I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike Helland said:
We're calling the redshift of 99% of the universe "microscopic"?
Click to expand...
Ignorance of physics and the subject that he is writing about :jaw-dropp!
Entropy is a "microscopic" property of systems. It is basically a count of microstates of the phase space!

31 March 2021: Mike Helland is asking about an author with a different explanation of Hubble's law and a different static universe model.
In that 1979 speculation a microscopic process (tidal stress inside a photon) produces cosmological redshift.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
To me, it looks like the redshifts and CMB were discovered, and were regarded as great discoveries.
Click to expand...

No, the CMB was predicted. Like all good hypotheses, the big bang cosmology hypothesis made predictions. Alpher and Gamow are the chaps you need to research, from the late 40s.
Since that time, the existence of the CMB has been proven beyond all doubt. And it was not predicted by other long since dead cosmological models. Such as steady state.
And since that time, the vast majority of those who previously favoured the steady state models, have discarded them as the evidence shows them to be completely wrong.
A tiny minority, who one could consider as being almost fanatical in their belief in the SS models, and/or equally fanatical in their opposition to BB cosmology, continued to try to make their SS models fit the data, with ever more ridiculous mental contortions. Almost in the same way that creationists try to deal with the fossil and dating data.
Those people are now mostly deceased. They were of a certain generation. Nobody is replacing them. SS models are ancient history. Mostly followed by cranks and crackpots, these days. Certain followers were not crackpots, such as Hoyle and the Burbidges, but their attempts to force fit their dead model into the current data certainly came close to putting them in the crackpot category. Others most certainly were within that category - Arp and Lerner, for instance. Lerner always has been, and Arp, sadly, joined him with his quasar and intrinsic redshift woo.
In short, all the evidence backs up the BB model, and all of it rules out other models that do not include expansion. The only people who seem to want to believe in SS models these days, are aging plasma cosmology/ electric universe followers. And that tells you everything you need to know. When you have to start calling on tired light woo to save the day, and galaxies popping out quasars like wet mogwai, you know that you have lost.
 
jonesdave116 said:
No, the CMB was predicted. Like all good hypotheses, the big bang cosmology hypothesis made predictions. Alpher and Gamow are the chaps you need to research, from the late 40s.
Since that time, the existence of the CMB has been proven beyond all doubt. And it was not predicted by other long since dead cosmological models. Such as steady state.
And since that time, the vast majority of those who previously favoured the steady state models, have discarded them as the evidence shows them to be completely wrong.
A tiny minority, who one could consider as being almost fanatical in their belief in the SS models, and/or equally fanatical in their opposition to BB cosmology, continued to try to make their SS models fit the data, with ever more ridiculous mental contortions. Almost in the same way that creationists try to deal with the fossil and dating data.
Those people are now mostly deceased. They were of a certain generation. Nobody is replacing them. SS models are ancient history. Mostly followed by cranks and crackpots, these days. Certain followers were not crackpots, such as Hoyle and the Burbidges, but their attempts to force fit their dead model into the current data certainly came close to putting them in the crackpot category. Others most certainly were within that category - Arp and Lerner, for instance. Lerner always has been, and Arp, sadly, joined him with his quasar and intrinsic redshift woo.
In short, all the evidence backs up the BB model, and all of it rules out other models that do not include expansion. The only people who seem to want to believe in SS models these days, are aging plasma cosmology/ electric universe followers. And that tells you everything you need to know. When you have to start calling on tired light woo to save the day, and galaxies popping out quasars like wet mogwai, you know that you have lost.
Click to expand...

Based on what you're written, you might be surprised to learn that the space was expanding in the steady state theory.
 
Mike Helland cannot understand a post about his ignorance

Mike Helland said:
Based on what you're written, you might be surprised to learn that the space was expanding in the steady state theory.
Click to expand...
1 April 2021: Mike Helland cannot understand a post about his "redshifts and CMB were discovered" ignorance!

Cosmological redshift was predicted in 1927 by Georges Lemaître. That was 2 years before Hubble discovered cosmological redshifts. There was no new physics added.
The CMB was predicted in the 1940's. That was over a decade before the CMB was discovered. There was no new physics added.

jonesdave116 wrote No, the CMB was predicted. Like all good hypotheses, the big bang cosmology hypothesis made predictions. Alpher and Gamow are the chaps you need to research, from the late 40s.
The rest of the post is that the Steady-state model was debunked by the existence of the CMB. This was not because the CMB showed the universe was expanding. It was because the CMB shows the universe began in a hot dense state, i.e. its state is not steady! Sensible people abandoned it. A "all of it rules out other models that do not include expansion" part is more likely a reference to Mike Helland's woo.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A "all of it rules out other models that do not include expansion" part is more likely a reference to Mike Helland's woo.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the expanding time model includes expansion.

As far as I can tell, it's a better, more natural fit for the evidence.

I've got an idea.

