What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[shmengie]

I've been working on it, for the sake of progress.

I call myself foolish because it is pretty silly to go against accepted. Giordano Bruno fate isn't so likely in modern times, but one must expect to at least be shunned or demeaned as Strange has toward me...

 

Least you haven't called me a crackpot this time, nor have I (yet).

 

Alternative principles are almost always deemed wrong, up to the point they're accepted. I hope I'm right, or my reasoning at least makes sense to others. I've directed a lot of thought into it. Seems like a viable alternative to the "accepted" concept. Fits with GR with a minor adjustment it provides an explanation for Dark Energy.

 

You might not like me for it. You entitled to believe I'm flat out wrong. But a simple explanation of Dark Energy could be in front of you and not change much of anything. If your one of the first to deny it, that's no surprise, it's expected.

Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

Well, I know I'm a foolish individual to even contemplate going against "accepted" principles...

 

If you knew the theory better, and still had a problem with it, we'd all expect you to ask questions, to help you find out if the problem belongs to you or the theory. When you admit you don't understand the math involved, and show us that you have many misconceptions about the theory (all of which are being patiently pointed out to you, as part of a rigorous methodology), then it becomes a matter of misunderstanding, rather than "going against 'accepted' principles". Does that make sense?

[Mordred]

 

Let's try this angle.

 

There happens to be an active thread, where the OP is trying to model a steady state universe or at least the Cosmological constant itself.

 

No one on this forum has considered him a crackpot, or for that matter that he is necessarily wrong.

 

Why is this?

 

It comes down to technique, he never states "this is the way it is" but most importantly he is applying and studying the math, as well as formulating new equations to develop his model.

In other words he is following the forum guidelines to the letter for the speculation forum.

I may not agree with his idea, but the effort he is putting forth teaches him and others.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93471-local-isotropic-length-transformation-hypothesis/page-1

[Strange]

I call myself foolish because it is pretty silly to go against accepted.

 

No it isn't. It is a very sensible thing to do. That is how advances are made. That is how Nobel Prizes are won. That is how we get new theories.

 

 

Giordano Bruno fate ...

 

Don't play the martyr. Your ideas are not being rejected because you are a heretic but simply because you cannot provide any support for them (beacuse there isn't any) and because they are contradicted by the evidence.

 

 

Alternative principles are almost always deemed wrong, up to the point they're accepted.

 

And they are accepted because of overwhelming evidence, not because they are "nice".

 

 

Seems like a viable alternative to the "accepted" concept.

 

Why does it seem like that? There is no evidence to make it seem a viable alternative. The evidence demonstrates that it cannot be a viable alternative.

 

 

Fits with GR with a minor adjustment it provides an explanation for Dark Energy.

 

It doesn't "fit" with GR (at least, you have failed to show that it does). And you reject GR. And how can it explain dark energy when, in your model, the universe is not expanding therefore there is no such thing as dark energy.

 

 

You might not like me for it.

 

It is nothing to do with liking or disliking. It is about evidence. Why are you unable to understand that?

 

 

You entitled to believe I'm flat out wrong.

 

It is nothing to with belief. It is about evidence. Why are you unable to understand that?

 

 

But a simple explanation of Dark Energy could be in front of you and not change much of anything.

 

How does it explain dark energy?

Why do you need dark energy if the universe is not expanding?

And how can rejecting the results of GR be called "not change much of anything"?

[Mordred]

What is particularly nice is he recognizes his own mistakes and doesn't make assumptions.

 

(Didn't see Strange post was posting at same time)

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

Strange stated I don't understand logic. I beg to differ, but that's more or less a moot point.

 

AFAIK. Dark Energy is a problem with BB. I like solving logic problems.

 

There are two ways one can tackle the problem of Dark Energy.

1. conceive new explainable properties of the force
2. or find an error in it's calculation

So far, I've failed miserably on the conception of new explainable properties. Don't believe I'm alone in that, but thus far the evidence supports it current conclusion.

While the hamster runs perpetually spinning my cogs, I've approached it from the 2nd line as well. The 1st line of attack for me is the pillar of light shift. I started wondering about it quite a few years ago.

 

Now I've not worked the math out, still endeavouring to learn all the greek symbols and their multiple concept representations. Not an easy task, I suspect you know.

 

At either rate, I *think* I understand most concepts w/out symbol knowledge. Perhaps you guys think that's impossible, seems like the thesis, in respect to, your regard for me. Don't blame you there, you've probably spent a whole lot more time learning 'em I have.

