Why does the Steady State Theory not work?
- Thread starter Luckyflux
- Start date
Yes, the "red-shift" Doppler effect indicates that all galaxies are moving away from each other, suggesting an inflationary universe.
Also, discovery of the cosmic background radiation confirmed the basics of the inflationary theories. It is the remnants of the Big Bang - from the time 400,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe was much smaller and hotter.
-MEC
Also, discovery of the cosmic background radiation confirmed the basics of the inflationary theories. It is the remnants of the Big Bang - from the time 400,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe was much smaller and hotter.
-MEC
Basically Fred Hoyle (a very clever man) lost the argument against George Gamow (another very clever man) as more and more evidence, such as the 3K background radiation, accumulated. Hoyle hated the BBT because he was an avowed atheist.
I know my anwer will sound harsh, but here it is: you got it wrong from the first sentence. You can't believe on not believe in a scientific theory. At the time being, the Big Bang is the one theory on the origin of the universe that best matches observational data. You can't discard that on a whim because you don't like it.
The only way to reject it is to present to the scientific community another theory that better explains the observations of redshifted galaxies, expansion of the universe and cosmic microwave background radiaton. In the other case, it's just ludicrous as declaring that you don't believe in gravity while an anvil is falling on your foot.
Because fact proved that wrong. Do you know better?
I apologize for the confrontational tone, but I'm way too tired to explain to people that science has nothing to do with belief.
Edited to add:
Well, the correct wording is that Hoyle disagreed with the Big Bang Theory since he found it philosophically troubling. However, the theological position of Fred Hoyle is highly confusing, since he apparently support Intelligent Design. I will let that can of worms for another debate.
Galaxies further away from us appear to be moving away from us more quickly, which in turn means that the further back through time we look, the faster things seem to be expanding. (light from very distant objects is actually showing what happened many years ago thanks to the relatively slow speed of light compaired to the distances being observed.)
So essentially, everything seems to be moving away from us, though they are slowing down. Relatively close objects (like Andromeda) are barely moving at all, appearing to be "Steady".
Incase you don't understand the whole 'red-shift' idea, it essentially is a reading of light wavelength. Like sound waves and the doppler effect. Things moving away from us appear 'red' which means their wavelength looks longer to us.
The distant universe seems to be red shifted.
Objects moving toward us appear more blue, because they are making their wavelength appear shorter.
The big bang theory is basically a theory to explain how the universe came to be layed out the way it is today. Whatever you want to believe caused the BB, it required something capable of creating an infinite (or nearly infinite) amount of mass, energy, and space in good balance with eachother.
So essentially, everything seems to be moving away from us, though they are slowing down. Relatively close objects (like Andromeda) are barely moving at all, appearing to be "Steady".
Incase you don't understand the whole 'red-shift' idea, it essentially is a reading of light wavelength. Like sound waves and the doppler effect. Things moving away from us appear 'red' which means their wavelength looks longer to us.
The distant universe seems to be red shifted.
Objects moving toward us appear more blue, because they are making their wavelength appear shorter.
The big bang theory is basically a theory to explain how the universe came to be layed out the way it is today. Whatever you want to believe caused the BB, it required something capable of creating an infinite (or nearly infinite) amount of mass, energy, and space in good balance with eachother.
I understand the red shift, but couldn't that just be natural motion of the Universe? Kind of like a raft in a pool, it will float around and move around in all different directions, sometimes moving away and sometimes moving forward.
Isn't the Andromeda Galaxy merging with the Milky Way? That would suggest that those Galaxies are moving toward each other. Unless it is the Gravity of each Galaxy pulling each other closer...but I don't know.
Isn't the Andromeda Galaxy merging with the Milky Way? That would suggest that those Galaxies are moving toward each other. Unless it is the Gravity of each Galaxy pulling each other closer...but I don't know.
Hoyle was also disquieted by the fact that the C-12 resonance in the triple-alpha reaction in stars appears to have been "fine tuned" for our existence. This didn't fit with his atheism and shook his beliefs to the core more than the BBT. Personally, I think that it's a selection mechanism -- if a universe in the multiverse isn't suitable for making observers, there aren't any present to observe.
A couple of things about that...further from what? If there was an Earth close to those Galaxies, then what would those Scientists think? Would they think the Universe had a beginning?
