You explained it in the terms of gravity. I could except that.
I'll tell you what.... once I have sat for a while and actually developed a theory, I WILL post it here in the ATM then you can all attack it like piranha fish.
In hindsight, I probably won't use a steady state model. I have a preferrence for another model.
I've addressed your post. Your various complaints about the big bang model fall into these categories.
1) Misunderstanding of what the big bang actually says.
2) Misunderstanding of the implications and mechanisms of red/blue shift
3) Blindly regurgitating long refuted arguments about the big bang.
I am not skimming through your posts. Every post I've made contains the full post to which I am answering. As many people here can attest to I'm often border lining on obsessive when I answer post line by line.
Doesn't change the argument. Its like a kid telling their mother "I'm not jumping on the bed...I'm hopping!"
As for a container of particles the vectors of said particles without some external heat source will be statistically uniform using a normal curve based on the temperature. The direction of the particles will be uniformly distributed. The speed of the particles will fit a normal curve based on the particles mass and the temperature of the gas.
If anyone else here thinks I'm wrong please feel free to correct me but both Strange and I seem to hear you say the same thing which points to a either a basic misunderstanding of physics by you or you are not using the terminology in a standard manner...which often also indicates a basic misunderstanding of the science involved.
You are saying that it is more probable that everything outside the local cluster is moving away from us with a velocity proportional to distance rather than a "random" distribution of directions and velocities.
Your challenging the theory based on misunderstandings and you are not coming up with anything to replace it with.
So what causes the spectra be shifted in a manner that is equivalent to a recession speed of >=c? Again are you proposing some "tired light" idea?
To date there are only a handful of mechanisms that can shift the spectra of an object.
If you take out cosmic expansion as one of the mechanisms what do you replace that with? Note cosmic expansion is the only mechanism that, to date, can explain z values > 1 without breaking SR and GR.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
New blog 28-07-2013: Summer School Alpbach 2013: "Space Weather: Science, Missions and Systems"
If you take out cosmic expansion as the primary component of high red shift objects, specifically red shift objects with z values > 1, then you MUST replace it with something that can explain z values > 1.
You seem to be in agreement that objects can't travel faster then the speed of light so what causes the z values > 1?
When you make statements like
If you want to say that light just naturally red shifts as it is travelling through space then you are proposing a "tired light" idea and I suggest you just read up on why such ideas are not accepted.
Let's tackle one little piece of this. This is a question about your ATM idea that recessional velocities are dependent on distance. Do you understand that Andromeda is, if I recall correctly, the only blue shifted galaxy? Even if there are others in the local galaxy cluster, there are none in any other cluster. This is important. Do you understand this?
Also, try this article:
and contemplate the quote from korjik below, please.
Regards, John M.
I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.
"Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik
Either way, I want this thread closed now. I don't support the steady state theory to replace big bang, I have my own theory which I think is much better and I am in the process of writing. Could you please close this thread like I asked a long time back.
ps. keep in mind this thread was put here against my will - I don't want to be forced into giving personal theories into how to account for BB phenomena in a steady state scenario. I never intended it all. I was just being polite answering questions.
The fact is that 7,000 odd objects might seem like a large number until you look at how many MILLION objects are actually in the dataset.
You seem to think the CMBR has to be "perfect" and that 1 outlier data point invalidates a whole model but that isn't the case. That isn't how science is done. No model is perfect and as models go the Big Bang theory is a very good model.
0 : 100006749
1 : 99974889
2 : 99995433
3 : 100005867
4 : 100014717
5 : 99993508
6 : 100012110
7 : 100005234
8 : 100000699
9 : 99990794
0 : 100003920
1 : 99997673
2 : 100007431
3 : 99982741
4 : 100007542
5 : 100016167
6 : 99995014
7 : 99994602
8 : 100003209
9 : 99991701
0 : 99991443
1 : 99998041
2 : 99994379
3 : 100012185
4 : 100003202
5 : 99990382
6 : 99998776
7 : 100005865
8 : 100007648
9 : 99998079
WOW 1 billion random random numbers generated 3 times and the distribution of numbers is VERY uniform. Look at that the deviation is like .002%
Funny thing is the larger the sample the lower the deviation will become. So is a container like 1 litre of water we are talking about 3.3428x1025 molecules or 33,428,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules with random motion the standard deviation of motion is going to be VERY small. Heating up the and cooling down the watter doesn't change the deviation either.
so while the individual numbers are completely random the distribution is very uniform and very statistical.
Note: after thinking about it ... the standard deviation probably wouldn't change very much. I'm running a set of 100 billion to see if it sits at .002%
Is there some kind of mental block, I am not answering these questions any more. This was not my intention for this thread and I won't be bullied into answering for a theory which my heart is not even content on.
Now mods, would you please close this thread.
Ok, I am ready to post my theory quite soon. I haven't written math for it, but I could write some up later.
Now you are flat-out ignoring me. I have no choice but to report you for trolling.
The mental block is yours. You do not understand the implications of random distributions and large numbers. When you have a very large number of objects averaging their random variable will come out to a very specific value. This is called the central limit theorem.
Oh, that you stop to heed. Since the moderators are slow in closing this thread, and in fear of a new infraction, I am posting the new theory in off-topic babbling. Please join there to read it. The mods can move it back here when they have actually decided to close it.
For someone who repeatedly says they are not participating in a thread, you sure post a lot.
The option given you was to say you didn't want to participate in ATM, and then stop participating. You are not acting like a gentlemen, you are acting at least contradictorily; you certainly also are not following our rules, nor show any indication you are familiar with them. Maybe things were done "against your will" but you don't get to decide the rules here. If you don't like our rules, it is a big Internet. You need to quickly figure out the rules here or the choice of posting here or not will no longer be yours.
The combined behavior in this thread will earn you an infraction.
Oh, and this thread is closed. Do not try to start this discussion in a new thread. You get one swing with an ATM theory here, you had your's. If you wish to further discuss this topic, you can Report my post and we will consider reopening the thread.
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules