Question Anyone here discuss alternatives to the “big bang” theory regarding origin of the universe?

[Keefer]

I believe time and space are infinite. No beginning, no end. Just continuous action. Anyone else?

 

[rod]

Keefer, very interesting. My question, is the universe expanding and if the answer is yes, when did the expansion begin?

 

[Keefer]

Our knowledge changes daily. A blink of an eye ago, we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Our current observations could be just as wrong. The “observable” universe is expanding, seemingly evidencing some kind of event causing what we can observe to appear to be flowing away from us. Are there other parts that are contracting? Do collisions of known or unknown objects create ‘mini big bangs’ all over again”? I prefer to try and explain what we can observe based on a premise of “no beginning, no end.”

 

[rod]

Keefer, some concepts I think need to be sorted out here. In post #3, you state, "A blink of an eye ago, we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Our current observations could be just as wrong. "

The science of flat earth vs. round earth and geocentric solar system vs. heliocentric solar system, looks very different to me than *science* showing the universe is infinite in size, no beginning and no end. This suggest the universe is also infinite in age too. How do you observe and measure the age of the universe and the universe size? Flat earth/round earth, geocentric/heliocentric, used specific measurements to argue the difference in science paradigms.

 

[rod]

FYI, the forums is filled with various reports on the size of the universe, here is an example.

The history of the universe: Big Bang to now in 10 easy steps, https://forums.space.com/threads/the-history-of-the-universe-big-bang-to-now-in-10-easy-steps.53876/

 

[Keefer]

Thank you for the comments! Reading back over the past 80 years or so, our views of the “size” of the universe have likewise changed significantly as we develop technology to see deeper and deeper into space. You can find numerous books and articles on how much “larger” the universe is than we thought as recently as 100 years ago. I don’t understand why each generation thinks that ‘now we know how really big it is.” The question of measuring age and size presupposes that time and space are finite. What if they are not?

 

[rod]

Keefer, some interesting points in post #6. You are correct, back in the 1930s, astronomers thought the universe was only about 1 billion light years in size.

On the expanding universe and the time-scale, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933MNRAS..93..628D/abstract

On the Relation between the Expansion and the Mean Density of the Universe, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932CoMtW...3...51E/abstract

My observation. The expanding universe model is revised numerous times since first proposed including the formation of the CMBR and size of the universe when the CMBR appears and original temperature calculated, some 50-51 K by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher in late 1940s. Tweaks to the BB model continue. In the March 1932 paper, H0 = 500 km/s/Mpc. "Taking for the coefficient of expansion = 500km./sec.per 10^6parsecs," The radius of the universe provided is close to 1.5 x 10^9 LY.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.18.3.213, 15-March-1932, PDF report attached. Using cosmology calculators, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html, the age of the universe or Hubble time = 1.911 x 10^9 years when H0 = 500 km/s/Mpc. Much has changed in the expanding universe model since first proposed and studied.

Keefer, while the age and size increased dramatically for the universe, the calculations were using various objects that one could see, like Galileo did using his telescope that showed tiny lights moved around Jupiter, not the Earth. You said, "The question of measuring age and size presupposes that time and space are finite. What if they are not?"

In science, someone can propose an infinite age for the universe and infinite size, but somewhere along the model, observations and specific measurements need to be provided. Space.com did publish alternatives to the BB model.

Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory (infographic), https://forums.space.com/threads/alternatives-to-the-big-bang-theory-infographic.54335/

There are some on the forums who know my posts well and know I am a Big Bang skeptic. However, I do acknowledge the BB model uses specific observations from nature and specific measurements to argue the case and that is good. Saying the universe could be infinite in age and infinite and size, seems to lack details

 

[Keefer]

Thank you for the references to alternative theories. I will enjoy reading those that I have not. I fully recognize that my “assumption” of infinite time and space lacks scientific detail. My starting this thread and asking these questions was in effect a challenge to smart people like you to explain why science assumes that there had to be a “beginning”, and why science assumes there is a finite “size” to the universe we can currently observe. Thank you again.

 

[Atlan0001]

Despite what a closed-minded science has to say, there is no such thing as a closed system without a concurrent, corresponding, open system. There is no such thing as the "observed/observable universe" without the unobserved/unobservable universe. Despite all the blather and attempts of closed and narrow and small-minded individuals, +1 and -1 will continue to exist (will not cease to exist).

The collapsed horizon of a constant such as the speed of light constant (+/-) 'c', or the Planck Horizon (approximately 18 levels, layers, of universe down and in) or the Big Bang Horizon (approximately 13.7 to 13.8, to 14, billion light years out, yet one and the same (a stereo singularity of) 'Horizon'), will have infinity in it and behind it as a kind of 0-point- portal (0-point (portal)) 'singularity' (primal/fundamental binary base2) . . . undiminished and literally making it the unbreakably 'finite' constant it will be.

I take it from the way you opened this thread that you've read practically nothing else on these forums, especially this one, regarding infinity and the fight for its recognition. There are many threads involved, for and against. Many threads that speak to alternatives to the Big Bang, many that even include it as part but not all of a larger Infinite Multiverse-Universe of countless universes (mostly meaning mine that has it as the bracketing (singular) 'Horizon' of infinities of universe horizons ('uni-' meaning 'unity' || '-verse' meaning 'turn' / 'turning' / 'a turning' || uniformly together 'a turning unity' (universe)).

 

[Keefer]

Atlan, thank you. You are correct that i am a newbie to this forum and Space.com in general. I just love learning that which i will never fully understand. (Someone will understand what i mean).

 

[Atlan0001]

Atlan, thank you. You are correct that i am a newbie to this forum and Space.com in general. I just love learning that which i will never fully understand. (Someone will understand what i mean).

Well don't get too far back in my threads and posts because as a layman working at it, a lifetime's (nearly 70 years) worth of reading and thinking deep into it off and on, I've tended to get 'infinitely' various and ponderous in dimensions objective and subjective, as Rod can verify.

Welcome to the big band, so to speak.

 

[finiter]

Keefer, let me ask a question. If we add integers, what will be the result? It will always be finite, and never infinite. But we can go on adding infinitely, but at any given time, the result will be finite. So, I am of the opinion that space and time are infinite, and the universe made of matter is finite.
I favor a cyclic universe. The finite universe remains pulsating. It is continuous action, repeating the same finite action again and again. Or it is an 'infinite loop', without any beginning or end.

 

[finiter]

There are some on the forums who know my posts well and know I am a Big Bang skeptic. However, I do acknowledge the BB model uses specific observations from nature and specific measurements to argue the case and that is good. Saying the universe could be infinite in age and infinite and size, seems to lack details.

I agree with you. If the 'stuff' the universe is made of is 'discrete' having finite properties, the universe has to be finite. I am a skeptic of not only Big Bang, but even QM and GR.

 

[Catastrophe]

"General Semantics" by Korzybski is a very interesting and worthwhile discipline.

It helps us to understand how we really do not know the import of our ramblings, and how we bog ourselves down in undefined (or inadequately specified) terminology.

Gone are the "rushings to get your point of view heard" when we have not yet taken time to think about (or even listened to) what has actually been said.

I have been just as guilty as everyone else in this, so do not think I am talking down. It was amazing in face to face discussion to see how all accepted long silent breaks, and then came back into real discussion.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

"General Semantics" by Korzybski is a very interesting and worthwhile discipline.

It helps us to understand how we really do not know the import of our ramblings, and how we bog ourselves down in undefined (or inadequately specified) terminology.

Gone are the "rushings to get your point of view heard" when we have not yet taken time to think about (or even listened to) what has actually been said.

I have been just as guilty as everyone else in this, so do not think I am talking down. It was amazing in face to face discussion to see how all accepted long silent breaks, and then came back into real discussion.

Cat

Sorry Cat but I will tell you I am far more aware of what General Semantics, as a stone doctrinaire creature, is than you are. It is [the} key feature, [the] central dogmatic doctrine, of George Orwell's Dystopian Big Brother's Ministry of Truth and its Bureau of Misinformation and Disinformation. At base, it means that only and solely your view and interpretation of events and language descriptions can and will ever be the truth -- the correct version of -- them.

Again, I'm sorry to have to put it like this, but like Eric Blair (George Orwell) not so long ago and Dr. Samuel Johnson in 1647CE, I kick that stone and say, "I refute it!" I have 70+ years of developing a realization of meanings of repetitive history, histories, physics, natures, natural laws, events and language, myself. And even when mine are compatible and mesh with yours, I never lock myself into them because then I could never see, stare, into the Abyss of Chaos Theory and Complexity Science to think into their multi-dimensionality so to argue points when I need to or want to.

Only too often, I've already been there, already done that, so I do it the hundredth or thousandth time over on the fly . . . which is not always the best way of doing things. I have been repeatedly told throughout my life, including by my wife of more than fifty years, and my children and several grandchildren, though not yet by my several great-grand-children, that I can be "too overwhelming" at times. A product of the description in the second paragraph . . . and impatience, mainly, with that bureaucracy in the first paragraph... Time tends to grow ever shorter, well just a little shorter, for people after 70+ years)!

General Semantics is not really a discipline that can be simply taught in school. What A. Canon Doyle, as his fictional consulting detective Sherlock Holmes, says in the introductory story 'A Study in Scarlet' concerning the Science of Analysis and Deduction applies. 'Competence in the logical is the first and foremost requirement, and that only develops over time, wide reading, study (including of people, the reading of people (both from history and people today)) and lots of thought. The "reading of people" in every meaning, every sense, of the word "reading." And to be even contrary and contradictory, the most "logical" thing of all in the end will sometimes appear at first to be the most illogical thing of all.

 

[Helio]

I believe time and space are infinite. No beginning, no end. Just continuous action. Anyone else?

The range of possibilities for "believes" is enormous since it is open to imaginations. Science, however, if taken formally, is the only area of endeavor that restricts itself to objective-based evidence. This makes it strong when it can offer a theory that becomes tested so thoroughly that folks, such as engineers, can take it a build things like bridges of all shapes that never fail, unless those laws are misunderstood, or quality assurance fails.

But this puts limitations on scientific theories since it holds it must be not only based on evidence, but it must be testable. An idea is usually the first step to any theory, so they are important to helping reach a higher level. From suppositions (ideas), to conjecture (ideas with some limited evidence), to hypothesis (strong evidence for the idea), to theories (broad-based hypotheses). Any theory, or hypothesis, that cannot be tested, even in principle, is not a scientific theory. The Scientific Method is the mainstream way science is applied to address our world and universe.

Once a theory is formed, it will be tested over and over. It could become falsified or it could improve with appropriate modification. Alternative theories rise and fall depending how strong, or weak, a mainstream theory becomes. In some cases, new evidence destroys a theory, even one that had lasted 2000 years (ie Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas model), though in this case the goal was more about helping astrology in determining planetary positions.

When Georges Lemaitre first introduced his theory (1927), which he called the Primeval Atom, he only had three pieces that came together to form his idea for the cosmos: GR, Slipher's reshift data showing excessive recessional velocities, and Hubble's distances for some of those galaxies. This allowed him to calculate the expansion rate, before Hubble did.

Einstein rejected this model as bad physics. But, after decades of perhaps millions of hours of effort, there are a host of objective elements in confluence that forms the supporting body of BBT.
[Here is a list of most of those: Big Bang Bullets]

Thus, any alternative theory must be able to explain all those independent observational results. The only real alternative was the Steady State theory, which was debunked a few decades ago. The other few alternatives listed in the link Rob gave only are ideas or suppositions that don't argue against BBT but add to it with things like other universes. But look carefully at the objective evidence they bring to the table, else you might think they are real scientific theories, though most might call this metaphysics, instead.

 

[Atlan0001]

Einstein's Theories of Relativity have been long called "metaphysics." Large parts of Quantum Mechanics have been long called "metaphysics." If you can't eat it, touch it, or die from it, it is "metaphysics" . . . no matter if someone tells you that you and that (whatever) "are absolutely wrong!" Or tries to convince you they are "absolutely right!" That they have "absolute proof" one way or the other! Whether the "absolutely," the "absolute," in their statements is openly stated or quite definitely implied in what they do state.