And what about finding young stars among the old and faint stars? If those stars formed when the universe was "young", then how did younger, brighter stars form next to them?
Sorry for all of the questions, but this is my favorite subject, but I am not smart enough to figure it out. This idea sharing helps me think about it in different ways.
Further from *us*.
We're seeing galaxies as they were when the light left the galaxy, not as they are now. There are a couple things to note from this:
a) We can only see 13 billion light years. This indicates that the universe started 13 billion years ago.
b) The galaxies a few billion light years away are smaller. They've probably merged a few times since them.
An observer close to those other galaxies would see something very similar to what we see - most of the galaxies nearby would be large, and most of the galaxies far away would be small.
From the remnants of dead stars, as I understand it.
As I understand it (let's wait for somebody more experienced then I to confirm this), it's because the redshift is so consistent. *All* the far away galaxies are moving away from us.
Andromeda is so close to us, that it doesn't really count.
Well, the farthest galaxies are also the furthest back in time from our POV, since light from them has taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. This means that Galaxies themselves are now more developed than they used to be.
The further back in time we look, the faster everything seems to be expanding. Everywhere we look with our most powerful sensors that seems to be the case.
The further back in time we look, the faster everything seems to be expanding. Everywhere we look with our most powerful sensors that seems to be the case.
Just before I read the rest - the Big Bang theory and Inflationary theory are not the same thing. The CMB discovery "proved" that there has been an expansion of some sort (from a "Big Bang"). The whole inflation stuff came around 15 or so years later.
that is the dumbest fucking thing i've ever heard. of course you can believe or not believe in a scientific theory. you can believe or not believe whatever the hell you want. nobody is OBLIGATED to believe anything just because science or religion or your mom tells you "this is what seems to make the most sense right now." science doesn't progress by everyone towing the current party line, it progresses by someone saying "what we currently think is wrong, such-and-such makes more sense to me" and then trying to prove it. what kind of dogmatic scientific fascism are you promoting here?
As I understand it the galaxies aren't necessarily moving though space from each other, space itself is expanding making the galaxies appear to move away from each other. I know this may sound dumb but I'll try to explain.
Lets say you take a balloon and partially inflate it. Take a marker and mark about ten dots on it spaced about a quarter of an inch from each other. Further inflate the balloon and you will see the dots move away from each other. Their physical location on the balloon's surface hasn't changed but the fabric of the balloon itself has expanded. And from the POV of any one dot, the further away another dot is, the faster it will appear to be moving away as the balloon is inflated. Aaand yes, the dots themselves will be getting bigger.
This is a 2D representation of the 3D universe expansion. And this expansion is only noticeable on a very large scale. You don't see the expansion effect (or at least it's very small) in the local group of galaxies like Andromeda. IIRC, you only start seeing the expansion effect in galaxies starting at about fifty million lightyears away.
Recently scientists have discovered that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. They couldn't explain how because there's not nearly enough observable energy in the universe to accout for this acceleration so they came up with the theory of 'dark' energy.
Robert
Lets say you take a balloon and partially inflate it. Take a marker and mark about ten dots on it spaced about a quarter of an inch from each other. Further inflate the balloon and you will see the dots move away from each other. Their physical location on the balloon's surface hasn't changed but the fabric of the balloon itself has expanded. And from the POV of any one dot, the further away another dot is, the faster it will appear to be moving away as the balloon is inflated. Aaand yes, the dots themselves will be getting bigger.
This is a 2D representation of the 3D universe expansion. And this expansion is only noticeable on a very large scale. You don't see the expansion effect (or at least it's very small) in the local group of galaxies like Andromeda. IIRC, you only start seeing the expansion effect in galaxies starting at about fifty million lightyears away.
Recently scientists have discovered that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. They couldn't explain how because there's not nearly enough observable energy in the universe to accout for this acceleration so they came up with the theory of 'dark' energy.
Robert
David, even accusing someone of such things in sarcasm is not only tasteless, but can be considered flaming. I know what you're trying to do here, but this isn't the way to do it. That's what the "Notify" button's for, everyone. If a post gets your dander up, take a breath, and then think about it. I'd much rather have notifications in my mailbox than stick warnings on people's records for taking things into their own hands, especially with the new rules.
With our current level of knowledge, it's metaphysical speculation at best. If they can get quantum computers to work, IMO that will tend to support parallel universe or multiverse theories, but not definitively.
Similar threads