 

Alright, well, anyway... I think I hit a nail one day. The little bit of greek I think I understand, so far, has indicated that the piece of the puzzle I *think* I understand is missing, and its still missing. I first thought I had more create equations, haven't ruled that out because I don't know all the existing math. Sometimes I fear it's more than I can learn, but hasn't stopped me from working on it.

 

--

 

Just because a person doesn't know the symbols commonly used for concepts, doesn't mean they can't grasp the concepts. But it makes it hard to communicate using the symbols when you don't know them. Especially when your understanding of concepts and pictures in your head that have nothing to do with the overloaded greek symbol zoo.

 

While you might view lack of formal education as hindrance, it might be advantageous to envision concepts from outside the "accepted" box. For once a thing is "known" it simply cannot be "unknown".

 

At present, the piece of the puzzle that I think is missing, I haven't found an association to a greek symbol, for. But that' doesn't mean it's not been done already, only that I have either not read enough, or viewed the right equation. I don't know...

 

Okay, now ridicule me some more. I need a good excuse to play the martyr!-)

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

Okay, now ridicule me some more. I need a good excuse to play the martyr!-)

 

Showing where your ideas lack support isn't ridiculing you. Nobody needs martyrs in science.

[Mordred]

Let's clarify one key detail, you don't need the cosmological constant to have expansion.

 

The cosmological constant is needed to explain why expansion is at the current rate.

I never agreed with the statement "accelerating expansion as that depends on the seperation distance.

 

Per Mpc expansion its slowing down.

Yet if you use recessive velocity then it's accelerating.

Just a side note I spent 5years trying to solve the cosmological constant via thermodynamics. While I could keep a homogeneous and isotropic expansion I never could maintain the cosmological constant as constant as observational data shows.

 

After all my Years of study I feel the best hope lies in the Higgs field. (Has strong potential, but more research is needed)

 

Here is the related papers.

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Note the Higgs field may also help solve inflation as a thermodynamic phase change (Higgs field dropping out of thermal equilibrium)

 

Just a side note, one of the consequences of this formula

 

 

[latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex]

 

which calculates the rate of expansion per Mpc as a function of redshift.

 

Is that if you do the calculations into the far future the rate of expansion per Mpc will stabilize when the Universe is roughly 56 billion years old. With a rate of approximately 56.5 km/sec/Mpc.

 

The reason for that is the density of matter and radiation will become negligible in terms of expansion.

Yet thus far there is no evidence that the cosmological constant will.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

 

Showing where your ideas lack support isn't ridiculing you. Nobody needs martyrs in science.

 

I don't find it strange that you would say that, however, for some Strange reason its seemed that way.

This thread has encouraged me to iterate my thesis in the fewest nouns, verbs and adjectives ever. I started the thread looking for the answers I expected, hoping for something I hadn't yet considered as yet.

 

What I got was mostly expected, so far no new concepts I hadn't considered (that I know of) or am capable of recognizing.

 

Aside from seeming a little Strange at times, a lot of the material you've presented will most likely help narrow down the search for the thing I think is missing. For that I'm grateful. Earlier in another thread on a different board, discussing a completely different topic, I had another "ooh shiat" experience. Doubt it means much, but I'm having a hard time containing excitement. That's exhilarating, but my dumb ass gotta figure out if what I think is missing, really is missing.

 

I didn't realize I was arguing for steady state. I never studied steady state, to any length. I ruled it out because it wasn't accepted, and for the most part every argument I heard against it seemed right. I gave more weight to BB and rooted for it instead. I have to rethink that stance and have you (people) to thank for that. I've been leaning in that direction for a while and didn't even realize it. Thanks!!!

 

Seems when one contemplates steady state, one tends to apply steady to both space/time and mass.

 

But for every star to be distributed evenly, would that not require mass to be steady also. But if mass was steady, wouldn't it be in possible for a star to form in the first place?

 

No, I think steady state need only apply to space-time. Fluctuation with initial mass distribution seems like an equal problem for steady state and inflation. Lambda-cdm has more ppl working on it, but it seems to me doesn't matter if you which you go with, you need to figure out the order of change in the rules physic, to get the answer right. This I see as a a conundrum, because if they all didn't change at the same time, you'll never prove which changed first because the last one that changed, will make the math different for all the others and inevitably cannot be proven.

 

Seems to me like mass formation had to happen then gravity took hold. Could be mass formed after gravity took hold but if you can't nail those two down, you simply cannot go further back in time, if time wasn't last to the game... LOL

 

Sorry I ramble when I contemplate that shit. Nice to do it more than just inside my head.

