Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

The results coming from the JWST are showing BBT is not correct and more consistent with TLT, as I explained. If you disagree with them, point out the what aspect you disagree with and the technical reason. The 2018 TLT paper has not been refuted afaik.

No it doesn't. Those new finds have not been fully investigated. You only have a popular news story that you do not understand with a clickbait title. You have to wait a while before you can claim that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it doesn't. Those new finds have not been fully investigated. You only have a popular news story that you do not understand with a clickbait title. You have to wait a while before you can claim that.

Wait, it is a fact that the galaxies JWST is seeing were not expected to be there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, it is a fact that the galaxies JWST is seeing were not expected to be there.

Yes, that is true. It does not come close to refuting the Big Bang yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, that is true. It does not come close to refuting the Big Bang yet.

I understand that. It is also true that the galaxies JWST is seeing are consistent with the SSM.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that. It is also true that the galaxies JWST is seeing are consistent with the SSM.

You do not get to make that claim either without massive evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So where do you think existence came from?

It is impossible to remotely objectively answer this question. From the scientific perspective our physical existence could possibly include multiverses and a no boundary existence without a beginning.

Previous you asserted that time is necessary 'omnipresent?' as we experience continuous space time in out universe.

The problem is we have direct observational evidence that at the Quantum scale of our universe there is not 'continuous time/space' as we experience it on the macro scale. I believe a reference or two have already been provided to describe Quantum time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do not get to make that claim either without massive evidence.

A steady state eternal universe means that galaxy distribution as seen by astronomy from earth is the same throughout the infinite universe. Since these JWST newly viewed galaxies are fully formed just like out local galaxies, yet further away than any ever seen before, it is exactly what SSM theorized.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A steady state eternal universe means that galaxy distribution as seen by astronomy from earth is the same throughout the infinite universe. Since these JWST newly viewed galaxies are fully formed just like out local galaxies, yet further away than any ever seen before, it is exactly what SSM theorized.

You would need to explain the CBR with a steady state universe and I do not think that anyone has. Also how do you deal with expansion in a steady state universe? I am sure that there are other ways that it fails too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is impossible to remotely objectively answer this question. From the scientific perspective our physical existence could possibly include multiverses and a no boundary existence without a beginning.

Previous you asserted that time is necessary 'omnipresent?' as we experience continuous space time in out universe.

The problem is we have direct observational evidence that at the Quantum scale of our universe there is not 'continuous time/space' as we experience it on the macro scale. I believe a reference or two have already been provided to describe Quantum time.

The steady state infinite eternal universe is shaping up to be the way things are. So existence had no beginning, it is eternal in an infinite universe.

There is no nothing, the Quantum Vacuum is not a vacuum, there was a time when science thought that space devoid of particles was a vacuum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You would need to explain the CBR with a steady state universe and I do not think that anyone has. Also how do you deal with expansion in a steady state universe? I am sure that there are other ways that it fails too.

There is no expansion in the SSU model I study, the redshift is not doppler as BBT interprets it, but distance.

Concerning the CMBR, TLT interprets the redshift on a profound basis of physical principles and, at the same time, gives a plausible explanation for CMBR. The CMBR is tired light in the microwave band. The photons from all directions emitted by the faraway sources are redshifted after a long journey. Photons then, from all the other galaxies in the background of the Cosmos, around the Earth, theoretically around the Milky Way, have been redshifted to form the CMBR. Tired light does not only form CMBR, but it also forms CRBR (cosmological radio background radiation).
Reference: Page 13 Chapter 9.5 The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no expansion in the SSU model I study, the redshift is not doppler as BBT interprets it, but distance.

