I once heard a Unitarian minister say Unitarianism is for people who haven't kicked the church habit.
The Big Bang is for people who haven't kicked the faith habit.
It has preachers. They make claims. They spend billions of taxpayers' money looking for evidence and publish press releases claiming to have found it. The only peer reviews their claims get are by their fellow preachers.
And they have their faithful, who have yet to kick their faith habit.
If there is a faith gene I'm one of thousands who don't have it. Many of us studied electrical engineering.
The Big Bang will become history when Congress stops spending taxpayer money on it.
Forty five years ago I was one of many who helped stop the flow of taxpayers' money to those who wanted to dam rivers. It was a struggle.
Jotham, Chapter 1, regarding red shift.
A search on ‘red shift controversy’ found relevant info.
Searches on ‘red shift _____’ found info consistent with the Bang.
Hubble expressed doubt that red shift measured velocity but others ignored his doubt. Data from NASA space missions support a ‘red shift measures age’ hypothesis.
Chapters 2-4 will follow.
Jotham, Chapter 2. atomic makeup signature
Unless this refers to analyzing molecules to determine their origins, I don't know what it is.
They claim that the further you look out in space, the great the ratio of light atoms to heavier atoms is found in galaxies.
Jotham, Big Bangers make many claims for which they offer no evidence—such as black holes, neutron stars, inflation, and more. The reason? They find evidence not in the universe but in their mathematics.
Is their ratio of light to heavier atoms another unevidenced claim?
If I may put words in their mouths, “Damn universe! It’s not obeying my math!”
As I mentioned before, Light atoms make up the vast majority of our own solar system. Looking at things from a distance, more and more of the minority portions become unnoticeable as they are overpowered by the light from the main portion of the object. So the atomic ratios assumption doesn't work since we can't "ground truth" it.
And yeah, making mathematical calculations from presuppositions doesn't work for evidence.
Jotham, Chapter 3, background radiation.
Big Bangers are champions at persuading people to repeat their unevidenced claims.
Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, in their The Electric Universe (pp 14-15) cite the efforts of many researchers to estimate the background temperature. They report, “In fact, the proponents of the Big Bang had made the worst predictions.”
They conclude their article with “The CMBR is simply the ‘hum’ of the galactic power lines in the vicinity of our solar system.”
Who hasn’t heard electric power lines humming?
The main trouble I have with the background radiation thing is that the big bang theory was already formulated and the radiation was an accidental discovery. They made up the "residual radiation" idea to make another "evidence" for the big bang. It wasn't something they had predicted and was looking for.
Jotham, Chapter 4, less organized galaxies further away.
I’ve seen nothing on this subject.
Two issues I have been thinking about WRT the big bang.
If their description is correct, the whole fabric of space is expanding. That means that the wavelength and speed of light is also expanding. Therefore, ancient light waves should be compressed and therefore blue shifted, not red shifted
2nd. They calculate the universe at 13.8 billion years old. But if the speed of light is changing, in 1 billion years, take the measurements and do the calculations, you'll get 13.8 billion years. If you did the calculation when the universe was the size of a basket ball, you would still get 13.8 billion years.
Jotham, science requires evidence.
They have no evidence that space is expanding. They have a religion and don’t require evidence.
That fabric is a poor metaphor doesn’t matter.