 

I've got an exceedingly simplified model of the universe rolling around in my head. I'm dying to share it, but I gotta learn some really good math first. Because I want that damn prize. If I'm right I think I'll deserve it and you won't believe how simple it is.

 

FFFrrruukk!@#$!@$ I'm not getting any sleep tonight, probably none the for rest of the month... I don't know if it'll answer any of those questions just posed, but it might be the next step in that direction.

 

LOL - I'm brewing coffee. I don't need coffee. Need to calm down and go to sleep. Want ppl to sign NDAs, but it might be too simple for that. Can it be that simple?

Well, well, well.

 

Now I want bragging rights before I deserve them. Not going to stop me from trying

 

I think what I've got would enable explaining many if not all principles of relativity to a child inside an hour and they'd fully understand the concepts.

I must be off my rocker by some Strange order of magnitude... Next time I explain my thesis, I suspect it won't be because I don't include math, not necessarily be because I'll use any. But when you see it, your jaw might literally drop and I might go out of my way not to use any just for spite .

 

I am beginning to believe I need someone to tell me to STFU and go to bed. But I can't sleep... And I can't think clearly because I need sleep.

--

Wrote a python program today. Quoted a guy under 4 hours based on specs, took 6. But the specs were ambiguous on a few points and took at least an hour to straighten 'em. Gave me a nice kick in the logic pants, think he's impressed, will find out tomorrow, if I ever wake up. -trying to distract myself. I do need sleep. But its getting too late... COFFEE!!!!!!!!

 

I think I can explain dark energy and dark mass (not matter per se, maybe that too) in only of couple of sentences, that will give the jaw a drop and be terribly difficult to refute. My math has been reduced to Einstein simplicity, tho I haven't written it yet... IF Einstein's isn't complete. It's got some unification potential, actually, the idea borders unification, if not precisely that. A Clue: one idea done in about ~ 1000 words ~ maybe less, tho I might be off by an order of magnitude there... Hope I can share it soon.

 

I don't believe the idea will resolve inflation vs. steady state, nor address it in any way shape or form, other than redshift.

 

OKAY, just so I can say I said it first: I'm a CRACKPOT. One who needs to STFU and sleep or work, don't matter so long as I get the STFU part right.

 

If know a viable and/or digital NDA we could use, I'd love the bounce the idea off ya, the NDA doesn't have to be iron clad, the idea is really kinda simple. Once it gets out, I think it'll roll like a snowball. But then, I am a flip'n crackpot. But wouldn't harm having an NDA. Might be able to limit the NDA to the titile if I can figure out the right one. The idea isn't quite new, but rather a twist on one that's been around for a while. But once you see it, you'll understand, maybe whole a lot, I don't know, once you get the simplicity of it, you won't be able to forget it. Not kidding! You might ppffft and blow me off, then it'll click, then the jaw drops. Its okay tho. You'll just be a broken crackpot like me.

 

The title could be "A Quantum Spin on Relativity with Universal Unification Implication" that doesn't give it away, but it really is only a small spin on relativity, which may have a lot of implications, not so sure about unification tho. Yeah, I like it better w/out unification, in the title, don't know about the logistics.

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

AFAIK. Dark Energy is a problem with BB. I like solving logic problems.

 

It is only a problem because we don't know what it is (hence "dark"). It isn't a problem with the theory (there is no reason to think it doesn't fit in the theory; in fact, the simplest way of explaining it is as a form of energy - hence "dark energy"). It may turn out to be totally incompatible with general relativity, and that would be really exciting. The person who demonstrates that will be lauded.

 

 

Just because a person doesn't know the symbols commonly used for concepts, doesn't mean they can't grasp the concepts.

 

It is nothing to do with the "symbols". You have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of the concepts.

Seems when one contemplates steady state, one tends to apply steady to both space/time and mass.

 

Hoyle's last ditch attempt to rescue the theory (after Hubble's law was discovered) was to invent the idea that mass was continuously being created, new stars and galaxies were formed and that explained the fact we constantly see things moving away but the universe stays the same.

 

It seems bizarre (to me) to reject both General Relativity and conservation of mass-energy in order to hold up a dead theory. But that is how attached people get to their personal ideas.

 

 

But if mass was steady, wouldn't it be in possible for a star to form in the first place?

 

It only requires small fluctuations in density that will, eventually, be multiplied by gravity.

[imatfaal]

 

It only requires small fluctuations in density that will, eventually, be multiplied by gravity.

