Still can't conceive of a source other than your pal, hum?
He states what I thought was that "dust particle theory" except he's talking about something else and references it (Lerner, E."The Big Bang Never Happened". New York: Vintage, 992, p.156.).
Amusing. Lerner, of course, doesn't agree with LaViolette's physics. But Lerner's model, which is of course the dust particle hypothesis, fails miserably to explain observations . It predicts that high-red-shift radio sources would be terrifically blurred by the absorptions and re-emissions. And there are several more problems; See
Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened": Lerner's model for the microwave background
He's making a case of course for an alternate explanation for the Microwave Background Radiation having some source other than the Big Bang. In his alternate theory matter and energy would be continously created in a universe which is cosmologically stationary. In that he references some similar ideas presented by others like Jeans and McCrea. (Jeans, J. Astrononmy and Cosmogony, Cambridge University Press, London, 1928, p. 352. and McCrea, W. H. "Continual creation." Mon Not. R. Astr. Soc. 128 (1964): 335-344.)
Nineteen freakin' Twenty Eight!!one!1eleventy-one! You're kidding, right? Almost 30 years before the CMB was discovered!
All the steady state theories were abandoned when the CMB was discovered. Expanding universe or non-expanding universe. Even Fred Hoyle gave it up.
So, sort of an explanation, but contradicted by the data.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
