The steady state theory VS the big bang

[KrazyHorse]

We should see an enormously bright point source according to that model. We see a uniform background

[Vesayen]

I didnt say it was uniform, did I? I said that before the COBE spacecraft it looked like the background radiation was completley uniform, now we know it is not.

[Vesayen]

Why does it need to be uniform? Who says the matter creation is equal in all parts of the phenomena?

Suppose it *IS* equal in all parts of the phenomena. Shortly after creation the matter would cool considerably, clumping together(similar to the big bang model), resulting in an uneven distribution shortly after the creation point.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I'm strong in some areas and weak in others I'm not familliar with those terms....

You're not strong in any area of cosmology that you've spoken about so far.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I didnt say it was uniform, did I? I said that before the COBE spacecraft it looked like the background radiation was completley uniform, now we know it is not.

IT IS UNIFORM TO APPROXIMATELY ONE PART IN 10^5

YOUR MODEL CREATES A POINT SOURCE OF ENORMOUS BRIGHTNESS. HOW DOES THAT POINT SOURCE GET US TO A VIRTUALLY UNIFORM BACKGROUND?

[JohnT]

They turned it off, KH.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Why does it need to be uniform? Who says the matter creation is equal in all parts of the phenomena?

?

What the hell are you talking about? What does "equal in all parts of the phenomena" mean? Do you mean equal in all points of space? In all points of time? What?

Talk in words that describe the concepts precisely.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


IT IS UNIFORM TO APPROXIMATELY ONE PART IN 10^5

YOUR MODEL CREATES A POINT SOURCE OF ENORMOUS BRIGHTNESS. HOW DOES THAT POINT SOURCE GET US TO A VIRTUALLY UNIFORM BACKGROUND?

"to approximatley"

As long as it is not *COMPLETLEY* uniform, the idea still works.

It is late and I am tired.

I'll rewrite this whole thing more coherantly in the morning.

[The Mad Monk]

Space is vast.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JohnT
They turned it off, KH.

Why does physics attract all the kooks, man?

I don't think that I could be a molecular biologist without years of training, but folks waltz in, don't even understand general relativity or basic optics or geometry and start to propose cosmological models that don't make any logical sense whatsoever...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen


"to approximatley"

As long as it is not *COMPLETLEY* uniform, the idea still works

No it doesn't, you kook. If the Universe were optically dense it would. The Universe is transparent on the scale of billions of light years. There is not enough of a scattering cross-section to provide the illusion of a uniform background from a point light source.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't some steady-state theorists argue that matter is created in quasars? Think I read that somewhere.

edit: My bad. Apparently they argue that quasars are being ejected from galaxies at high speeds, which explains the high redshifts that others think places quasars on the extremities of the universe.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I'll rewrite this whole thing more coherantly in the morning.

I doubt it.

[The Mad Monk]

Space is also flat.

[KrazyHorse]

To within 2%, yes.