-discovery-of-early-galaxies

Astronomers Grapple with JWST’s Discovery of Early Galaxies​

Researchers are convinced the James Webb Space Telescope has glimpsed an unexpected population of galaxies in the early universe. Now they’re trying to decide what this means for understanding of our universe.

In their quest to understand the first stars and galaxies that lit up the cosmos, astronomers are still in the dark—but getting closer to enlightenment one discovery at a time.
That’s the almost inescapable conclusion from initial observations by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the $10-billion observatory that began science operations in July. Designed to glimpse the faint infrared glow of the universe’s earliest luminous objects, JWST’s vision reaches back into the first few hundred million years after the big bang, allowing it to obtain more and better data about newborn galaxies than any other facility yet built. But its haul of galactic “baby pictures” has proved more bountiful than most researchers dared to dream. Simply put, candidate galaxies in the early universe are popping up in numbers that defy predictions, with dozens found so far. Explaining this excess may require substantial revisions to prevailing cosmological models, changes that could involve the first galaxies forming sooner, their stars shining brighter—or perhaps the nature of dark matter or dark energy being even more complex and mysterious than previously thought.

Did you read that? It only will require revisions of models. And that is if it is what they appear to be.

And why didn't you answer my question? A non response is the same as you admitting that you only have an ad hoc explanation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you read that? It only will require revisions of models. And that is if it is what they appear to be.

And why didn't you answer my question? A non response is the same as you admitting that you only have an ad hoc explanation.

The scientific validation of BB is yet to be established, I have not seen any evidence so far as to where the stuff of existence came from, and unless there is real proof, it is like believing in a false God. Provide evidence of an actual BB and how it came from nothing and you will have my attention. SS theory states the universe is eternal and infinite. As fully developed galaxies continue to be found nearer to the theoretical BB beginning, then it implies that evidence for SS is waxing, while for BB it is waning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific validation of BB is yet to be established, I have not seen any evidence so far as to where the stuff of existence came from, and unless there is real proof, it is like believing in a false God. Provide evidence of an actual BB and how it came from nothing and you will have my attention. SS theory states the universe is eternal and infinite. As fully developed galaxies continue to be found nearer to the theoretical BB beginning, then it implies that evidence for SS is waxing, while for BB it is waning.

The math is beyond me, I am sure that it is also beyond you, but legitimately the "material stuff" could have come from nothing. The CMB has *** lot of evidence packed within it. One important part of the evidence is whether the universe is "flat", The other two options are "open" or "closed". To the best that can be measured the universe is flat. And that has consequences. It means that the total energy of the universe is zero. Which means that the energy of the Big Bang does not violate conservation of energy laws.

The problem with a steady state is that matter on its own will be attracted to other matter and eventually all mater would be in one place.

And you still did not answer my question. Your explanation is just an ad hoc one.

What shape is the universe?

As far as cosmologists can tell, space is almost perfectly flat. But what does this mean?

astronomy.com

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The math is beyond me, I am sure that it is also beyond you, but legitimately the "material stuff" could have come from nothing. The CMB has *** lot of evidence packed within it. One important part of the evidence is whether the universe is "flat", The other two options are "open" or "closed". To the best that can be measured the universe is flat. And that has consequences. It means that the total energy of the universe is zero. Which means that the energy of the Big Bang does not violate conservation of energy laws.

The problem with a steady state is that matter on its own will be attracted to other matter and eventually all mater would be in one place.

And you still did not answer my question. Your explanation is just an ad hoc one.

What shape is the universe?

As far as cosmologists can tell, space is almost perfectly flat. But what does this mean?

astronomy.com

Ok, so I take that as a no, you don't understand, but you are a true believer. BB theory is like a religious cult, and any scientist who would challenge it will be 'excommunicated'.

Flat universe, haha!

SS theory will prevail in the long term imho.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so I take that as a no, you don't understand, but you are a true believer. BB theory is like a religious cult, and any scientist who would challenge it will be 'excommunicated'.

Flat universe, haha!

SS theory will prevail in the long term imho.

No, you are the "Ture Believer". You have no evidence, you admitted that when you ran away from a reasonable question, you are not willing to change your mind, even though all of the evidence that there is right now still points to the Big Bang model.

Show me some evidence and I will change my mind. Show me handwaving, which is all that you had, and I will laugh.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you are the "Ture Believer". You have no evidence, you admitted that when you ran away from a reasonable question, you are not willing to change your mind, even though all of the evidence that there is right now still points to the Big Bang model.

Show me some evidence and I will change my mind. Show me handwaving, which is all that you had, and I will laugh.

There is no BB until there is proof that everything that exists came from nothing? And please don't say, because God said "Let there be light", that's been explained before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no BB until there is proof that everything that exists came from nothing? And please don't say, because God said "Let there be light", that's been explained before.

Nope, science works on evidence. ' "Proof" is a mathematical term . Now many make the mistake of conflating evidence and proof. But in reality all that exists at best is evidence.

There is evidence for the Big Bang theory. There is only evidence against the steady state. But like most non-scientists you do not even understand what qualifies as evidence and why.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

It is so stupid to believe that in 100 to 200 billion galaxies of the universe, each having (on an agerage) 100 million stars (Google Search), there is no life in the universe except on earth. Evolved .. yes, why not? But a message sent to them by any means may get a reply after 2 billion years when we may not be around, or they might have become extinct before receiving our message .. such are the realities of the universe. What they look like .. your guess. Perhaps like giant squids.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no BB until there is proof that everything that exists came from nothing? And please don't say, because God said "Let there be light", that's been explained before.

Whatever your God said in your book, that is the only answer that solves the problem of "from what it all arose". Acceptance of God does not answer that question. My book, RigVeda, says that there is a connection between existence and non-existence.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Creation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, science works on evidence. ' "Proof" is a mathematical term . Now many make the mistake of conflating evidence and proof. But in reality all that exists at best is evidence.

There is evidence for the Big Bang theory. There is only evidence against the steady state. But like most non-scientists you do not even understand what qualifies as evidence and why.

Imagine I am an ET who is here to see how evolutionary progress is going and ask the people of the planet how they understood the universe came into being and they answer "From nothing. in a big bang, before time existed!"

My report back to higher authority would not be flattering for the contemporary PTB of this planet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whatever your God said in your book, that is the only answer that solves the problem of "from what it all arose". Acceptance of God does not answer that question. My book, RigVeda, says that there is a connection between existence and non-existence.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Creation.

That's not proof.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's not proof.

Not yet, but it is a possibility with Quantum Mechanics around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imagine I am an ET who is here to see how evolutionary progress is going and ask the people of the planet how they understood the universe came into being and they answer "From nothing. in a big bang, before time existed!"

My report back to higher authority would not be flattering for the contemporary PTB of this planet.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[Polymath257]

It is no ad hoc explanation, and it appears to be correct. If the JWST evidence shows that fully developed galaxies existed at a time when BB cosmology claimed they were just being formed, guess what, the steady state universe begins to be validated. While BB cosmology predicted no fully developed galaxies this early since the hypothetical BB, SS theory predicts that fully developed galaxies are everywhere in the universe always, and the JWST may be the instrument to prove it.

Um, no it doesn't. The Steady State theory can't deal effectively with the CMBR and its details. At most, these galaxies alter some timing a bit.