Posted: Nov 19, 2019 4:53 pm
newolder wrote: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.
"Steady" in the Steady State means that time as well as local space HAS to be defaulted to be presumed the same. That is the prime significance that MUST be started off with. It is a theory based upon assuming that physics should not be judged beyond our capacity to measure things locally, which must include all times. Otherwise you lead to a perversion in the evolution of physics to try to make what you see FIT with the desired interpretion.
The specific principle is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" that adds that should we go back to any time, the physics can only be understood to be the same as we can detetermine where we are. The Big Bang is dependent upon interpreting expansion going backwards leads to a time and space that where both do not exist in our Universe AND where a presumed fixed and 'special' quantity of energy exists. THAT implies a physics that we cannot experience locally, such as the inability to PRESENT the possibility that you can compress any amount of matter into a point.
The density is correctly assumed to be the same by extended inference, yes. But as to obsevations denying this is actually occurring, I would have to address how this was determined too beforehand. And the task is daunting and would better be done by stepping way back to earlier pivotal errors in the foundations that lead to this.
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".
Yes, and we have evidence like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' that provide this. But instead, keeping the inferences "dark" is just postponing things until someone can find a justification that will retrofit that to the BBT.
...OR because most cannot imagine what alternatives could be, the present theory defaults instead to a fill-in-the-gaps justification to impatiently draw a conclusion that what they see is 'miraculous'. Much of the Big Bang model is developed by trying to make what they observe fit with the assumption of a singularity in a post hoc fashion.
When you say 'observed', as though what is asserted IS 'observed' is similar to "if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" mentality. I used the 'walking on water' analogy to show how what appears odd should not be presumed to mean we need interpreted that correctly.
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?
...or rejected by an interpretation of an observation. Asking what a steady state theory should 'expect' of a background temperature is like an apologist asking what alternative scientific theory justifies Jesus' capacity to walk on water as though we already agree on the 'evidence' of the record prior to establishing whether the act occurred. I'm not confident that the background radiation represents what existed as energy in a prior time when many other more locally rational explanations have yet to be thought of.
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.
The Big Bang is absolutely dependent upon an assumption that all of space converges backwards to a point where no space existed. That the age of the Universe is given makes it FINITE. I already know we don't observe a singularity. But the Big Bang still assumes it is and that there is a magical unknown zone between that point and the furthest back we see in time that is just ignored. Inflation theory is added afterwards knowing that 14 Billion years isn't sufficient time to have even what we see. THAT is fixing the interpretation of what we see to 'fit' into what people want.
If this kind of reasoning is justified, then so is the relgious person's claim that treats their 'God' as a singularity with the gap of unknown there. And when asked how you can presume a TIME in the past in which some God put us here, they offer the similar rationale of a "God (who) works in mysterious ways. But that the patterns we see today can't be fit into the rationalization of our local TIMES, they borrow the 'evolutionary' theory of God's potential to change reality in the same way.
Why is the irrationality permitted in science where the same argument we use against religions are expected to hold?