3 ms·
> Lemaître explains that the Steady State model could work only if the hydrogen required to make stars appeared "like a ghost" from nowhere, which he argued wou
by bugbuddy 4y ago
> Lemaître explains that the Steady State model could work only if the hydrogen required to make stars appeared "like a ghost" from nowhere, which he argued would go against the principle of conservation of energy, the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from one type to another, which he described as "basically the most secure and solid thing in physics."
Let’s assume that the premise of this rebuttal of Steady State is correct. So, let’s assume that Steady State is true if and only if hydrogen in the stars appear out of no where and thus breaking conservative of mass/energy.
Then, why should we accept the metaphysical explanations of the Big Bang’s source of energy and mass? Where did all the mass and energy for the Big Bang come from? Was it always there to begin with?
The Big Bang theory itself has many other problems that the mainstream scientific community continue to ignore and paper over. The latest evidence from the latest deep space telescope do not sit well with established science. They will not be able the hide the non-cosmological redshift skeleton for much longer.
- mr_mitm 4y ago> The Big Bang theory itself has many other problems that the mainstream scientific community continue to ignore and paper over. The latest evidence from the latest deep space telescope do not sit well with established science. They will not be able the hide the non-cosmological redshift skeleton for much longer. Not to disappoint you, but the latest evidence you are talking about is more of a problem for the people studying galaxy formation than it is for the Big Bang theory. The evidence for the Big Bang is very solid. We can literally see the state of the Universe when all matter has been a hot, dense plasma. I fully expect some details to be ironed out, but that spacetime started with a (near) singularity is extremely well established and I wouldn't expect that to change. Don't think redshift is the only or even the best evidence for the Big Bang.
- bugbuddy 4y ago> Don't think redshift is the only or even the best evidence for the Big Bang. This shows how much you understand.
- _0ffh 4y agoMy superficial understanding is that - according to some people at least - the big bang is supposed to be neutral, merely dividing nothing into something and anti-something, aggregately summing up to zero.