 

Indeed - so small in fact that quantum uncertainty is enough to be the progenitor of a slight over average density that might eventually become a supercluster

[shmengie]

It is only a problem because we don't know what it is (hence "dark"). It isn't a problem with the theory (there is no reason to think it doesn't fit in the theory; in fact, the simplest way of explaining it is as a form of energy - hence "dark energy"). It may turn out to be totally incompatible with general relativity, and that would be really exciting. The person who demonstrates that will be lauded.

My epiphany borders philosophical more than theoretical. Stems from trying to explain my thesis. Once I started the picture in my head it simplified some understanding. Started associating other aspects and it all seems to fit. I'm probably a kook, but once you visualize it as I have, read a fairly short explanations, it might be really easy for you to say right or wrong. If its right, it might help simplify understandings of relativity. It's not a new concept, simple extrapolation of an existing visualization of relativity.

 

...

Hoyle's last ditch attempt to rescue the theory (after Hubble's law was discovered) was to invent the idea that mass was continuously being created, new stars and galaxies were formed and that explained the fact we constantly see things moving away but the universe stays the same.

I think I've figured out exactly how/why things appear to be moving away. Thought it would be easy to visualize with words I wrote earlier. I can understand why its not, but I've got a picture in my head. Once I have the right visual props, it'll be clearer. Especially if I write the right words.

It seems bizarre (to me) to reject both General Relativity and conservation of mass-energy in order to hold up a dead theory. But that is how attached people get to their personal ideas.

Why does steady state require tossing GR or conservation?

My abundance of ignorance leaves me dumbfounded. If I was to push steady state, I would choose to incorporate them, not toss 'em.

 

It only requires small fluctuations in density that will, eventually, be multiplied by gravity.

If steady state only applied to space-time and the principles were applied to mass in the same fashion... Would the universe look any different?

 

Not once you understand my thesis, I expect... Sounds like a simple definition of my present goal, if I can achieve it w/out math, simply describing the principles as I understand, I might be able to achieve it.

 

 

Eureka, I think I've got it!

 

Its simple! Maybe this simple. Steady state and expansion are both wrong, but they're also both right, presumably to differing degrees. --Doesn't qualify as an oxymoron, or does it? Might need to restrict use of that word for to application to me.

 

Its highly philosophical but what it boils down too is this. There's a lot right about Lambda-CDM. One thing seems wrong (cough) Dark Energy (cough).

 

I don't know much about steady state, perhaps I need to learn or instead... Work up a plausible alternative to both, which has been something science has all but neglected to do. There's no reason there should be only two running arguments, is there?

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

My epiphany borders philosophical more than theoretical.

 

It certainly isn't science (note the lack of theory and evidence).

 

I think I've figured out exactly how/why things appear to be moving away. Thought it would be easy to visualize with words I wrote earlier. I can understand why its not, but I've got a picture in my head. Once I have the right visual props, it'll be clearer. Especially if I write the right words.

 

Being able to visualise something is quite different from demonstrating that the idea actually works. We can visualise all sorts of things. Such as light just losing energy and become red-shifted the longer it travels through space. But you need to test these ideas. Otherwise they are no more than just ideas, and therefore useless.

 

Why does steady state require tossing GR or conservation?

 

For one thing, if you say the universe is not expanding (and GR says it is) then you need to come up with some explanation as to why the universe is so finely tuned as to stay balanced. Or throw out GR so you don't need to worry about it.

 

Hoyle suggested matter was continuously created. This (fairly obviously) violates conservation.

 

If steady state only applied to space-time and the principles were applied to mass in the same fashion... Would the universe look any different?

 

I don't really understand what you are asking. Modelling how the universe evolved from an earlier hot, dense state gives rise to the structures we see around us. In any (quasi) steady state theory, do you just assume that the galaxies have always been there? Or do you have some way of explaining how they came about? And how do you explain the presence of the CMB? And the proportion of hydrogen and helium? Or do you just say, well that's the way it is (and always has been)?

 

Its simple! Might be this simple. Steady state and expansion are both wrong, but instead they're both right.

 

How does that work then, exactly? How is it different from Hoyle's quasi-steady-state model?

[Phi for All]

I think I've figured out exactly how/why things appear to be moving away. Thought it would be easy to visualize with words I wrote earlier. I can understand why its not, but I've got a picture in my head. Once I have the right visual props, it'll be clearer. Especially if I write the right words.

 

Here is what you're doing. You've done some research, but only very topically. You've grasped some concepts, and ignored others that didn't make sense to you, but are critical for understanding. But since you're only skimming, and not digging deep into the knowledge you're criticizing, you have patches of clarity in your explanation (the one only you can see in your head) but no continuous thread of evidence maintained rigorously that supports you. So you do what humans do better than anything, your brain stitches together those patches of clarity to make a pattern, and you end up filling in the blanks with guesswork, to make it seem "logical" to your brain. And the filled-in blanks make you think you've got a Eureka! moment on the horizon. You can't seem to grasp the right words for it, but you convince yourself you are right!

 

The real problem is you don't know what you don't know, because you lack formal study. You probably also think it's too late for you to go back to school, or it would be too much work, or you have another excuse. You should combat your own ignorance, not compound it with this pointless guesswork. You should be asking questions, not telling everyone how things really work.

[Klaynos]

Without maths you cannot quantitatively compare to the measurements. Therefore you cannot accurately show whether your idea is consistent with what is observed. Without maths you're your telling yourself stories, not doing physics.

 

It beggers belief the number of people we get on here who openly state they don't know the maths (therefore the existing theories) yet claim they must be wrong. This is often followed by some call to "logic" which normally means "makes sense to me", often they claim they have some nice visualisation in their head. This leads me to ask why should the universe care what is" logical" to you, or what you can visualise? Humans are just ape descendents on an unremarkable blue green planet why still think digital watches are pretty cool.

[Phi for All]

It beggers belief the number of people we get on here who openly state they don't know the maths (therefore the existing theories) yet claim they must be wrong.

 

To be fair, our brains lie to us a lot. I've come to think that science speculations like this happens because this is what the general public think scientists do, they guess and then check it out. It's what the general public does with lots of things.

 

The average person who snoozed through science classes, only to later learn how important it was going to be, has no idea how much learning the way science works eliminates most of this type of speculation. As a working physicist, you probably have LOTS of ideas you're able to easily dismiss five minutes after you had them, because you can work out so much of it in your head, and recognize through finely honed critical thinking skills that "this idea will never work".

 

I think some people without training and education in science spend years chasing down these rabbit holes, while you calmly run some calculations and easily see things are off by several orders of magnitude. I think people without this training and education would like to pretend it really doesn't matter, because they just KNOW they're right.

[shmengie]

You are all right, to a degree.

 

And to a degree your also wrong. I've just about finished reformulating a title.

 

I'm going to leave it up to you and the scientific community at large, for judge, jury and mathematical execution.

 

After the title, I'll clearly outline a the few states of affair, as I understand, iterate a few problems *I*believe*I*have*solved* and the descriptions.

 

Once that's done, the math will flow into place. It won't change much anything, after all some theory is only applicable in theory. But you'll fully grasp the concept I've been trying to convey, and what's better you'll do the math for me

 

Unfortunately, I'm in a state of *know* that's limited on proof. Half the problem I've had to date, is not knowing how to define the problem. Couple of unexpected leaps straddled that tho.

 

I'm being a little secretive or obscure, because of greed. I'm inclined to believe it's unjustified and/or silly. But I've figured out how to explain my thesis so anyone could understand. Now I need to put it down in a couple pictures and the right amount of words, so you can enjoy the laugh at my expense, or visa-verca. (is that misspelled incorrectly right?)

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

Once that's done, the math will flow into place. It won't change much anything, after all some theory is only applicable in theory. But you'll fully grasp the concept I've been trying to convey, and what's better you'll do the math for me

 

You're delusional. That doesn't help.

[shmengie]

I've already eluded to some concepts I've been working on and many issues I see with expansion and steady state.

 

There's issues we all know exist with both, we DO NOT know how to resolve.

 

I will propose an alternative. But I'm going to limit the scope of it, because there are so many things *I*know* cannot answer. Instead of answering them I'll cheat, by leaving it to the reader.

 

After all, doesn't matter if you choose steady state or expansion. The cause nor amount of matter that formed has many but not a definitive answer.

There was a bang. But it was silent. So instead of calling BB, BB, we call it Lambda-CDM.

There was a state. But it wasn't steady. So what do we call it???

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

I've already eluded to some concepts I've been working on and many issues I see with expansion and steady state.

 

There's issues we all know exist with both, we DO NOT know how to resolve.

 

What are the problems with the big bang model that we do not know how to resolve?

[shmengie]

Okay, lets start with a couple of really basic questions about mass.

 

I've contemplated a few and haven't hunted down answers for them, because I like my prospective uncluttered with definitive solutions I don't believe presently exist.

