Le 31/07/2017 Ã* 23:16, Richard D. Saam a écrit :
Assuming physical chemistry reaction rate theory:

Big bang theory assumes a more concentrated universe with increasing
distance. At the "bang" the concentration should have been infinite.

Can we extrapolate from the realm of atoms (physical chemistry) to galaxies?

OK, let's assume that.

What is time?

Isn't time measured with reaction speeds? If what you imply is true,
time was going faster then, slower now. Galaxies formed faster because
time was "faster" as space was smaller since the concentration increases
as we go farther and farther back.

The images of lensed galaxies look quite the same as our galaxies, and
astronomers have been able to detect their star formaing regions, that
have the same size as ours in our galaxy.

Question is?

Is space really "expanding" ?

If we find quite similar objects so far back in the past, isn't that a
proof that space and time are not moving?

That the concentration has stayed fairly constant and that those
galaxies are simply far away galaxies like ours?

I think that the "bang" theory could be saved by an argumentation like
yours: the concentration of mass was bigger since space (the universe)
was smaller then.

What bugs me is the absence of any observational support for that. To
the contrary, we find objects that look remarkably similar to objects
existing today.

Galaxies should look completely different when built in a flush and they
don't.

Question:

Suppose a gargantuan cloud of hydrogen gas (40-50 Giga ly across) at 2.7
degrees K.

And a planet with some astronomers in it somewhere. Wouldn't the
background emission of all that gas mimick the CMB?