Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I quote what the authors have to say about CMBR in the context of TLT.

5. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)​

The CMBR was discovered in the 1960s, and it has been thought to be proof of the Big Bang. Just as Hubble had used the Doppler effect to interpret the redshift in the relation of redshift-distance because he had no alternative choice at his disposal, proponents of CMBR had no other explanation for it except Big Bang, at the time of the discovery. Now, the situation has changed. TLT interprets the redshift on a profound basis of physical principles and, at the same time, gives a plausible explanation for CMBR. The CMBR is tired light in the microwave band. The photons from all directions emitted by the faraway sources are redshifted after a long journey. Photons then, from all the other galaxies in the background of the Cosmos, around the Earth, theoretically around the Milky Way, have been redshifted to form the CMBR. Tired light does not only form CMBR, but it also forms CRBR (cosmological radio background radiation) [4].

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Yes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Why do you think there has to be a beginning to the universe?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I had to laugh when i read this exposition of Stephen Hawking's nearly last paper about the "Big Bang..." ". I quote from the article describing one of his last theses, "Roughly speaking, Einstein's general theory of relativity does a fine job of explaining things after the moment of the big bang, but cannot handle the instant of creation itself. That moment forms a "singularity" in spacetime--like a mathematical function that explodes to infinity--that trips up the theory. So theorists have long sought a way of avoiding that singularity--and losing time would be one way to do that." Yup, I laughed at that one -- Stephen Hawking's (almost) last paper: putting an end to the beginning of the universe
Sounds almost like how something came from nothing because the "law of gravity" was there...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had to laugh when i read this exposition of Stephen Hawking's nearly last paper about the "Big Bang..." ". I quote from the article describing one of his last theses, "Roughly speaking, Einstein's general theory of relativity does a fine job of explaining things after the moment of the big bang, but cannot handle the instant of creation itself. That moment forms a "singularity" in spacetime--like a mathematical function that explodes to infinity--that trips up the theory. So theorists have long sought a way of avoiding that singularity--and losing time would be one way to do that." Yup, I laughed at that one -- Stephen Hawking's (almost) last paper: putting an end to the beginning of the universe
Sounds almost like how something came from nothing because the "law of gravity" was there...

Why do you laugh when you have no clue as to what he is talking about? It sounds as if you are suffering from Dunning Krueger on steroids.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you laugh when you have no clue as to what he is talking about? It sounds as if you are suffering from Dunning Krueger on steroids.

I laughed because it was ridiculous. Now the thing is a "singularity." yes, it's funny. (As if they know what happened, that also is funny.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I laughed because it was ridiculous. Now the thing is a "singularity." yes, it's funny. (As if they know what happened, that also is funny.)

Why is it ridiculous? You put the burden of proof upon yourself again. And why couldn't they know about the singularity?

 

[Polymath257]

I quote what the authors have to say about CMBR in the context of TLT.

5. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)​

The CMBR was discovered in the 1960s, and it has been thought to be proof of the Big Bang. Just as Hubble had used the Doppler effect to interpret the redshift in the relation of redshift-distance because he had no alternative choice at his disposal, proponents of CMBR had no other explanation for it except Big Bang, at the time of the discovery. Now, the situation has changed. TLT interprets the redshift on a profound basis of physical principles and, at the same time, gives a plausible explanation for CMBR. The CMBR is tired light in the microwave band. The photons from all directions emitted by the faraway sources are redshifted after a long journey. Photons then, from all the other galaxies in the background of the Cosmos, around the Earth, theoretically around the Milky Way, have been redshifted to form the CMBR. Tired light does not only form CMBR, but it also forms CRBR (cosmological radio background radiation) [4].

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

Sorry, but that simply doesn't work. The CMBR is too close to a perfect Planck distribution for such a mechanism to work. Tired light (from bouncing off of IGM) would simply not give the spectrum of radiation we actually detect.

 

[Polymath257]

I laughed because it was ridiculous. Now the thing is a "singularity." yes, it's funny. (As if they know what happened, that also is funny.)

And precisely how much general relativity have you actually studied? Do you know how to compute a Christoffel symbol? How about the Riemann tensor?

Unless the answer is yes, you are simply not qualified to have an opinion as to what is and is not laughable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but that simply doesn't work. The CMBR is too close to a perfect Planck distribution for such a mechanism to work. Tired light (from bouncing off of IGM) would simply not give the spectrum of radiation we actually detect.

Do I detect a belief in the electric universe? Some of his arguments seem to be the same.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you think there has to be a beginning to the universe?

We do not know that. Perhaps the non-existent turning into existant can be taken as the beginning of the universe. I believe physical energy exists all the time, but sometimes in its non-existent phase (science has nothing on it). Only future generations may know the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I laughed because it was ridiculous. Now the thing is a "singularity." yes, it's funny. (As if they know what happened, that also is funny.)

Perhaps you would be more amenable to this theory formed by a man who was both a Catholic Priest and an astrophysicist:

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps you would be more amenable to this theory formed by a man who was both a Catholic Priest and an astrophysicist:

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A lot of people can think about a lot of things. Right now it seems like they're playing some complicated game.

 

[YoursTrue]

And precisely how much general relativity have you actually studied? Do you know how to compute a Christoffel symbol? How about the Riemann tensor?

Unless the answer is yes, you are simply not qualified to have an opinion as to what is and is not laughable.

OK, I laugh anyway. It's ridiculous, even reading about it. Tell me, do YOU understand gravity? Do you understand how something (the universe) comes from nothing because of the "law" of gravity, as if a "law" existed without a law-maker? The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps you would be more amenable to this theory formed by a man who was both a Catholic Priest and an astrophysicist:

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So did the universe start from nothing, or did it explode from a teeny tiny something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So did the universe start from nothing, or did it explode from a teeny tiny something?

Can you listen politely? First off "explode" is a very poor term. The universe was very very small then. The universe, space itself, expanded. Very, very, very, . . . , very rapidly. Second, if it did do so from nothing it did not break any laws of physics. It is a possibility.

 

[King Phenomenon]

That there is intelligent life out there is almost a given. But space travel is hard, It is very hard. It is likely not practical between stars. Unless scientists discover a "cheat" it appears there is no practical way to travel from star to star.

I still wonder why you hate reality so much. If your God exists he made an immense universe. One that is many billions of light years across at the least. Why do all that if we are the only life? To think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe sounds like grade A arrogance to me. You are trying to tell your God how he had to make the universe.

Intelligent life out there isn’t a given, more like unlikely

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I laugh anyway. It's ridiculous, even reading about it. Tell me, do YOU understand gravity? Do you understand how something (the universe) comes from nothing because of the "law" of gravity, as if a "law" existed without a law-maker? The whole thing is ridiculous.

Once again, physical laws do not need a 'law maker': they are descriptions of properties, not social contracts.

Well, yes. A quantum fluctuation goes into a positive feedback loop because of gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

So did the universe start from nothing, or did it explode from a teeny tiny something?

Neither. The *observable* universe was once much smaller, but that does not mean the whole universe was small.

And to say that it 'started from nothing' implies that there was a time when there was nothing. And that is not the case: whenever there was time, there was matter and energy. The point is that gravity tends to accentuate differences in mass and energy distribution.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but that simply doesn't work. The CMBR is too close to a perfect Planck distribution for such a mechanism to work. Tired light (from bouncing off of IGM) would simply not give the spectrum of radiation we actually detect.

I am not qualified to say at this point, so I look forward to further TLT CMBR research.