And the overall recession (apparent expansion) is just "random". We have just caught them in a moment in time when they happen to be rushing away from us.?
Get rid of that pesky contradictory evidence with a quick spray of Evidence-be-Gone(tm) and a wave of the hand.
Cosmic inflation causes objects to recede from use faster then c (note this doesn't go against SR becuase of the way inflation works)
Thus you have to explain what causes red shifts with z values > 1 without breaking SR or you have to throw out SR.
Are you claiming red shift is "tired light"? We can point you to plenty of evidence against "tired light" if you want.
How about you start answering some of my questions. You asked me the question about particles being shook in an inside container. I have explained these motions are completely random and yet you think they should display motions which are distributed evenly in every direction.
You blame me for having a bad understanding of classical physics, but you haven't even addressed my post yet. You are skimming through every comment I have made like you are offended somehow and trying to punch holes in any arguement.
But you seem to have a different definition of random: "receding away from a single point with a velocity that increases with distance".
If you want to bring these up then come up with something more then a baseless claim. Show us the data. Show us the observation of any object that appears older then 13.75billion years old. Show us how a temperature of 2.725°K is "a limiting temperature of stars". I challenge you to find one "star" any where near 2.725°K. You might as well say 2.725°K is a limiting temperature of hot dogs. It makes as much sense.
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
No offense, but you wait till now to ask this? It was not my activity, I am simply replying like a gentleman.
You've just admitted in post #72
that out of the top 10 problems with the big bang you didn't understand like 8 of them and the other 2 we've yet to see any evidence for. So its just hand waving and yelling about a problem that there doesn't seem to be any real evidence for.
You don't seem to have a clear cut of the basics. You seem like a bit of a hypocrite.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
You said: ''Cosmic inflation causes objects to recede from use faster then c''
We where discussing why I believe distant observable galaxies appear to be moving at superluminal speeds.
I am well aware of the physical principles of science, those being relativity - that matter cannot move at superluminal speeds, so stop talking to me as if I don't. I have said, this is an illusion - the rate or speed, they appear to be receeding at. How can you muddle that with ''cosmic inflation causes objects to receed faster than light?''
That was not on the discussion. Plus, you have more questions I have asked you, like how you think particles in a box with totally random dynamics should always have evenly distributed motions. Please think hard about your answer.
Contrast this to what we see in our universe where almost all objects in our universe are receding away from us an their recession velocity is almost exactly a linear function of their distance from us.
For there to always be a ''evenly distributed motion'' doesn't seem very random to me - in fact, to make sure your objects are always observing an equal amount of systems moving to and from is a highly controlled system indeed. At times you would expect your chaotic system to do quite the opposite.
You can't claim "Big Bang can't even for a moment contemplate these voids" then when it is pointed out how the Big Band can explain these voids say "Well that wasn't my original argument". It is part of your argument. If you don't understand how something supports your idea or works against the idea you are arguing about then you shouldn't use that argument.