Produce a link to such a site. I’m more than happy to listen.
And I note that your answer doesn’t address what I said, which is: send your theory to reputable astronomers and see what they say. If you are asserting you don’t need to because they already accept it, then produce the backing of such astronomers.
You see, this site is about more than just stating, “I say X is true.” It’s about establishing that to the satisfaction of others, which is most easily done by producing evidence that what you say is accepted to be true.
Everything you say indicates otherwise. Most of us here don’t need to go to Wikipedia to come up with a rough figure of 400 years for the history of telescopic astronomy; we were already familiar with Galileo Galilei and the hundreds of astronomers and physicists since, many of them geniuses, who devoted their entire careers to considering such questions as the one occupying this thread.
Oh, look. You drove away a newbie. Good job. :rolleyes:
I’ve been thinking about the argument that the universe must have a time-finite past due to the lack of a perfectly white sky, & I’m not convinced.
A. There is a lot of non-fusing, non-luminous mass out there. Admittedly, what we know of is not completely dark, just dark in the “visible light” range. Even a cold rock will emit black-body radiation in the longer wavelengths, but it’s non-luminous to our eyes, with their narrow range of response.
B. Sufficient non-luminous mass could obscure distant luminous mass. Think of a forest. While I can see past the near trees, eventually I can’t see my way out of the woods. Ultimately any given piece of non-luminous mass is being illuminated by a finite amount of luminous mass at any given time.
C. A mass being illuminated by a finite number of stars over an infinite period of time has two choices: It will heat to a point of equilibrium, where its own black-body radiation cancels out its heat gain from starlight; or it will eventually disintegrate on a sub-nuclear level. I suspect the point of equilibrium temperature for the universal average is somewhere below white-hot.
D. There are such things as endothermic processes, you know.
To claim that the universe, given infinite time, would eventually heat all mass within it to white-hot, demonstrates a wildly contrarian take on thermodynamics.
When the sun goes down, there ain’t enough energy to irradiate the hydrogen in our atmosphere to give us a “blue sky”.
Now, I’ve never been south of the equator, so I can’t say for myself; But I once asked a physicist if the whorl of a drain reverses at the equator. He said, “No we live on a ball, all physical properties are the same no matter where you stand”.
I’m a practical guy. Anybody have science or experience to answer the whorl question?
That’s the coriolis effect. On the scale of a small drain, it’s overwhelmed by any number of other effects, like irregularities in the drain’s structure. But it does set a norm for weather patterns, & since it’s based on relation to the equator & the poles, those weather patterns do spin different ways in the different hemispheres.