Can anyone produce a graph of z and distance up to z=20 for the lambda-CDM model?
 
Mike Helland said:
Fortunately, the expanding time model includes expansion.

As far as I can tell, it's a better, more natural fit for the evidence.

I've got an idea.

Can anyone produce a graph of z and distance up to z=20 for the lambda-CDM model?
Click to expand...

Here.

The white dots are the lambda-cdm model.

The white line is my hypothesis.

vslcdm.png


Those are the predictions.
 
Hey Mike, so do you accept the legitimacy of this now:
Ziggurat said:
How does a photon emit another photon in the first place? Doesn’t matter. If it can go one way, it can go the other way. I don’t even need to know the details.

But if you think it strange for a photon to absorb a photon, yes, that doesn’t happen. And for the same reason, photons don’t emit other photons either.
Click to expand...
 
Roboramma said:
Hey Mike, so do you accept the legitimacy of this now:
Click to expand...

If the background radiation is emitted by a material source in a known classical fashion, that source must be behind everything else.

But here's where I say, if we permit only the known the laws of physics to explain the CMB, we arrive at the place we're at now, where there's a discussion of new physics to explain the CMB.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01183

Maybe the background radiation is created uniquely to the EM radiation we're familiar with?

There are basic two pillars of evidence for the big bang:

1. light loses energy with distance
2. there's this background energy everywhere

Honestly, it's kind of strange I never thought the loss of energy and excess energy could be directly connected until this thread. It's like, right there.
 
Mike Helland said:
If the background radiation is emitted by a material source in a known classical fashion, that source must be behind everything else.

But here's where I say, if we permit only the known the laws of physics to explain the CMB, we arrive at the place we're at now, where there's a discussion of new physics to explain the CMB.
Click to expand...
You haven't actually answered my question.


Honestly, it's kind of strange I never thought the loss of energy and excess energy could be directly connected until this thread. It's like, right there.
Click to expand...

Cool, interesting idea. A pretty simple next step would be to see if the lost energy and the excess energy were equal in value. If they turned out to be equal in value, that would be encouraging and you might move on to more in depth analysis of the idea.

But they're not. The energy in the CMB is much greater than the energy of the light from distant galaxies that's been lost to redshift.
 
Mike Helland said:
If the background radiation is emitted by a material source in a known classical fashion, that source must be behind everything else.

But here's where I say, if we permit only the known the laws of physics to explain the CMB, we arrive at the place we're at now, where there's a discussion of new physics to explain the CMB.
Click to expand...

The problem isn’t that you want to introduce new physics. The problem is that you want new physics which doesn’t even make sense. Reality isn’t arbitrary. Any new physical laws still have to operate with certain constraints. Time reversal symmetry (or if you really want to get technical, CPT symmetry) is very, very hard to break. You really have no concept of the implications of your beliefs.

And it’s trivially wrong anyways. As with all tired light theories, it would produce blurring, which isn’t observed.

Maybe the background radiation is created uniquely to the EM radiation we're familiar with?
Click to expand...

You keep hoping for an ass pull to save your nonsense. It never will.

There are basic two pillars of evidence for the big bang:

1. light loses energy with distance
2. there's this background energy everywhere

Honestly, it's kind of strange I never thought the loss of energy and excess energy could be directly connected until this thread. It's like, right there.
Click to expand...

That is some flat earth level logic right there. The most obvious problem being that the two sides don’t balance. Oops. This has been pointed out to you before, but you conveniently forgot that in order to persist with this delusion.

Your profound ignorance knows no bounds, and is immune to learning.
 
Mike: I have this new theory #1!
Everyone: That is wrong because of reason A
Mike: Well then maybe it’s theory #2.
Everyone: That is wrong because of reason B
Mike: I can fix that. Reason B doesn’t apply to my theory #1.
Everyone: But reason A still disproves it.
Mike: But reason A doesn’t disprove theory #2.
Everone: Reason B does.
Mike: Theory #1 fixes that.

Round and round we go, and never did Mike learn.
 
Roboramma said:
Cool, interesting idea. A pretty simple next step would be to see if the lost energy and the excess energy were equal in value. If they turned out to be equal in value, that would be encouraging and you might move on to more in depth analysis of the idea.

But they're not. The energy in the CMB is much greater than the energy of the light from distant galaxies that's been lost to redshift.
Click to expand...

That's putting a lot of faith in the assumption we already observe the bulk of the universe.

JWST launches in October.

This is prediction made by the hypothesis.
 
Ziggurat said:
This has been pointed out to you before, but you conveniently forgot that in order to persist with this delusion.
Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten.

This is actual one of my favorite falsifications of the idea, because of how perfect it is.

Do you think that right now, we've observed the bulk of the universe while only the tip of the proverbial iceberg is concealed?

JWST goes up soon. We will either see something that looks like our models, or we're in for a shock.

This is the time to make predictions. Heck of an opportunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom