Steady State Universe

[Mike C]

Because of the violations of the laws of physics and proven experimental data by the ‘big bang’ supporters, I decided to promote the Steady State Universe that does not violate any laws or experimental data and also complies to the observational data.

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

It portrays space as flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy (molecular) at its edges. This matter content then is a closed system.

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles.
The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

New Science

[Tormod]

I must be dumb. What are we supposed to discuss? I see no theory, only assumptions which are put forth in order to avoid any other theories.

Or are you going to follow this up with any data, evidence, experiments, projects...anything?

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I must be dumb. What are we supposed to discuss? I see no theory, only assumptions which are put forth in order to avoid any other theories.

Or are you going to follow this up with any data, evidence, experiments, projects...anything?

My post points out the sources of what I say.

My SSU is based on the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.
The way I interpret this is:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only transformed.

The M-M interferometer experiments have proven that the light is not influenced by space since the carrier of these photons are the 'electric' fields that surround the electrons. These fields extend to infinity and thou they occupy space, space does not influence them because they are only affected by the electron motions and its resultant magnetic field.

If you are familiar with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly, the redshifts are a product of the source 'energy' radiations and not affected by the space.
The higher redshift objects that are the quasars, are radiating at higher temperatures than the accompaning galaxies. So that can be the only reason for the discordant redshifts.

NS

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by New Science

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

How do you reach this conclusion? Cosmic expansion does not happen around the earth, but in intergalactic space, so MM would not be able to measure it. I fail to see how the ether theory has any impact on cosmic expansion.

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy (molecular) at its edges. This matter content then is a closed system.

The edges of what?

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles. The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

How is this decay proven? If we live in an eternal universe, then this surely can be observed somewhere?

How does the Steady State theory explain the observed *acceleration* of the cosmic expansion?

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by New Science

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.

Light waves expanding? What does this mean?

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.

This bit is in disagreement of an earlier statement of your post:

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.

Had the universe been infinitely old, the heat distribution would have been complete.

You could argue that this heat is a result of the equilibrium resulting from continuous radiation. (As Prevost's claims were in 1792) However, the presence of an infinite space would allow all the heat to be radiated into this infinite space, provided infinite time.

And then, the second law of thermodynamics comes here. Since it states that the entropy of a closed system can only increase, and given that the universe has no 'surrounding' to interact with (i.e. it's a closed system), it's entropy can only increase with time. Tis suggests that given infinite time, there should be infinite disorder.

How is it that we do not observe infinite disorder?

This should suggest strongly that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Tormod

How do you reach this conclusion? MM would not be able to measure it. I fail to see how the ether theory has any impact on cosmic expansion.

In the earlier years before Planck, the existence of an ether was believed to be the carrier of the light waves. This ether permeated space and space was then considered to be the carrier of light waves.
Charged particles like the electron are surrounded by EM fields that carry the photons through space. Since these fields were moving with the M-M experiment, space had no effect regardless of which direction the Earth was moving.

The edges of what?

The edges of the matter universe. Space continues on to infinity.

How is this decay proven? If we live in an eternal universe, then this surely can be observed somewhere?

Since the expansion of the light waves takes billions of years to expand to oblivion, this would be difficult to prove.
The HDFN showed a deep penetration into space where redshifts of 6+ have been detected.
I measured those tiny 'specks' in that field and determined that they were about 25-30 billion light years deep beyond the BB age.
I figured that if M87 was reduced to the size of those specks at 'one are second', it would be at that distance.
Over that 30 billion ly stretch, you have a range of 6+, so this would the be a redshift of one over a stretch of about 4-5 billion lys.

How does the Steady State theory explain the observed *acceleration* of the cosmic expansion?

I do not give much credibility to those SN 1a's as distance candles.
Those SN 1as are supposed to be the result of white dwarf stars exploding after an accumulated mass of 1.44 SM's.
WDs come in a variety of sizes and temperatures. So they would accumulate different amounts of hydrogen gases and since they also are at temperatures that vary from 3000K to over 100,000K, they would also explode at different mass levels. That 1.44 SM level may be just an average for the explosions.

