Posted: Nov 19, 2019 8:33 am
by newolder
Scott Mayers wrote:
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?

A steady state (for the universe) is one that does not change in general character (the density of galaxies, for example) over time. A universe that is observed to have evolved from no galaxies (at the time/epoch of last scattering) through the dark ages when no stars shone, into the star and galaxy formation era and on into a phase of accelerating expansion - is by no means describable as a "steady state" universe and a different model is required to match said observations.


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?


A "steady state" model must make matter appear so as to maintain a steady state rather than, as observed, the average matter density decreasing at late time. The concordance model is often presented in cartoon form like the image below (from wikipedia), where time evolution is from bottom to top. Current observations are used to build this model and there is no section that can be described as "steady state".
Image

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.


The "steady state"model is rejected by observation. I don't know what I would expect of a "steady state" model to have in terms of background temperature - what would you expect?

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)?

Faith (belief without evidence) is irrelevant here. We don't observe any singularity - the furthest we can "see" backwards in time is the isotropic (to 1 part in 105) CMBR and discussion of the "flatness" of the intervening spacetime is an ongoing project.

Future gravitational wave sensors (like the planned LISA space-based instrument) will be able to "see"/hear/observe the nature of gravitational fluctuation spectra from times before last scattering.