New in cosmology

Sort:
Avatar of varelse1
Elroch wrote:

@Optimissed is irrational about the long discarded steady state hypothesis. Look out into the Universe and you find it has changed a lot over time. At the furthest back that we can see, it was a hot, almost perfectly uniform gas! A while after that we see the age when quasars were common - very different to now.

Here are the graphs of quasar frequency and quasar luminosity versus time before the present day. It is interesting that the numbers have been falling for a long time, but have been almost zero in the last billion years.

This is a graph of a universe that is no more "steady state" than a person is from the time they are born to the time they die - we see changes.

At this point, Steady State has only slightly more credibility, than Flat Earth.

Avatar of playerafar

All models based on a finite age of the universe - are suspect thereof.
How does one 'rule out' infinite age of the universe?
You can't.
Not with infinite big bangs in infinite locations on infinte occasions in an infinite past and future of a universe infinite in all directions and infinite in mass.
That can't be ruled out.
Have people tried to?
Yes. They've tried. With an argument 'if there were infinite stars there'd be no night sky'.
Yes there would be. Various things would prevent light from infinite stars getting everywhere.
And a lot of light doesn't get here anyway.
We're going to see light from the other side of the galactic core - get here??
From an object whose light is blocked by a lot of things? Or severely diluted by distance?
And there's rela --- I'll skip that one for now.

Avatar of playerafar
varelse1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

While that may be so, it is utterly irrelevant here. Planets can only be seen within our galaxy. The present record is 27,000 light years away.

As recently the 1980's there was still no visual proof of planets yet, outside our solar system. Did every star have planets? 50%? 1%? .0001%? Less?

Every possibility was still on the table.

Regarding the big bang - the redshift evidence that it happened - that there was a tremendous explosion a long tme ago - is very very strong evidence.
But only evidence of a very big bang. In this 'locality'.
But that evidence is not evidence of 'the big bang is the universe'.
That's a different animal that might not even exist.
'there can be only one big bang because its the one we're in?'
Hardly.