Every cosmology predicts a cosmic microwave background, CMB blackbody radiation: those of QSSC, Halton Arp, I. E. Segal, Plasma cosmology, Nernst, MacMillan, Millikin, and so on.

All of these theories predict a nonzero thermal spectrum (since a universe with a zero absolute temperature is impossible; even in an empty universe there still resides ZPE, ZPF, etc., thus kinetic heat).

The supposition that the CMB is a relic of a hot dense state has been problematic since the 1960's.

The CMB is neverthless one of the mighty pillars used to support the standard model, (along with redshift z due to a time-dependent scale factor to the metric, and primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements).

My contention is that the case for this is not at all sound.

Fred Hoyle had this to say:

Claims that the CMB is proof of a hot event are inpired and cannot be disassociated from the staging__be it though creative resolve or wishful thinking__of the modern cosmology revolution. The official Nobel accreditations demonstrates the essential theatrical nature of the development.

The observed CMB, a perfect blackbody spectrum at a radiation temperature in intergalactic space of 2.726 K, is not a remnant of a hot creation event. The CMB was produced by stellar means (hydrogen burning stars, supernovae) over a time span of approximately 100 billion years, or more. (Burbidge, Hoyle, 1998, ApJ, 509 L1-L3)

Coldcreation

Fred Hoyle was cool.

CC

Here are a couple of sites I found. There are certainly many more. If anyone has a good link please post it here for a discussion of one of the major tenets, The Holly Grail of BB cosmology, the twilight's last gleaming, the dawn's early light, the bow wow of Fire-dog, the hiss of guano, an instant replay of the opening kickoff, and as S. Hawking wrote of the CMB; the handwriting of God...the greatest discovery of the century, if not of all time:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph.11036N

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/c...1858984&ss=exc

Coldcreation

Hi, Coldcreation. I'm still waiting for the thread you promised a week ago, on December 26th. You know, the one where you said you will show how your preferred model quantitatively agrees with the data.

Do all of these "cosmologies" also explain all the evidence associated with the CMBR I listed in another thread? (SZ-effect, changing temperature, power spectrum etc. etc. etc. - you probably remember that)


I suppose that ZPE means zero-point energy, and ZPF zero-point force? Well, the second has nothing to do with "kinetic heat" (since a force is not an energy!), and the first occurs even at temperature zero, so it also has nothing to do with "kinetic heat" and "a nonzero thermal spectrum".


Why do most cosmologists think otherwise? Are they too dumb to see "the truth", are they caught in an "old paradigma", do they fear to lose their jobs if they speak out, or what?


Well, present a model which can explain all the available data (not just the few things you mention here), quantitatively. As long as you don't do that, your "contention" has little value.


Hoyle seems to say that because the BBT can not predict the temperature of the CMBR from first principles (i. e. without making some measurements of cosmological parameters first), it does not explain the CMBR. That argument is totally nonsensical.


Sorry, I do not have access to that journal. Do Hoyle et al. address in that article all the points of evidence I already mentioned?

__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

This is a big ATM issue. The hot Big Bang is still advocated by must blue shirts AFAIK. Me being a red shirt I have no trouble with a cold "big burst" .

But I was wondering why you use the time span of approximately 100 billion years, or more. It would appear that you are not only questioning the cause of the CMBR, but that you question the age of "our" expanding universe too.

Do you have any argument for why you say "our" universe is 100 billion years old instead of 13.7 billion?

No, it is critical. If first principles, if the time period and size of the universe that we observe were consistent with expansion using the mechanisms proposed in the 1960's, the background temperature would still be a keystone observation. But the universe is much too large and too old to fit a first principles argument. An ad hoc parametric - the inflationary event - had to be added to 'explain' the age, size, and structure; disassociating the theory from first principles.

As far as the fine structure argument goes, the most obvious fine structure is the galactic contamination, followed by directional flow and axial orientation along the zodiac. None of these features are likely cosmic. Inferences that lesser anisotrophys - polarization, ect., are consistent with models require a lot of faith in a lot of parametric juggling.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

You might be taken more seriously if you avoid such blanket statements, particularly your use of the word "every", which makes this statement patently false. You could just as easily and more accurately say, "All of the following cosmologies predict a CMB...."

False.

