>>> However, in those steady-state theories, new matter was gradually created "out of thin air", and the Universe maintained its general aspect. In other words, it could continue indefinitely into the past and future, without major changes in its aspect.
>>>
>>>Today, the steady-state theories are no longer popular, because of the observational evidence that in the past, the Universe was indeed different from today. Quasars and active radio galaxies mainly appear at large distances, i.e., in the distant past.
>>
>>Assuming quasars are correctly understood.
>
>Did you do any reading on quasars? I think you should. For the purpose of this thread, it doesn't really matter whether quasars have a gigantic black hole at the center or not; the point is, most quasars appear at a great distance, and therefore, in the distant past. There are also other indications that in the distant past, the Universe was different from now.


Such as?

It seems to me the latest telescopes have observed that the Universe is too big and too old for the big bang model, and thus added an inflationary period to explain why it isn't as different now as it was then.

It also seems to me that the next round of observation technology will reveal one of two things:

1. The big bang + inflation model fits perfectly with its current parameters

or

2. Once again we observe a Universe too old and too large for the big bang

It seems to me the mainstream of science will just adjust the parameters and keep going on.

I think we should have already abandoned the theory.


>For that matter, you should also do some reading on some other theories you are so quick to discard - the nature of quasars, black holes, stellar evolution, the speed of light, Thermodynamics and Entropy, etc.

I'm not discarding them.

But their domain of applicability is not limitless.

Newtonian physics works really well.

But it has limits, particularly when things get moving really fast or are really really small.

I think it is most likely true that all theories are going to have limits to their applicability.


>A scientific theory should try to fit observational evidence, not just discard any observations lightly as you are doing.

"Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
-- Einstein

I think you are unfairly characterizing my position.

I'm not discarding any observations.

Our current theories of space, time, and light decide what we observe.

Since light travels at c for infinity, so the theory says, the delay in light traveling across the cosmos must be caused by the light encountering extra space.

On the other hand, if light didn't travel at c for infinity, but slowed down and died out, we would observe the same delay without extra space, which is of course observed as Hubble redshift, often cited as the corner stone observational evidence behind the big bang.

If the range of light was finite, the amount of space and matter we observed would be finite too, and it is.

And I don't think the nature of quasars is as "solidly" understood as you make it sound.


> You are very quick to discard scientific theories based on a solid foundation, including observations of distant regions of the Universe (quasars and others), the laws of Thermodynamics, and knowledge about the nature of light. All this, without any particular reason.

I think the mainstream consensus is that until there is an experimentally validated theory of quantum gravity, all options should be examined, even radical departures from our current mindset.



> Of course, things might be different than they seem, but scientific theories should have some basis. It almost seems as if you are not trying to describe the Universe as it is (since this should take into account observational evidence), but as it should be, according to you.

I've believed in the big bang my whole life, up until recent years.

I questioned it just for fun, and came up with a pretty damn good alternative unexpectedly.