The Big Bang Doesn't Deserve Your Faith. It Also Doesn't Deserve Your Tax Money.

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.

Views: 742

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Joan, Hubble thought critically about red shift.

Here are his words in the 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices:
“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.
“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“

Georges LeMaitre, a Catholic priest who'd studied mathematics, saw Hubble's first "If...." statement and knew that if he wrote equations based on time:
1. he could compute forward and predict where galaxies would be, or
2. he could compute backward and know where galaxies had been,

Wanting to support Catholicism's view of Genesis, he ignored Hubble's second "...if...." statement, computed backward and said the entire universe had once been very small.

Fundamentalist Christians in the early 1900s wanted to attack science so they could discredit Darwin and natural selection. They too saw LeMaitre's math as proof of Genesis.

Many astronomers disagreed with LeMaitre but knew that if they opposed him, they would also have to oppose millions of Christians. They wanted to do astronomy.

They left it to us to take on the Christians and some people who say they are atheists.

I am not a physical scientist but a behavioral scientist. I don't understand electricity and am grateful that others are. Yes, I believe the Big Bang Theory and am open to any evidence I can understand. I suppose I would have been a flat Earth proponent if I lived during the early Middle Ages, I am not sure I would accept the round Earth idea until much later in our evolution.

I like the idea of being skeptical about the Big Bang Theory, that is why it is called a theory.  

I have my, simpler, alternative explanations for the evidence they give for the big bang.

I though of why distant galaxies show more hydrogen/ helium mixture than closer galaxies today.

Just waiting to see if someone would chime in and give any alternatives to the big bang themselves.

Seriously dude, what are you smoking?

Jotham, I enjoy finding out how people respond to their own words. You of course may find out how I respond to mine.

I’ve seen mentions of alternatives other than the big bang (BB) and the electric universe (EU). The BB has taxpayer funding but appears to lack evidence. The EU lacks funding but appears to have evidence. The others, including the ancient myths, have First Amendment protection and in time might have funding or evidence or both.

No, I can't give any alternative, but am reading all I can find. 

Joan, is what you’re reading helpful, or is there more math and physics than you want?

With your knowledge of and experience with humankind, you might enjoy the series of mostly short (~six to 12 minutes) youtube clips titled “discourses on an alien sky”.

They describe events in human history that resulted in ancient cave drawings, in more recent works of art, or in some of the stories told by the founders of religions.

For instance, how did the planets Mars and Venus come to be associated with men and women, or war and peace.

To view them, go to www.youtube.com and enter the above title in the search bar.

Or, Joan, if biology is one of your interests, go to www.youtube.com and in its search bar enter “electricity of life”.

You will see most of the titles of a series of short videos about the research into the vital part that electricity plays in our lives. For instance, the signals that travel our nerve cells and make life possible. One of these selections is a playlist of all of the titles.

Only weird people, like we who enjoy math or physics, wouldn’t enjoy the stories these videos tell.

Joan, here's some goddess info from the folks at Thunderbolts:

We have now completed “Discourses on an Alien Sky #33: The Prehistoric Mother Goddess.” The episode explores the prehistoric origins of the mother goddess image in a spectacular gathering of planets close to Earth. Among just five visible planets today, why did early cultures the world over glorify ONLY Venus as a goddess? Since the beginnings of astronomy, no one working with common opinion ever answered that question. But we intend to offer a convincing answer as this series develops while addressing many other questions as well.

I'm going to have to check out the EU theory

I don't claim to know where the universe came from. I say, it makes sense to assume the universe always was. Because if you find the beginning, the question comes up, "What was before?" And since the "Universe" is the sum of all that exists, if there was a before, then you haven't found the beginning.

With respect to the big bang, you must take several things on faith.

The red shift - You must believe there is nothing to cause the red shift but the Doppler effect.

Here on earth, we know red sun rises and sun sets, as well as red shift in distant lights is due to the filtering of light more efficiently as it approaches the blue end of the spectrum.

We have observed massive dust clouds in space

There are space particles of all sizes entering earths atmosphere very frequently.

Those three facts, show that red shift in starlight is most likely due the filtering of light.

Faith (believing in something despite evidence suggesting otherwise) is implied in the red shift interpretation 

 

Background radiation - assumed to be incoming from distant, opaque edge of the universe.

In keeping with the previous light filtering explanation for the red shift, space then becomes, not a vacuum but, an extremely thin gas/ dust cloud. Particles in said dust cloud would be moving extremely fast. Which means, they would be extremely hot. Because the gas is so thin, measuring temperature with traditional equipment would give you a very cold reading, but individual particles are hot. so, if you stack up enough space, you will get an opaque dome that registers high heat no matter where you test.

The interpretation fallacy, of course, once again comes from the faith assumption that space is empty.

element composition of further galaxies - assumed that readings show actual composition without being able to go there.
I don't know why they do this since we don't do it for earthly objects. We make a guess from aerial photos and then "ground truth" our guess.

Anyways, as objects become more and more distant, visual data is lost. We all know that.

Stars are nuclear fission reactors composed mostly of hydrogen and helium. As galaxies become more distant, less and less of the radiation from planetary bodies, comets, etc, will be seen through the overpowering radiation from the stars.

The difference in galaxies, of course, is suspect because I don't see why galaxies should be uniform anyway,

So my theory, while it can't be proven, makes more sense when we extrapolate from what we already know and can test.

And yeah, throwing the "what were you smoking back" at me goes like water on a ducks back because I use it jokingly but also to indicate I don't believe the claim is logical. 

Jotham, thanks for the read.

It does make sense for the universe to have always been there.

A red shift - Doppler analogue doesn’t make sense. Edwin Hubble later doubted it too.

EU folk say CMB radiation originates nearby.

Space an extremely thin ionized gas, aka electric plasma.

EU folk say stars are electrical and cooler inside than out.

There’s more, which includes:

“Impact craters” round, when many should be furrows?

Entire universe did not once occupy an infinitely dense, infinitely hot particle-sized space.

Comets, by themselves, wreck the Big Bang model.

Electricity in smaller amounts can do in labs what large amounts do in space.

Black holes, neutron stars, and much more are imaginary.

Faith in all its forms is essentially ignorance.

Where ordinary faith or  deep trust in another person, means they really don't know the person well enough to Know they will do what they told you they wold, I'd rather knowledge than faith there.

I don't have Faith in the Big Bang, I merely accept it as the most accepted of current origins theories for the universe, but all the other theories are all still valid, as we cannot invalidate any of them.

Religitards often attack me with: "You have faith your wife loves you, well don't you?"

To which my response is usually:  I have evidence that she loves me, so I have Knowledge, not Faith.

Yet Religious Faith is definitely deliberate ignorance on stilts.   :-D ~ 

      I merely accept [the BB] as the most accepted....

DD, I’m going to walk out onto a limb. Way out.

I’m ok with your not giving some thought to what the Bangers tell you. I’m also ok with your not asking them for evidence.

I’m not ok with its being a multi-billion dollar fraud.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service