 

I classify that statement as purely hypothetical, because I know I possess an abundance of ignorance.

 

Lets suppose something banged that inevitably resulted in mass. Who/what/where, unknown, when... about the start of time.

 

Was there a point where all mass was pure neutrons or pure separated proton and electron mix.

 

I haven't researched it. I question plausibility of a definitive answer. To say it's BB or SS, I suspicion there is pertinence. But can't comprehend implications.

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This thread and the OP's topic is not up to the standard of the main physics forum. I am moving it to speculations - if the OP fails or decides not to defend their proposal then it will be locked. Please take a moment to reread the rules of the forum and the specific guidelines to the speculation forum. FYG just making stuff up is never good enough.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair

 

[shmengie]

I strayed off topic, but it was my intention from the onset, due to a personal agenda. I would like an itemized list and thus far failed to compile one outside my head.

 

1. cosmological redshift

2. CMBR

3. Failure of steady state

 

That's a short list. Wish I would have compiled it before the thread move.

 

I don't think relativity is evidence for/against. Believe its one of the best descriptions of what is.

 

if one believes steady state requires nothing to changes, it fails before with any description of change. The universe is/was/may always evolve. That requires change. I think a new definition for what if anything remains/retains the quality of steady, before steady state can be defined appropriately.

 

Seems everything evolves. If steady state cant cope with that, it's flawed beyond repair and it's failure shouldn't be considered evidence. IhMO.

 

I have conceived a flaw in BB/Lambda-CDM. I have reasoned out a clear definition of cosmological redshift. I will present this in a clear and concise format soon. I thank all who have participated in this thread, for your help in achieving the goal I set out. I apologize for deception from the onset, but I couldn't ask "What do I not know about accepted principles?" and expect a viable answer.

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

Was there a point where all mass was pure neutrons or pure separated proton and electron mix.

 

There was a period where the universe was uniformly filled with quarks. After about 1 microsecond it cooled enough to form protons. At this point there was a plasma (a "gas" of protons and electrons and some neutrons). After another 380,000 years the universe cools enough for atoms to form and photons are free to travel through space. These photons are what we see as the CMB (cooled even further).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

To say it's BB or SS, I suspicion there is pertinence.

 

In a steady state theory, none of that would have happened. The universe was always full of stars and galaxies. There is no CMB. And the sky is infinitely bright in all directions.

 

So it sounds like we don't live in a steady state universe. You know, just based on what we observe ("evidence").

I don't think relativity is evidence for/against.

 

Correct. It is not evidence. It is a model that explains (and predicted) what we see.

 

Believe its one of the best descriptions of what is.

 

And yet you reject it.

 

I have conceived a flaw in BB/Lambda-CDM.

 

What is this flaw? Please show either evidence or the mathematics, or withdraw the claim.

 

 

but I couldn't ask "What do I not know about accepted principles?" and expect a viable answer.

 

I think you would get a much more positive reaction to that approach.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Strange

[shmengie]

There was a period where the universe was uniformly filled with quarks. After about 1 microsecond it cooled enough to form protons. At this point there was a plasma (a "gas" of protons and electrons and some neutrons). After another 380,000 years the universe cools enough for atoms to form and photons are free to travel through space. These photons are what we see as the CMB (cooled even further).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

The gist of that thought experiment is effort to avoid reference to Lambda-CDM. Neglected to include it's proposal, a mix of proton, neutron and electron has purpose. A definitively extreme segregation seems equally plausible (to me).

 

Neutrons are specifically puzzling, to me, for if the beginning was akin to steady state and neutrons were a first state of sort, steady state would potentially have even more problems at the starting line. Doesn't have to be steady state tho, but BB rules it out by saying it had to be different. Logic suggests we must be sure and asks, how? How can we be sure?

 

On the other hand if steady state is a plausible beginning of sorts, could it have started on the other extreme and form neutrons later...

 

These are seem like simple questions I don't see a clear answer to with lambda, other than saying it was different because it was. Perhaps I don't understand but I would like definitive definition for one way vs. others.

 

So it sounds like we don't live in a steady state universe. You know, just based on what we observe ("evidence").

I agree, whole heartedly. Tried to make that clear.

 

re: relativity

And yet you reject it.

I don't recall saying that. I suppose you construe my doubt about Lambda-CDM as evidence I do. But my belief as stated, I perceive means otherwise.

 

I think you would get a much more positive reaction to that approach.

A positive answer would likely be posed in questions, not answers. There's logic in there, but... I'm cracked.

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie