A major contender which challenges the Big Bang Theory.
18 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 11 previous comments
- No but I see more relativity in the steady state Theory so far. Whose to say that quasars aren't the baby stages of gravitational waves? There are just too many unanswered questions with the steady state Theory to ditch it because we have seen more of the Big Bang Theory. Maybe the steady Theory finishes the the Bang Theory. You don't just stop the research.Mar 30, 2016
- Rhys TaylorOwnerI'm not sure Steady State theory has ever made a single successful prediction. It was a good idea at the time, but it's proven to be wrong. You don't keep researching disproven ideas - that would be like researching the Flat Earth.
What unanswered questions do you think there are ?Mar 30, 2016
- I believe in the future scientists will be researching the steady Theory again. It didn't pop up for no reason. Someone just hasn't found the link. :-)Mar 30, 2016
- "Here's a question. The earth was supposed to made by asteroids"
Present day asteroids are diverse. But are probably very different from protoplanetesimals - for a start the present solar neighborhood is seriously absent of volatiles - which is not thought to be the case around young stars. So one cannot make an Earth by smacking a bunch of Ceres or Eros or Vestas together.
>.under that theory the same kind of rocks tour the Goldilocks zone together like a married couple
Objects don't collide if they have the same orbital parameters. The early solar system was a more chaotic place - objects (many ice rich) in a variety of orbits, with radically higher cross-sections for collision than the present day. Collisions weed out the riskier objects, gas drag removes grains, and 3-body interactions allow capture.
None of that is going on today.
The isotopic signature of the O16/O18 in Earth's water has been suggested by some to indicate an unusual origin for our lighter volatiles - namely the Kuiper belt, home of the long-period comets. One certainly wouldn't get what we have from local asteroids. And protoplanetesimals probably aren't the full answer either - one might need objects that have very large orbital periods in order to explain the volatiles we have.
And none of this has anything to do with the Big Bang or the Steady State hypothesis.
>Hmmm that sounds like your imagination >overrunning your common sense to me.
All of the above holds up quite well when examined both analytically and numerically.
>Please explain how this works.
Planetary formation? There are whole conferences devoted to nothing but - a search at the NASA ADS repository reveals half a million (586745) papers with "planetary formation" in their abstract.
I can recommend a few text books as a primer, if you like.
>We are finding other planets like ours in an >effort of colonization aren't we?
All the extrasolar planets that we know about are Very Far Away. They are studied for science - to understand how things work. There are no viable methods we know of for sending people to them in anything other than geologic spans of time.
(Starwisp takes decades to get to Epsilon Eridani and delivers something as massive as a stout briefcase: for a good few GUSD)Mar 30, 2016
- Rhys TaylorOwner+2Classical Steady State theory really is as dead as the dodo. The whole point of it was that the Universe is not evolving with time. This was a valid idea in the 1950's, but we now know with 100% certainty that that isn't the case. No observations will ever disprove this. It's like saying that one day we will find the edge of the Earth if we just keep looking a bit harder.
Where there is considerably more wiggle-room is the idea that the Universe hasn't always been as we see it today, but is still infinitely old (and perhaps infinitely large as well). It's possible that the Universe is in some way cyclic, with many Big Bangs. That's a much harder idea to prove/disprove. At present there's no reason to think this is likely to be the case. But this is very different from the original Steady State theory.Mar 30, 2016
- It's pretty obvious that when even Einstein worked on, and then dropped the steady state idea, there was a good reason.
Unpublished papers, estimated from around 1931 were found decades later, with fundamental mathematical errors.
Seems he knew all too well before people like Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold embarrassingly paraded the theory in vain.Mar 30, 2016