NS

[Tormod]

You fail to provide any sources we can use to check your assumptions.

Like this:

Originally Posted by New Science

I measured those tiny 'specks' in that field and determined that they were about 25-30 billion light years deep beyond the BB age.

How?

And this:

Originally Posted by New Science

Those SN 1as are supposed to be the result of white dwarf stars exploding after an accumulated mass of 1.44 SM's.

Fine. There is much more to be said about them.

Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

Light waves expanding? What does this mean?

The 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cosmological redshift is more easily proven than the expansion of space' as the cause.
EM fields in laboratory experiments show expansion between the electric charges and the magnetic poles.
The M-M experiment proves that space cannot be the cause of the CRS.
The EM fields that carry the photons are moving with the experiment.
So no spatial influence was detected.
The Arp redshift aomaly is explained by the EoLW's whereas, the BBU just refutes it.

This bit is in disagreement of an earlier statement of your post:Had the universe been infinitely old, the heat distribution would have been complete.

The variation in temperature of the CMBR is just 7/100,000 of a Kelvin.
Seems to me like this is a very uniform temperature.
In a short lived BBU, this uniformity could not be that equal.

You could argue that this heat is a result of the equilibrium resulting from continuous radiation. (As Prevost's claims were in 1792) However, the presence of an infinite space would allow all the heat to be radiated into this infinite space, provided infinite time.

In a SSU, very little heat would be radiated into space . the creation of new stars and subsequent photons would be enough to balance this out.

And then, the second law of thermodynamics comes here. Since it states that the entropy of a closed system can only increase, and given that the universe has no 'surrounding' to interact with (i.e. it's a closed system), it's entropy can only increase with time. Tis suggests that given infinite time, there should be infinite disorder.

I do not know what kind of disorder you are talking about? Experiments have been done that works just the opposite. In a closed system, the temperatures and pressures will reach equalibrium as the law states.
Seems to me like this creates order rather than disorder.

Entropy is a complex system of different types and the 2nd law of thermal equalization is the easiest to understand.

How is it that we do not observe infinite disorder?

What kind of disorder are you referring to?
There are a variety of different structures and some rare collisions. Other than that, the universe seems to be orderly.

This should suggest strongly that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

I think otherwise.

NS

[coldcreation]

Hello New Science,

I'm a little confused. When you refer to Steady State Universe do you refer to the theory authored by Bondy, Hoyle and Gold? If so, do you adhere to the pre-QSSC version of it. If not why not simply call it QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology)? Note that the original Steady State theory was modified by Hoyle et al to include a new creation mechanism, along with several other features that were changed.

Or perhaps Steady State Universe is entierly something else, with no expansion or contractions. If that is the case why even call it Steady State? Why not just call it a stationary model, or static universe, one that is nonexpanding, or something else entirely?


Thanks in advance for a clarification.

CC

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Hello New Science,

I'm a little confused. When you refer to Steady State Universe do you refer to the theory authored by Bondy, Hoyle and Gold? If so, do you adhere to the pre-QSSC version of it. If not why not simply call it QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology)? Note that the original Steady State theory was modified by Hoyle et al to include a new creation mechanism, along with several other features that were changed.

Or perhaps Steady State Universe is entierly something else, with no expansion or contractions. If that is the case why even call it Steady State? Why not just call it a stationary model, or static universe, one that is nonexpanding, or something else entirely?


Thanks in advance for a clarification.

CC

My SSU is based on a Euclidean flat space that refutes the BBU.

The Hoyle, Gold and Bondy SS was partly right until they introduced the 'creation of matter' idea. They apparently accepted the 'expansion of space' that I completely refute.

Static universe makes a person think their is no movement that just is not definitive enough.
My SS is used that way because the internal components like galaxies, stars and photons are recycling to maintain and comply to the Conservation Laws and especially matter.

I will continue posting new data when questions arise.

NS