Posted: Nov 19, 2019 4:32 am
newolder wrote:Scott Mayers wrote:...
I'm asking anyone finding faith in this to clarify their own trust of this. ...
Thank you.
There is no "steady state" model that accounts for our observations that every galaxy (or galaxy group bounded by its own gravity) is moving away from every other at an accelerating rate.
That's odd to state. Are you assuming that the Steady State means a "Static" state? What do you understand as the "Steady State" distinction interpretation means?
The current temperature of the relic CMBR is close to 2.7 K. Running the concordance (Lambda-CDM) model backwards to tlast scattering~380 000 years, yields a temperature of a few thousands of Kelvin degrees that corresponds to the ionisation energies of hydrogen.
The specific temperature here means nothing if the abient temperature can never BE 0 K anyways. That is, the average energy cannot possibly be seen as zero EVER regardless of model. So the logic is not distinct. When you look back in space (and thus time), what do you understand or expect a Steady State version to imply and why?
If the CMBR was not very close to thermal equilibrium then the early Universe would have evolved to produce a current night sky that would be more "blotchy" i.e. have greater contrast between light and dark patches, than the observed distribution of galaxies and CMBR accounts for.
This is post hoc when SEEKING evidence for what one hopes to justify as both a hot origin and smaller actual space. It doesn't establish why you shouldn't expect to find this in a Steady state type model.
I have no faith in this model. Instead, the model is in concordance with the current data set and any future observations may cause a shift to a different model.
You are welcome.
Then do you have a LACK of 'faith' in a Steady State model and why? What and why do you think what we see has a literal singularity rather than the illusion of one (like the vanishing point of parallel lines that appear to converge but we know doesn't)?