Please explain in detail how the combined radiation of billions of individual, separate "hydrogen burning stars, supernovae" can produce a perfect blackbody spectrum like the one that is observed. If you cannot, then your above statement is completely baseless.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Cool?
Hoyle made some significant contributions to the field, but I think if you were counting, you would find that he was more often just flat out wrong than correct in his views.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This is silly. If redshifted quasars are physically related to non-redshifted galaxies as Hoyle and Burbidge proposed, the quasars MUST be intrinsically redshifted and none of them blueshifted and that is what we observe...although if H&B's theory is correct, the LOWEST redshifts observed in quasers should be found in association with blueshifted galaxies, and this could be tested.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

Well, except that the apparent magnitude of the quasars they claim to be associated with the nearby galaxies is pretty dim, and the redshift of the 'associated' quasars is a fairly diverse set of redshifts out to z>4. By the time we start looking at galaxies with z>2 (where you *might* get a statistically significant difference in surrounding redshifts) the galaxy apparent magnitude is already dim, and the quasars would be invisible to our current equipment (if the H&B model is correct).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

My question about the age of the universe mentioned in the OP went unanswered and so I guess Coldcreation might have gotten cold feet, lol. Just kidding Cold, I know you will respond when you get time.

Coldcreation brought it up, so let's discuss it here instead of starting a new thread.

This is a subject that I predict will start to get more interest here at BAUT ATM.

I say that for two reasons. 1) Because the CMBR has traditionally been considered the result of cooling from a 50 billion degree plus "implied" Big Bang event. The cooling was greatly assisted by exponential expansion at superluminal speeds in the first 10^-23 seconds, give or take a nanosecond . Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except:
Where did the 50 billion degrees heat come from?
How much matter would be required to cause that heat under pressure?
Would the amount of matter required to produce that heat be equivalent to all the matter in our expanding universe; compressed to a tiny point of near infinite density? Maybe so.
Under what circumstances could such pressure compress that much matter?
How could all of that spring forth from nothing, nowhere, and when time didn't even exist? It couldn't.

2) This idea came up in my slow and cumbersome bottom up approach to cosmology. I am glad to see that a cold environment instead of a hot bang has gotten some interest outside of my musty basement.

And there are a great many other tests, (one of which antoniseb outlined), and most (all?) of which the H&B idea failed ... unless, of course, you wish to show, in quantitative detail, that the great deal of high-quality observational data is, in fact, consistent?

If you do, my nomination for a place to start is lensed quasars (and remember, this challenge, to the ATM idea on the table, is quantitative).

So unless there is someone willing to step forward and defend the H&B cosmology - quantitatively - let's have Cold Creation continue to present his ATM cosmology ideas, preferrably quantitatively, so other BAUT members can challenge them ...

Apropos of which, how does your ATM idea differ from those of Hoyle and Burbidge, Cold Creation?

Pretty cool indeed, I mean the CMB. At only 2.7 K, that energy permeating the universe may be no more than the answer to Olber's Paradox. This is what shines down to us in Kelvin from all directions and from zillions of light years away, way below the visible or infrared, energies spewed out by zillions of stars and galaxies in all directions. CMB does not of necessity have to be a left over energy from a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; it could be left over energy from all star generated energy everywhere, regardless of whether or not the universe was born out of nothing 13.7 billions years ago, or ever. What's left over today is 2.7 Kelvin, in all directions of space. Why make a big deal out of it? Olber, and Hoyle, would have been proud, if so.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

The OP seems to be proposing that the CMBR was caused by the first round of hydrogen stars. Now though I questioned the 100 billion time frame for that, I still think the tread is a CMBR thread.



Nereid, you seem to be pointing this thread toward the red shift issue. Who can refute the red shift? Let's just go home.

Now if this isn’t a CMBR thread or if it is necessary out of protocol that Coldcreation stand up and take all questions I’ll just leave it at that.
Otherwise my question stands:

I am going to disagree here. To begin with, none of the alternative cosmologies literally "predicted" a thermal background. Only big bang cosmology did that. A cosmic thermal background is a necessary consequence of all big bang models. On the other hand, most (maybe even all) of the alternative cosmologies can be made to produce thermal backgrounds, some more easily than others. But in all of those cases the thermal background is an exceptional acident, with "thermal" being a special case of "background", which has to be contrived. So a thermal background favors big bang cosmology because "thermal" is the rule, rather then the exception, only in big bang cosmology.

I don't know what that reference is, but I don't think that claim can be supported. Arthur Eddington addressed this issue back in 1926: The Internal Constitution of the Stars, chapter 13, Diffuse Matter in Space, where the first section title is The Temperature of Space. Eddington properly points out that the energy density of the stars would have an effective temperature of about 3.18 Kelvins, from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, but would not have a Planck Law spectrum, as required for any true "thermal" source.

In current mainstream (big bang) cosmology, it is the cosmic infrared background which represents the light from the first generation of stars.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

What exactly do you mean with the "size" of the universe? AFAIK, measurements seem to suggest that it is infinitely large.