Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

The BBT is a failure, SSM is the go.

The experts seem to disagree.

 

[Polymath257]

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

True, but they affect how galaxies develop, not the basic BB model.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Irony.

The red shifts that show up in distant galaxies cannot be explained by Compton scattering because they are proportional to wavelength and Compton scattering isn't. The difference is easy to detect and isn't something that can be misinterpreted. The universal red shift vs distance relation is NOT due to Compton scattering.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Agreed. Which is why the question is still open. Philosophy is a poor way to eliminate active models.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

As I explain to SZ, TLT interprets the redshift as distance, not expansion, and with the JWST viewed galaxies that don't fit BBT, but does a steady state universe, BBT will lose its credibility.

I am not rejecting the BB because of philosophical objections, BB misinterprets the redshift as doppler when it is due to TL.

 

[Polymath257]

There was no before because the universe had no beginning.

Yes, I am aware that is your claim. You have not proved your claim. Instead, you have given philosophy based on a lack of understanding of the current best explanations.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove your case.

 

[Polymath257]

As I explain to SZ, TLT interprets the redshift as distance, not expansion, and with the JWST viewed galaxies that don't fit BBT, but does a steady state universe, BBT will lose its credibility.

But the observed distance vs red shift relation doesn't fit the TLT. Again, the shift is proportional to wavelength, which is NOT what happens in scattering.

I am not rejecting the BB because of philosophical objections, BB misinterprets the redshift as doppler when it is due to TL.

No, it does not. The TLT does not actually fit the data (sure, you can pull up one galaxy where it works, which would at as a calibration--but then no other galaxy works).

TLT simply does not produce a proportional change in the wavelengths, which is what we observe (and that is indepdendent of any interpretation of that reddening).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The experts seem to disagree.

Experts will to jump ship if the evidence shows BBT to be flawed, time will tell.

 

[Polymath257]

Experts will to jump ship if the evidence shows BBT to be flawed, time will tell.

I'm willing to let things play out. But the best explanation right now is LCDM, which is a version of BB cosmology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True, but they affect how galaxies develop, not the basic BB model.

But the galaxies are fully formed, and that is consistent with an eternal infinite steady state universe, so it a minus for BB and a + for SSU,

 

[Polymath257]

But the galaxies are fully formed, and that is consistent with an eternal infinite steady state universe, so it a minus for BB and a + for SSU,

It is still consistent with the BB model. It is NOT consistent with our models of galaxy formation, which are different than the BB model (although an add-on to it).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed. Which is why the question is still open. Philosophy is a poor way to eliminate active models.

Yes, philosophy is in practice the ability to spot objective/rational versus subjective/irrational. So you keep doing your objective science as long as you don't claim something subjective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Irony.

The red shifts that show up in distant galaxies cannot be explained by Compton scattering because they are proportional to wavelength and Compton scattering isn't. The difference is easy to detect and isn't something that can be misinterpreted. The universal red shift vs distance relation is NOT due to Compton scattering.

You are not comprehending what I have been posting. The only reason I brought up Compton scattering redshift is because of the principle, that of energy loss of a photon lengthening wavelength, and that this same principle is at work in a photons travel through universal space over time.

 

[Polymath257]

You are not comprehending what I have been posting. The only reason I brought up Compton scattering redshift is because of the principle, that of energy loss of a photon lengthening wavelength, and that this same principle is at work in a photons travel through universal space over time.

And you don't seem to grasp the specific effects observed do not match what happens in scattering. Since TLT is based on scattering, it is ruled out by the observations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I am aware that is your claim. You have not proved your claim. Instead, you have given philosophy based on a lack of understanding of the current best explanations.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove your case.

Look, science is unfolding, even though BB may be seriously flawed, the data collected will still help humanity towards better understanding of their place in the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But the observed distance vs red shift relation doesn't fit the TLT. Again, the shift is proportional to wavelength, which is NOT what happens in scattering.


No, it does not. The TLT does not actually fit the data (sure, you can pull up one galaxy where it works, which would at as a calibration--but then no other galaxy works).

TLT simply does not produce a proportional change in the wavelengths, which is what we observe (and that is indepdendent of any interpretation of that reddening).

What scattering?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is still consistent with the BB model. It is NOT consistent with our models of galaxy formation, which are different than the BB model (although an add-on to it).

Perhaps, but still it's a minus for BB and a plus for SSU on this issue.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you don't seem to grasp the specific effects observed do not match what happens in scattering. Since TLT is based on scattering, it is ruled out by the observations.

TLT is not based on scattering, a photon emitted from a star anywhere in the universe undergoes a continuous process of energy loss on its journey by interacting with material particles before it reaches an observer on Earth. That energy loss of the photon on its journey will be reflected in redshift of wavelength.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps, but still it's a minus for BB and a plus for SSU on this issue.

Not really. The SSU has too many minuses in its column to have this be of any value.

 

[Polymath257]

What scattering?

The scattering that TLT proposes as the mechanism for light getting 'tired'. Without such a mechanism, it is of even less value.

Do I need to read the TLT papers to you as well?