Concerning the CMBR, TLT interprets the redshift on a profound basis of physical principles and, at the same time, gives a plausible explanation for CMBR. The CMBR is tired light in the microwave band. The photons from all directions emitted by the faraway sources are redshifted after a long journey. Photons then, from all the other galaxies in the background of the Cosmos, around the Earth, theoretically around the Milky Way, have been redshifted to form the CMBR. Tired light does not only form CMBR, but it also forms CRBR (cosmological radio background radiation).
Reference: Page 13 Chapter 9.5 The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

You need a mechanism that reproduces the observed redshift. What is the testable mechanism? How would you test it? Testing the Doppler Effect is extremely common. It has been done to death and confirmed. What reasonable test based upon the predictions of the hypothesis could possibly refute it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need a mechanism that reproduces the observed redshift. What is the testable mechanism? How would you test it? Testing the Doppler Effect is extremely common. It has been done to death and confirmed. What reasonable test based upon the predictions of the hypothesis could possibly refute it?

The fact that there is another mechanism that has been around since the doppler mechanism was adopted, it is the same principle as seen the redshift of the Compton effect.

The Compton Effect was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923, and explains that photons lose energy when they interact with matter, thus causing an increase in the wavelength of the photon. Compton scattering usually refers to the interaction involving only the electrons of an atom, although nuclear Compton scattering does exist.

Tired Light

The tired light theories are very different from the aforementioned theories, in that they don’t operate on the premise of the redshift being due to the Doppler Effect, nor to the expansion of the universe. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that photons lose energy over time via interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism34. One of the successes of this theory was that it predicted the cosmic background radiation temperature to be around 2.8°K, during a time when the Big Bang theory was predicting temperatures anywhere between 5°K and 50°K35. A tired light model was also proposed in the 1950’s by FinlayFreundlich to explain the redshift of solar lines and anomalous redshifts of stars as well as the cosmological redshift

Reference: Page 11 &12. Tired Light Theories and the Compton Effect. “A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics.

Also this..

6. The equation of the cosmological redshift

The energy loss of a photon A larger photon will transfer more energy to a material particle since it has a longer interaction time with the material particle. So a larger photon transfers a larger part of its energy to the material particle than a smaller one. Thus, the energy loss of a photon is proportional to its size. A photon, on its journey after emission, meets a number of material particles before being received by an observer. The greater the number of material particles it meets, the more energy it loses. So, the energy loss of the photon is also proportional to the number of material particles it meets. 6.2 Equations for the cosmological redshift When a photon of size λ and energy E meets a material particle, the material particle runs through the electromagnetic field of the photon in a time t ¼ λ=c, where c is the speed of light. In the interaction, the material particle can be viewed as stationary compared to the speed of the photon. During the interaction, the photon transfers a tiny amount of energy δð Þ E to the material particle. A coefficient k ¼ δð Þ E =Eλ is defined here, denoting the rate of energy loss of the photon per unit length. The coefficient k is denoted conceptually at this stage. Further theoretical or experimental studies are needed to determine its value. If a photon of size λ0 and energy E when emitted meets N material particles in its path and transfers a part of its energy to the material particles, supposing all the material particles interact equally with the photoThe energy loss of a photon A larger photon will transfer more energy to a material particle since it has a longer interaction time with the material particle. So a larger photon transfers a larger part of its energy to the material particle than a smaller one. Thus, the energy loss of a photon is proportional to its size. A photon, on its journey after emission, meets a number of material particles before being received by an observer. The greater the number of material particles it meets, the more energy it loses. So, the energy loss of the photon is also proportional to the number of material particles it meets. 6.2 Equations for the cosmological redshift When a photon of size λ and energy E meets a material particle, the material particle runs through the electromagnetic field of the photon in a time t ¼ λ=c, where c is the speed of light. In the interaction, the material particle can be viewed as stationary compared to the speed of the photon. During the interaction, the photon transfers a tiny amount of energy δð Þ E to the material particle. A coefficient k ¼ δð Þ E =Eλ is defined here, denoting the rate of energy loss of the photon per unit length. The coefficient k is denoted conceptually at this stage. Further theoretical or experimental studies are needed to determine its value. If a photon of size λ0 and energy E when emitted meets N material particles in its path and transfers a part of its energy to the material particles, supposing all the material particles interact equally with the photon, a differential equation for the energy of the photon is obtained with coefficient k as follows: dE dN ¼ kλ0E: (1) The solution, from the condition E ¼ E0 when N ¼ 0, is E ¼ E0 exp ð Þ kNλ0 (2) The energy loss of the photon is ΔE ¼ E0 E. Thus, there is ΔE ¼ E0 1 1 exp ð Þ kNλ0 : (3) The expression for the redshift is Z ¼ λλ0 λ0 . It can be written as Z ¼ ν0ν ν ¼ E0E E . Then, it obtains, Z ¼ ΔE E : (4) From Eqs. (2)–(4), Z ¼ exp ð Þ kNλ0 1:
Reference: Page 7. The equation of the cosmological redshift Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that there is another mechanism that has been around since the doppler mechanism was adopted, it is the same principle as seen the redshift of the Compton effect.

