J.C.MacSwell

With division in the country, he is dealing with a polar(ized) bear market...

Luxury. We were lucky to have it cold on a flat rock...

Thanks. I figured I had to have taken the context incorrectly.

Wouldn't that require infinite power to have black body radiation as a continuum of the black body spectrum? Is it not made up of quantized photons?

If this was true, what photon would not have a sufficiently short wavelength with respect to the right choice of frame?

Agree. Now just to try a different tack: Say I proposed a BB model with time starting abruptly and going forever forward infinitely...followed by a reversal with time going backward to the starting point. Would this make sense? Would the reversal actually get to happen in this model, assuming it would have to wait for the completion and expiration of the first part?

I'm pretty sure we have reached this point in time. Something about the lack of obligation of the Universe...(for me also) I think Stringy understands my line of thinking...time cannot be infinite in the past and as we are describing/attempting to describe...the fact we are here now rules out at least one. I really have no problem with the suggestion that time is infinite in the past, as long as you don't combine it with time as we intuitively perceive it, with the past expiring before any future can be reached.

Apparently you suggest it is infinitely old and time works as we intuitively perceive it. You counting to 20 from 10 doesn't change my argument any more than you breathing. If we got to this point in time...time is not infinitely old and/or it doesn't work as we perceive it.

In the context given...ya gotta lotta work to do first!

...you overestimate his peers...

Yes. If they assume an infinite past...and are using the narrow definition of time I described. Here is the difference between infinite past and infinite future If you count whole numbers starting from 0 and going forwward, at say 1 per second, you cannot name a single positive whole number that eventually won't be reached. If you count whole numbers starting from negative infinite, at say 1 per second, you cannot name a single whole number that eventually will be reached. Essentially. If time had no arrow, infinite future would be no different from infinite past.

Keep in mind this all said was with respect to time as we know it. It has a direction, and is linear, with previous time expiring before the present can take place. If it also was infinite into the past, how could we have reached this point in time? This is not the same as a position in space, nor is it the same problem with respect to time going infinitely into the future. The point is that we don't have a concept of time for the start of any cosmological model that makes sense in terms of how we perceive time generally.

We have some biology experts here and I'm not one of them, but I think you carry and express genes from every great-grandparent. Probably from some more than others but it could be more or less from that 1/8th than any other.

Turtles all the way back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Agree. If they did, how could we have gotten to this point in time, if an infinite amount of time had to come before?

The term "normal" in this sense means perpendicular. So if you had something sitting on a table, the normal reaction or normal force would be equal to the weight. If you had the same weight sitting on a slope, it would be less than that. You can break the weight into vectors to determine what it is.

I'm not defending any SS models. I know of none that are competitive with theBB model/s. I suggest, as an example of what could be considered in a SS model, a continuous expansion space, everywhere as we see it, but without the Universe getting bigger. Obviously this would require a different set of assumptions from the ones that would logically prove this impossible.

Steady state is a very common term in electrical systems, fluid systems etc etc. I am not suggesting they had no beginning. I am assuming a cosmological Steady State model. A circle has no beginning or end. The fact that it seems impossible that expansion could continue forever and has no beginning or end does not mean it has been proven impossible mathematically. The fact that we can make assumptions and from them measure that the 3 most apparent dimensions are expanding does not even guarantee the Universe is getting bigger. A billion years from now it could still look like the time from the BB is still at 14 billion years...this certainly would seem unlikely given our present knowledge...but you need to lean on a set of assumptions to rule it out.

+1 And quiet, while your line of thought may have been incorrect, it was not an unreasonable one. My favourite posts are often ones where I have an error in my thinking (after I realize it)

I think this is a good start, but different atmospheres should be able to maintain higher temperatures with the same energy balance as our Earth. Could a rogue planet (OK, non planet) with no star to orbit sustain life? It would need to be of sufficient size to maintain a substantial atmosphere, and have enough radioactivity to keep it warm...but not too warm. If the answer is yes that could mean almost anywhere could be habitable. But the range you suggest seems most reasonable.

This seems reasonable. Otherwise you could have planets assumed to be outside the habitable zone of a star like the Sun, orbiting at 93,000,000 miles from it, with other planets, both closer and further, considered in the zone simply due to their make up. I think the habitable zone, assuming there is one, says more about the star than the individual planets.

Why would, or could, it not? Same for any of your bloodlines. You could have a full brother that looks very different from you.

The evidence is stacked against any and all Steady State models suggested so far, but I don't believe this is true. None of them describe a beginning. If they did. how are they Steady State models?

Maybe we are receiving multitudes of signals but simply haven't advanced to the point of recognizing them yet. Or maybe as any civilization advances to the point of sending coherent signals...they advance to the point of doing themselves in.

Are you speaking of gravitation and movement with respect to the BB frame of reference (the frame of CMBR isotropy)?