4 ms·
Oh yeah, a assuming a universe that is cyclically expanding and contracting is so much better than the one time expansion of the big bang: > Obviously, the id
by SiempreViernes 3y ago
Oh yeah, a assuming a universe that is cyclically expanding and contracting is so much better than the one time expansion of the big bang:
> Obviously, the idea of the universe oscillating within a given range of redshifts is a mere hypothesis full of open questions. The primary question is: which forces drive the oscillations. Without proposing any solution, we can just speculate that [gravitational collapse] might play a central role in this model [p 16, ibid]
- throwawaymaths 3y agoThat's kind of irrelevant though. You could still have a big bang, just without the CMB as it's signature. In any case the fact that modeling cosmic dust backwards through time produces a redshifted black body radiation that more or less looks like the CMB is something you can't just dismiss. Or else you're not being scientific, you're just being religious.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoIt's very much not: "modeling cosmic dust backwards through time" necessarily means you have assumed a cosmology, and in particular this result of the BB spectra from just dust absolutely needs that the cosmology is cyclic because that's the only way to get the constant densities that starts the entire derivation.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoNo, modeling cosmic dust backwards in time is just rolling back the expansion parameters that are well accepted and based on observation.