Good talking to you, have a nice day.

@Firefly This is an attempted rescue of the Steady State theory, suggesting that as galaxies moved apart, the idea was that new galaxies would form from matter that was supposed to be continually being created throughout space. Observations have shown more faint sources than predicted, indicating that the density sources were higher in the past. This was contrary to the basic assumption of the Steady State theory, that everything was constant in time. The Cambridge radio astronomy group did a survey of weak radio sources. These were distributed fairly uniformly across the sky, indicating that most of the sources lay outside our galaxy. The weaker sources would be further away, on average. However. observation shows a more faint sources than predicted, indicating that the density sources were higher in the past. This was contrary to the basic assumption presented here.

This reads like an undergraduate paper.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs66Jb378wc

@Deleted User Its translated from Chinese.

@Deleted User I'm not sure if you disproved even this paper.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/

I can bring on them all night.

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/specialissue/specialissueinfo?journalid=122&specialissueid=122019

Cosmological Big Bang model is insufficient to explain appearance of energy at the time of the beginning which is not in accord with the first law of thermodynamics. Today is generally accepted in astronomy that “red shift” has gravitational origin which puts under the question expansion of the universe. On the other side NASA confirms that universal space has a shape of Euclidean space which is infinite. Something that is infinite cannot expand. Recent time research confirms universe does not exist in time which is merely a mathematical parameter of universal changes. These discoveries require careful checking foundations of Big Bang model which seems has no fundaments to remain a leading cosmological model of today physics.

This is nothing really to disprove. The first half is trying to shit on Big Bang (it's not perfect), then it introduces Dirac's Quantum Mechanics and tries to say that the negative pressure in space could be much greater than predicted, to try and explain away the problem that density appears higher in the past. Now they want to say that new galaxies are not created, but established galaxies just get bigger. That's a nice idea but there is no observations of this. Strangely they refer to Earth geology to be an analogy for galaxies.

In the Chinese paper.

@Deleted User What about the last paper with the director of physics institute in Slovenia telling you the same?

IFLScience is clickbait.

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.html

Bijective epistemology based on bijective function of set theory fulfils Einstein’s vision about completeness of a given scientific model which requires that each element of a model has exactly one counterpart in the universe. Application of bijective epistemology in cosmology suggests that universe is a non-created system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. Man is born and he dies. He thinks the same about universe. Our paper shows this "birth-death" approach is not applicable on the universe. Universe is a non created system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, where time is merely a mathematical parameter of material changes.

Are you sure big bang theory is the only and holy?

Yes yes.

Hello.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Would you trust more to the catholic priest?

I never said BBT was holy. You keep bring it up.

Also Bijective epistemology does not say there was never a big bang, it says that energy is non-created.

Holy shit, communists. Run for the bomb shelter Davie!

I want to find out the truth. If it is one of the theories and it might be false why do you say it disproved the rest?

I always stated this in the context of the observed expansion of the universe, with theories explaining this. I never meant all theories ever about physics.

I actually agree with the above paper.

Where it says "time is merely a mathematical parameter of material changes" is true.

"Cosmological Big Bang model is insufficient to explain appearance of energy at the time of the beginning which is not in accord with the first law of thermodynamics" is also true.

@Deleted User I think there can be a billion of things we do not know about the expansion from the single point. I think we do not know. You said it disproves other theories. I would like to see how it disproves paper above.

I think this is a misunderstanding. These scientists (http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.html) are not saying that the expansion of the universe didn't happen. They are saying that the Big Bang theory alone does not explain the beginning of the universe. That seems fully reasonable to me. This paper acknowledged that at one point time had a beginning.

The question is, what did the quantum potentials do in order for time to begin? How do they actualise without motion?

The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. This model of the universe has much more epistemological stability than all other models which predict beginning of the universe. Idea of the beginning comes out of human imagination that universe exists in some linear time which is physical reality. Our research confirms time we measure with clocks has only a mathematical existence; it is a numerical order of changes running in quantum vacuum. Past, present and future belong to the psychological time in which we experience flow of changes running in quantum vacuum where is always NOW

**The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. **

There might be a misunderstanding, yes. 😄

9 seats left in the UK elections right now

I agree. But being eternal does not mean it is eternally in motion. Interestingly, this paper argues that time is not a characteristic of the universe and only exists in mathematical abstraction. It says "motion requires the re-reading of some experimental data" due to time being the mathematical parameter of change. Notice how it says time is not a physical dimension of the universe, not motion.

He who stands on toilet, is high on pot. - Cannafucius

@Deleted User I think time is an abstract concept as well. Proriv thinks time is universal and material.

It is actually a topic where everybody disagree.

But I do not fanatically follow catholic priest and judaist tradition because it was made popular.