Quote:
|
Originally Posted by m13_higgs
Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to take this one, but my question here is this: what about all the data gathered by WMAP? From the WMAP data we found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and lots of other beginning-supporting data. Also, it sees to me that Occam's Razor applies here when addressing the issues of Hubble expansion, and the CMB. It seems much simpler to me to conclude that the universe is expanding because of some kind of "explosion" or begging of some sort. The whole idea of rewinding the film to get a Big Bang is a lot more intuitive than some optical illusion. I just looked back at your post and saw that the Static model denies expansion. I believe that there is just too much evidence that makes just too much sense to justify turning to an alternative at this time.
|
The time of 13.7 billion years or so also features in static models. It corresponds to a cosmic recycling parameter. This parameter is given approximately by 1/H. As an example the rate of star formation in spiral galaxies as measured at low redshift can be calculated as
SFR = n* H,
where n* is the number of stars in the galaxy (see first link above). What it means is that it takes about 1/H seconds = 13 billion yrs for all the stars in a galaxy to be replaced by new ones. You can think of it as the same sort of cycling parameter that you would have for a forest of trees.
A second aspect to this is that the visible universe in the static model is given by c/H and the time it takes the radiation from that distance to reach us is again about 13 billion years. So, while I can't personally give you the specifics on why WMAP should give that precise value in a static model, I can't say it surprises me at all.