studiot Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 This is now the third time I have asked what you mean by a continuum (posts 94 and 108) Were they so impolite you did not deign to answer?
Strange Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Instead of cherry picking and multi quoting my post, can you not single quote my entire post and reply to the whole thing in a paragraph or two? Or don't reply at all, one or the other, I don't mind which. If you do then I can reply with my own single quote paragraph or two. I'm not cherry picking. I am asking specific questions about specific points in your post. It seems simpler that way. But if you prefer a totally unstructured approach then here you go: CMB is interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Theory. I would say that CMB is evidence for the theory I am suggesting and evidence against an expanding Universe which in turn is evidence against a Big Bang. If the Universe is expanding and it is space itself that is epanding, then there should be large regions of the Universe that are totally devoid of anything. Only empty space exists in these regions and these regions are those that are expanding, giving the expanding Universe. In the continuum Universe I am suggesting there is NO empty space anywhere in the Universe, so nowhere is there regions of empty space. The fact that CMB is everywhere throughout the observable Universe supports that theory. During the inflation period you get empty space expanding faster than the speed of light. The Universe as we know it is increasing in size to massive proportions. At some point gravity becomes a factor. All the matter in the Universe starts to come under the influence of gravity. If all the matter is evenly distributed throughout the Universe before, during and after the Big Bang and inflation period, the gravity would have equal effect throughout the Universe. You would not get a Universe that is still expanding. If you did, you would not get a uniform CMB, you would a large regions of the Universe without CMB. Having a Big Bang, a Universe that expanded and is still is expanding, CMB being uniform throughout the Universe and gravity being a factor only within galaxies and not between galaxy clusters cannot all be true. There is conflict. If there are large regions of space that are expanding, regions between galaxy clusters, these regions have been expanding since the Big Bang, you would not get CMB in these regions. CMB can only come as a result of something, it cannot come as a result of nothing. If the nothing is actually something, then you cannot have a period of inflation where this "nothing" travelled faster than the speed of light because "something" cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Even though the concept of nothingness travelling faster than the speed of light is a farcical concept in itself, it is a loophole, a way of getting round the "speed limit of the Universe" concept. If you don't have the loophole, you cannot break your own rules. The CMB picture of the Universe would show large regions devoid of anything. The CMB being present throughout the Universe is something you would expect to see in an Infinite Universe, where there is no empty space. There is never nothing, there is always something. CMB is just an example of the something. Please show in mathematical detail: a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB. b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect. Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail: a) Why these regions should exist. b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions. Expansion is not a speed. Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on. Please show, mathematically, that this is the case. Do you even know the cause of the CMB? What is the source of the CMB in your model?
ZVBXRPL Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 This is now the third time I have asked what you mean by a continuum (posts 94 and 108) Were they so impolite you did not deign to answer? An infinite continuus body. A couple of pages back I used a 3D infinite number line as an analogy. Macocosm and microcosm are also infinite, both for the 3D number line and the Continuum Universe.
swansont Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Instead of cherry picking and multi quoting my post, can you not single quote my entire post and reply to the whole thing in a paragraph or two? Or don't reply at all, one or the other, I don't mind which. If you do then I can reply with my own single quote paragraph or two. ! Moderator Note You don't get to dictate this. Since a model is obviously not forthcoming, nor do we have specific predictions that would allow testing, this is closed.
Recommended Posts