Everyone has the right to wonder about the origin of the cosmic background radiation. And so astronomers have wondered, too. Many alternative models to a hot, dense, virtually perfectly homogenous universe have been put to the test against observations of nature, and all come back wanting. Here are several examples, including those discussed in this thread.

a refutation of somebody's idea about the origin of the CBR:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html

a refutation of tired light (whatever the cause) - straight from the data:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Can the CBR be redshifted starlight? Nope:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html

a discussion of errors in the SS and QSS models (including those related to the CBR):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Any scientific model makes predictions about the way nature behaves (among other things). If we observe nature and it does not behave at all in the way predicted, then the model either needs refinement or to be thrown into the trash heap (once the data are numerous and strong enough, that is).

Hope this helps.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 09:54 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 09:59 ]</font>