 

[Think twice]

Helio wrote
When Georges Lemaitre first introduced his theory (1927), which he called the Primeval Atom, he only had three pieces that came together to form his idea for the cosmos: GR, Slipher's reshift data showing excessive recessional velocities, and Hubble's distances for some of those galaxies. This allowed him to calculate the expansion rate, before Hubble did.

Einstein rejected this model as bad physics. But, after decades of perhaps millions of hours of effort, there are a host of objective elements in confluence that forms the supporting body of BBT.
[Here is a list of most of those: Big Bang Bullets]

Thus, any alternative theory must be able to explain all those independent observational results. The only real alternative was the Steady State theory, which was debunked a few decades ago. The other few alternatives listed in the link Rob gave only are ideas or suppositions that don't argue against BBT but add to it with things like other universes. But look carefully at the objective evidence they bring to the table, else you might think they are real scientific theories, though most might call this metaphysics, instead.

There's a certain amount of misinformation going about to date that should be pointed out. First of all if one is using precedence for various theories a non Big Bang model made the best prediction of temp of cmbr. Mckellar predicted 2.8K in 1949, when Gamow and the BBT community predicted 50K. So when the CMBR was finally ”discovered” in 1964 if any theory should get the credit for predicting it...it certainly isn’t the BBT. And what people ignore is LeMaitre could not assume what Hubble did. Which was that the Cosmological redshift was a newly discovered property of light. The reason was that LeMaitre ( a creationist as well as a payed up supporter of all Einsteins work including the photon model) felt compelled to ignore the obvious fact that Hubbles redshift of lights frequency decreasing over distance clearly refuted Einsteins photon model. And to save the photon, a model then and now never fully verified in observation despite protestations by established physicists, A new field of physics was created. The BBT. To save a bad old theory. (The photon ) One of the many false claims against a non expanding model is that light appears to lose energy over distance in a non expanding model. This is a ridiculous claim( it doesnt if one calculates light frequency change over instance as a wave). Similar to the ones made by the Vatican agaisnt Copernicus and Galileo. The argument the Vatican used was: Galileo must be wrong because his model is not consistent with the bibles version!! Notice the same sort of argument is used by BBT supporters now.They say no new photons can be created and no photon can lose energy or frequency over distance. Therefore tired light is ruled out. They forget....the reason why the Big Bang was invented was because Einsteins supporters could not admit the photon was refuted by hubbles findings. And it’s a canny argument to use against a non expanding model. (Hubble, Planck and many others did not like the photon. ) Because a non expanding model of physics does not include light as a photon. Its existence was refuted by hubbles findings. Yet what can one say when the modern day Vatican /BBT supporter says to a “tired light” supporter: Your non expanding model must incorportate the very theory that a non expanding model refuted ( the photon)!?!
Anyways, although the steady state theory isn’t exactly a non expanding model it is a false claim made by many that a non expanding model is ruled out! Far from it. Every prediction associated with a non expanding model has been confirmed. ( including the CMBR)And every prediction made by the BBT has failed. As the latest JWST images show.

 

[Helio]

There's a certain amount of misinformation going about to date that should be pointed out. First of all if one is using precedence for various theories a non Big Bang model made the best prediction of temp of cmbr. Mckellar predicted 2.8K in 1949, when Gamow and the BBT community predicted 50K. So when the CMBR was finally ”discovered” in 1964 if any theory should get the credit for predicting it...it certainly isn’t the BBT.

Gamow made several temperature predictions, but he was off, as were the other early predictions, because the expansion rate was not accurate enough. Weak data in yields inaccurate results. But they knew they that and never claimed it had to be one temperature over another else the theory fails. The BBT predicted Recombination, which was known to be at ~ 3000K at the time of Recombination. The redshift, based on the expansion rate, is what they had to refine. No other theory predicted the CMBR, which many called the final nail in the coffin of its rival, the Steady State theory.

And what people ignore is LeMaitre could not assume what Hubble did. Which was that the Cosmological redshift was a newly discovered property of light. The reason was that LeMaitre ( a creationist as well as a payed up supporter of all Einsteins work including the photon model) felt compelled to ignore the obvious fact that Hubbles redshift of lights frequency decreasing over distance clearly refuted Einsteins photon model.