The Compton Effect was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923, and explains that photons lose energy when they interact with matter, thus causing an increase in the wavelength of the photon. Compton scattering usually refers to the interaction involving only the electrons of an atom, although nuclear Compton scattering does exist.

Tired Light

The tired light theories are very different from the aforementioned theories, in that they don’t operate on the premise of the redshift being due to the Doppler Effect, nor to the expansion of the universe. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that photons lose energy over time via interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism34. One of the successes of this theory was that it predicted the cosmic background radiation temperature to be around 2.8°K, during a time when the Big Bang theory was predicting temperatures anywhere between 5°K and 50°K35. A tired light model was also proposed in the 1950’s by FinlayFreundlich to explain the redshift of solar lines and anomalous redshifts of stars as well as the cosmological redshift

Reference: Page 11 &12. Tired Light Theories and the Compton Effect. “A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics.

Also this..

6. The equation of the cosmological redshift

The energy loss of a photon A larger photon will transfer more energy to a material particle since it has a longer interaction time with the material particle. So a larger photon transfers a larger part of its energy to the material particle than a smaller one. Thus, the energy loss of a photon is proportional to its size. A photon, on its journey after emission, meets a number of material particles before being received by an observer. The greater the number of material particles it meets, the more energy it loses. So, the energy loss of the photon is also proportional to the number of material particles it meets. 6.2 Equations for the cosmological redshift When a photon of size λ and energy E meets a material particle, the material particle runs through the electromagnetic field of the photon in a time t ¼ λ=c, where c is the speed of light. In the interaction, the material particle can be viewed as stationary compared to the speed of the photon. During the interaction, the photon transfers a tiny amount of energy δð Þ E to the material particle. A coefficient k ¼ δð Þ E =Eλ is defined here, denoting the rate of energy loss of the photon per unit length. The coefficient k is denoted conceptually at this stage. Further theoretical or experimental studies are needed to determine its value. If a photon of size λ0 and energy E when emitted meets N material particles in its path and transfers a part of its energy to the material particles, supposing all the material particles interact equally with the photoThe energy loss of a photon A larger photon will transfer more energy to a material particle since it has a longer interaction time with the material particle. So a larger photon transfers a larger part of its energy to the material particle than a smaller one. Thus, the energy loss of a photon is proportional to its size. A photon, on its journey after emission, meets a number of material particles before being received by an observer. The greater the number of material particles it meets, the more energy it loses. So, the energy loss of the photon is also proportional to the number of material particles it meets. 6.2 Equations for the cosmological redshift When a photon of size λ and energy E meets a material particle, the material particle runs through the electromagnetic field of the photon in a time t ¼ λ=c, where c is the speed of light. In the interaction, the material particle can be viewed as stationary compared to the speed of the photon. During the interaction, the photon transfers a tiny amount of energy δð Þ E to the material particle. A coefficient k ¼ δð Þ E =Eλ is defined here, denoting the rate of energy loss of the photon per unit length. The coefficient k is denoted conceptually at this stage. Further theoretical or experimental studies are needed to determine its value. If a photon of size λ0 and energy E when emitted meets N material particles in its path and transfers a part of its energy to the material particles, supposing all the material particles interact equally with the photon, a differential equation for the energy of the photon is obtained with coefficient k as follows: dE dN ¼ kλ0E: (1) The solution, from the condition E ¼ E0 when N ¼ 0, is E ¼ E0 exp ð Þ kNλ0 (2) The energy loss of the photon is ΔE ¼ E0 E. Thus, there is ΔE ¼ E0 1 1 exp ð Þ kNλ0 : (3) The expression for the redshift is Z ¼ λλ0 λ0 . It can be written as Z ¼ ν0ν ν ¼ E0E E . Then, it obtains, Z ¼ ΔE E : (4) From Eqs. (2)–(4), Z ¼ exp ð Þ kNλ0 1:
Reference: Page 7. The equation of the cosmological redshift Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

That did not answer my question and we are way back to your first failure where you did not understand spectroscopy. Doppler shift is uniform across the entire bandwidth. That does not appear to be the case for that model. When light interacts with matter it does not do so uniformly across the entire spectrum. That is why that idea fails.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That did not answer my question and we are way back to your first failure where you did not understand spectroscopy. Doppler shift is uniform across the entire bandwidth. That does not appear to be the case for that model. When light interacts with matter it does not do so uniformly across the entire spectrum. That is why that idea fails.

In which case you do not understand the physics, all the redshift that BBT attributes to doppler, SSU attributes to TLT. The mention of the Compton effect was only in reference to the same principle being involved, the loss of radiated photon energy when it interacts with matter causing redshift.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In which case you do not understand the physics, all the redshift that BBT attributes to doppler, SSU attributes to TLT. The mention of the Compton effect was only in reference to the same principle being involved, the loss of radiated photon energy when it interacts with matter causing redshift.

No, you do not understand it because you are unable to explain the uniform red shift that we observe. When light interacts with matter it has not been observed to react that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It means there is no before. The phrase 'before the BB' is literally meaningless in BB cosmology.

Yeah, but that is theoretical physics and not actual physics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you do not understand it because you are unable to explain the uniform red shift that we observe. When light interacts with matter it has not been observed to react that way.

The Compton Effect was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923, and explains that photons lose energy when they interact with matter, thus causing an increase in the wavelength of the photon.

That is a given and is noticed around stars, and thus not uniform like with tired light, which comes about when photons travelling though universal space interact with hydrogen atoms, the atom will absorb a small amount of energy from the photon resulting in a minute lengthening of wavelength,, but after travelling thousands of light years, the lengthening of wavelength can be significant.

The concept of tired light was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that photons lose energy over time via interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism34. One of the successes of this theory was that it predicted the cosmic background radiation temperature to be around 2.8°K, during a time when the Big Bang theory was predicting temperatures anywhere between 5°K and 50°K..

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Compton Effect was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923, and explains that photons lose energy when they interact with matter, thus causing an increase in the wavelength of the photon.

That is a given and is noticed around stars, and thus not uniform like with tired light, which comes about when photons travelling though universal space interact with hydrogen atoms, the atom will absorb a small amount of energy from the photon resulting in a minute lengthening of wavelength,, but after travelling thousands of light years, the lengthening of wavelength can be significant.

The concept of tired light was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that photons lose energy over time via interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism34. One of the successes of this theory was that it predicted the cosmic background radiation temperature to be around 2.8°K, during a time when the Big Bang theory was predicting temperatures anywhere between 5°K and 50°K..

It does not explain the isotropic nature of red shift to distant galaxies. It can only explain a "reddening" it cannot explain red shift. But then again, you still do not understand why spectroscopy shows you to be wrong;

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It does not explain the isotropic nature of red shift to distant galaxies. It can only explain a "reddening" it cannot explain red shift. But then again, you still do not understand why spectroscopy shows you to be wrong;

Sure, any differential movement between celestial objects will register doppler redshift, but the redshift of distant objects such as those galaxies viewed by the JWST, the BBers will see as expansion, and the TLTers will see as distance. They are using the exact same data.

You really don't do science do you?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm moving on. there was no BB, the SSM is the correct model, and TLT is the correct explanation of redshift.

In spite of all the evidence. TLT does not explain angular distance vs red shift distance. It does not work with how actual scattering works. SSM, even with TLT cannot explain the details of the CMBR.

The BB model handles all of those and matches observations.

At this point, you are rejecting a theory that works because of a philosophical objection. And that is no better than what happened to geocentrism vs heliocentrism.