Nonsense.

The equations of GR allow for redshift. This took years to understand, giving us both Doppler and cosmological redshift.

And to save the photon, a model then and now never fully verified in observation despite protestations by established physicists, A new field of physics was created. The BBT.

Wow, you might want to play left field inside the ballpark.

Lemaitre wasn’t trying to save anything, but produced a model explaining the observations of both Slipher’s redshift and Hubble’s distance data. All within the framework of GR.

. The argument the Vatican used was: Galileo must be wrong because his model is not consistent with the bibles version!!

Nope. Galileo was warned in 1616 that if he wanted to push the Copernicus view, he had to present “necessary demonstration”. Galileo chose to prove the theory using tides and implied insults in a narrative. He was wrong about the tides.

The Church, however, was quick to accept the failure of the Ptolemy model because the objective evidence was verified. The chose the Tychonic model instead.

 

[Think twice]

Gamow made several temperature predictions, but he was off, as were the other early predictions, because the expansion rate was not accurate enough. Weak data in yields inaccurate results. But they knew they that and never claimed it had to be one temperature over another else the theory fails. The BBT predicted Recombination, which was known to be at ~ 3000K at the time of Recombination. The redshift, based on the expansion rate, is what they had to refine. No other theory predicted the CMBR, which many called the final nail in the coffin of its rival, the Steady State theory.

Nonsense. You like to ignore facts. Fact: Mckellar made a much more accurate prediction for the CMBR in a steady state universe of 2.8K whereas for the BBT we had Gamow‘s prediction, which you forget was way out at 50K
And you also ignore another fact which is that in a non expanding model there is no primordial creationist goop. Just galaxies as far as you can see. As JWST has confirmed, contrary to BBT predictions. . (With the observed peak in microwave being perfectly explained as blackbody emission spectra of trillions upon trillions of stars at z=1023.) But tell me Helio...why would a non expanding model predict a primordial galaxy free early universe orgy of hot Big band creation plasma?

Nonsense.

Nonsense? Which part of my quote do you think is nonsense ?
The bit about Lemaitre being a Creationist Catholic priest?
Or the bit about Einsteins photon model not being compatible with frequency loss over distanceas observed by Hubble?

Nope. Galileo was warned in 1616 that if he wanted to push the Copernicus view, he had to present “necessary demonstration”. Galileo chose to prove the theory using tides and implied insults in a narrative. He was wrong about the tides.

The Church, however, was quick to accept the failure of the Ptolemy model because the objective evidence was verified. The chose the Tychonic model instead.

Nope? Wrong again. The church locked up Galileo because he was making sacrilegious comments about his heliocentric model not being consistent with a earth centered universe as described in the bible. Lousy logic and bad science... Very much like the way BBT supporters try to pretend that a non expanding model has to incorporate fantasy photons. And if a non expanding model doesn’t include creationist fantasy...then it must be wrong!?!?!
Photons incidentally which so far ...have never actually been observed. Just assumed. Unlike the non expanding wave model. Wave properties Wh ich since Young and Huygens time... *have* been observed.
Incidentally Helio, have you had a closer look at the image I have as my icon. It’s the best I can show to BBT fans seeing as I’m not allowed to insert JPEG’s into replies. But notice it supplies proof that SN1a lightcurves match as well if not better to a non expanding model then the falsified lightcurves and spectra of Blondin Goldhaber and Knop. (And I’ve lots more of this iron clad evidence refuting BBT) Any thoughts? Any evidence to prove that a z=0 non expanding model cannot fit the data?

 

[Helio]

Nonsense. You like to ignore facts. Fact: Mckellar made a much more accurate prediction for the CMBR in a steady state universe of 2.8K whereas for the BBT we had Gamow‘s prediction, which you forget was way out at 50K.

No, the facts we agree upon, where we differ is in understanding what they represent. To assume one calculation based on limited data must be correct or the entire theory collapses is... nonsense. Gamow, as I said, made several calculations. Lord Kelvin made several different calculations for the age of the Earth because the data got better as temperatures from deeper and deeper mines were made available to him. His last age for the Earth as 100 million years, IIRC. Did this error eliminate and old-earth view? Of course not. As even better data was discovered, including radioactivity, the Earth got even older. We have such abundant data today and from independent methods, that the age of the Earth has become better and better established, and with a small margin of error. That's how science works.

Cosmology still has the far unknown regions, which the JWST is now entering. This will help improve the models. Will it find anything to falsify BBT? It's a far safer bet it won't.

And you also ignore another fact which is that in a non expanding model there is no primordial creationist goop.

I didn't ignore it, but I do agree with your supposition. A non-expanding model is the Static model, which was dominant in science up until the 1930s since the Milky Way was believed to be the only galaxy in the universe. An infinitely old and big universe was assumed in the Static model. Again, more data improved our view of the cosmos. GR gave us a beginning. Friedmann was the first to do the math on it, though he did not suggest a beginning, only that the universe could be expanding or contracting, but not static.

Just galaxies as far as you can see. As JWST has confirmed, contrary to BBT predictions.

False. You won't find a single paper, among thousands produced every year, that offers any credible evidence of this. Feel free to prove me wrong, but it needs to be explicit, not imaginaitve.

But tell me Helio...why would a non expanding model predict a primordial galaxy free early universe orgy of hot Big band creation plasma?

Why are you asking me questions about a non-expanding model? BBT is and expanding model that I find incredibly interesting and easy to support.

The current BBT allows for star formation around 200 million years after t=0. This is beyond the capability of the JWST, AFAIK. But it is seeing galaxies that are only about 400 million years after the beginning. This will improve the modeling, no doubt. The BBT isn't complete, it has lots of questions, and it makes lots of predictions. But it also has been incredibly successful at matching predicted observations with actual observations.

The bit about Lemaitre being a Creationist Catholic priest?
Or the bit about Einsteins photon model not being compatible with frequency loss over distanceas observed by Hubble?

Lemaitre would not likely have considered himself a Creationist. I believe, but I could be wrong, that YEC (Young Earth Creationist) coined this term for their viewpoints, along with creationism. One can believe in a Creator and not be a creationist, though it can get confusing.

Lemaitre was indeed a priest, with a PhD from MIT with great GR knowledge, but he never pushed religion on his fellow scientists, that I'm aware. When his theory became popular, the Pope tried to argue that this beginning for the universe was the Genesis event, but Lemaitre quickly wrote the Pope to convince him it was not.

Nope? Wrong again. The church locked up Galileo because he was making sacrilegious comments about his heliocentric model not being consistent with a earth centered universe as described in the bible.

Yes, but that is only partially true, which is why so many don't know the real story, obviously including you. He was never "locked-up". He stayed comfortably at one of the Cardinal's estate during the trial. He was sentenced to house arrest thereafter, though he was able to get out on a rare occassion or two. Being "locked-up" means prison time, which he never experienced. I can recommend some good books on Galileo if need be.

Lousy logic and bad science... Very much like the way BBT supporters try to pretend that a non expanding model has to incorporate fantasy photons. And if a non expanding model doesn’t include creationist fantasy...then it must be wrong!?!?!

Absurd, there are plenty of atheists that fully support BBT, but need we get into religion?

Photons incidentally which so far ...have never actually been observed.

You might want to rethink this view. I see no reason to waste any further time here.

 

[Lyman_alpher]

Nonsense. You like to ignore facts. Fact: Mckellar made a much more accurate prediction for the CMBR in a steady state universe of 2.8K whereas for the BBT we had Gamow‘s prediction, which you forget was way out at 50K
And you also ignore another fact which is that in a non expanding model there is no primordial creationist goop. Just galaxies as far as you can see. As JWST has confirmed, contrary to BBT predictions. . (With the observed peak in microwave being perfectly explained as blackbody emission spectra of trillions upon trillions of stars at z=1023.) But tell me Helio...why would a non expanding model predict a primordial galaxy free early universe orgy of hot Big band creation plasma?

Mckellar 's paper wasn't making predictions. He was indirectly measuring the temperature from absorption lines in the interstellar medium. He compared it to Eddington's temperature, but explicitly stressed that it is not a black body.

"Radiation in interstellar space, being the integrated total radiation from many sources of different temperatures and intensities, certainly does not correspond to a Planckian distribution at any one temperature."

Eddington's original paper also showed it wasn't a black body. These papers did not predict the CMB.

Note that the same indirect measurements of the CMB temperature now show that the temperature increases with redshift. Which should not happen in steady state.

The evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature. Measurements of T<SUB>CMB</SUB> at high redshift from carbon monoxide excitation

A milestone of modern cosmology was the prediction and serendipitous discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the radiation leftover after decoupling from matter in the early evolutionary stages of the Universe. A prediction of the standard hot Big-Bang model is the linear increase...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

With the observed peak in microwave being perfectly explained as blackbody emission spectra of trillions upon trillions of stars at z=1023.

Stars are quite far from perfect black bodies. There's also no reason why it should peak at one particular redshift. Nor is there an explanation for why the angular power spectrum of fluctuations just happens to match what was predicted by hit big bang cosmology.

 

[Think twice]

Cosmology still has the far unknown regions, which the JWST is now entering. This will help improve the models. Will it find anything to falsify BBT? It's a far safer bet it won't.

Obviously you haven’t read the latest on JWST. In one tiny speck in the sky a deep field study has shown many massive, old metal rich galaxies. None of which are allowed to exist in the BBT version of the universe. Of course you could pretend follow up spectra will show they are not that far away. But we both know that most likely...these galaxies shouldn’t exist in the BBT universe.

Cosmology still has the far unknown regions, which the JWST is now entering. This will help improve the models. Will it find anything to falsify BBT? It's a far safer bet it won't.

Why are you asking me questions about a non-expanding model? BBT is and expanding model that I find incredibly interesting and easy to support.

You are being disingenuous. Werent you just saying in a previous post something like...a non expanding model didn’t predict the primordial soup of the early seconds of a Big Bang?
My answer to you is...why should a non expanding model predict the same 3 second old soup of the beginning of the Big Bang ?

He was sentenced to house arrest thereafter, though he was able to get out on a rare occassion or two. Being "locked-up" means prison time, which he never experienced

Oh ! Here we go.......Being arrested and locked up under house arrest for the rest of ones life...is not the same as being arrested and locked up for the rest of your life. Hmmmm. Ill have to see what old Galilei thought about this take on him not being locked up for the rest of his life.

(Re photons)
You might want to rethink this view. I see no reason to waste any further time here.

I can imagine you wouldn’t. Seeing as no one has actually EVER seen a photon. Whereas Both of us and many others have seen light waves interfering., diffracting and refracting. None of which could be explained by photons. And all of which could not be explained by anything except waves.
Light is a wave. Not a photon. And as you tacitly admit.You have no evidence to the contrary.

 

[billslugg]

"Obviously you haven’t read the latest on JWST. In one tiny speck in the sky a deep field study has shown many massive, old metal rich galaxies. None of which are allowed to exist in the BBT version of the universe." - Think twice

Not true. The early existence of metal rich galaxies and super massive black holes does not invalidate BBT, it simply means that our current models of how clouds of low metalicity hydrogen shed heat needs revision, as do our models of lifetimes of metal poor stars.

 

[Helio]

Stars are quite far from perfect black bodies. There's also no reason why it should peak at one particular redshift.

Yes, they aren't that perfect, but they are fairly close.

A number of people have suggested the Sun has a peak in the green part of the spectrum (~500nm - cyan or green depending on source) by using Wien's law for a blackbody and the Sun's effective temperature of 5778K. But the actual peak, per several space solar telescopes, shows the peak is deep in the blue end of the spectrum (~ 485nm). This difference shows the Sun is not a BB, as you note for stars.

The problem you were addressing included the claim that stars are responsible for the microwave background, which it's not, of course.

The CMBR is a remarkably close blackbody emitter, which is a prediction of BBT, as well as several other key elements, as you noted. This discovery was enormous.

IIRC, Stephen Hawking said the CMBR was the greatest discovery of all time.