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.
From Carl Sagan's 1980 book Cosmos, page 255 (before I return it to the library):
There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers that all may not be right with the deduction, from the red shift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding.
In 2017, the suspicion is more than merely nagging.
I've noticed that - not only is it nagging, it's carping too.
Bert, if a multi-billion dollar fraud is trivial, ignore it.
This is what I like about science. It is ready to challenge its dominant theory and look at the alternatives. It continually progresses.
But... the caveat is beware what you read on the internet!!! By doing a search I found this website: https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Nice and official-looking right? Not so fast. I next went to whois.com (https://www.whois.com/whois/big-bang-theory.com) to find out who has registered this domain name. Guess who?
Vangelis, for reading, www.newtoeu.com has a free PDF file you can download.
For viewing as well as reading, www.thunderbolts.info has a library of You Tube clips and feature-length videos.
I have more websites but most of them are on another computer.
FYI, xian fundies love the Big Bang because it echoes their Genesis myth.
Georges LeMaitre, a Catholic priest-mathematician, wanted to support the Genesis myth. He used a tentative red shift hypothesis by Edwin Hubble to devise equations in which he ran time backwards. Hubble later doubted his hypothesis but xian fundies wouldn't turn loose of it.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
— Richard Dawkins.
Yeah, and even some atheists have not yet kicked the faith habit.
Imagine, if you can, a particle too tiny for you to see. And then imagine squeezing the entire universe into a space so tiny.
That and other stuff, like a trinity for instance, is what faith requires people to accept.
No one is taking you up for the discussion Tom. I'll jump in but unfortunately, I agree with you.
The big Bang is one of the theories that I thought "Seriously dude? What were you smoking?"
The main alternative with a twist makes most logical sense to me. "Overall steady but constantly changing" Just like the biosphere on earth where ecosystem components constantly rise and fall and morph from one condition to another, solar systems, galaxies, and galaxy groups do the same.
Red Shift - When Edward Hubble noticed the red shift in light for galaxies, why did he attribute it to the Doppler effect. There is no example, that I am aware of, that causes this effect on objects here on earth or in our solar system. However, there are plenty examples of red shift here. You would think he would have taken earth based examples and extrapolated it to the galaxy red shift.
Microwave background - Considering it was accidentally found and then used to back up the big bang theory, puts it on the same level as the red shift observation.
I don't have enough information to talk about the mixture of elements one
Further away Galaxies look different than those closer therefor older galaxies are different than newer ones - Galaxies are uniform in structure? all galaxies near us look exactly the same as our milky way? Then uniformly change with distance?
So you see, 3 out of 4 pieces of evidence are not really evidence at all.
Jotham, thanks for your analysis.
I heard of the Bang around 1960 before I knew of weed so I asked “Seriously dude? What are you believing?”
I had started college in electrical engineering, earned a degree in math and was studying physics in grad school, so I asked why anyone would see an analogy between the wave lengths of sound in air and the wave lengths of light in space. Other stuff took my attention until I retired so I learned of Hubble’s role about eight years ago. I learned of the Catholic priest (LeMaitre) misusing red shift to support Genesis before I learned of Hubble’s doubt that red shift measured velocity.
The Bang was dominant when the Soviets put a man into earth orbit. America’s leaders realized the Soviets could use the same vehicle to put weapons into orbit. The gov’t spending started and NASA hired the Bangers. The gov’t eventually wanted evidence so the Bangers invented it.
My research has persuaded me that adding electricity to “overall steady but constantly changing” allows testable explanations and predictions for what’s happening in the universe.
Jotham Timothy Bessey, I agree with your statements,
1. "The Big Bang is one of the theories that I thought 'Seriously dude? What were you smoking?'"
2. "Overall steady but constantly changing."
3. "Red Shift - When Edward Hubble noticed the red shift in light for galaxies, why did he attribute it to the Doppler effect?"
4. "Microwave background - Considering it was accidentally found and then used to back up the big bang theory, puts it on the same level as the redshift observation." I remember when the report of finding the sound in the universe and attributing it to the big bang theory; why? I am not able to find the video of that original report, but I remember it, vividly.
5. "I don't have enough information to talk about the mixture of elements one." Or for me, 2, 3, & 4 as well as #5 & 6.
6. "Further away Galaxies look different than those closer therefor older galaxies are different than newer ones." I just do not know enough about astronomy to be able to give an affirmative to all the questions.
I want to be able to use critical thinking to arrive at a definitive conclusion, yes or no. It just does not happen to me. What I can do is read and listen to as many arguments as people are able and willing to share; I still can be fooled. Further away Galaxies look different than those closer therefor older galaxies are different than newer ones.
If I were to sit down with a pro-big-banger or an anti-big banger, I am vulnerable to be duped, not because I am incapable of critical thinking, but because I do not know enough to say, "Yay," or "Nay." I have to rely on others to look at the evidence, evaluate it, and advise me as to their opinion. OPINION! When does opinion turn into fact, truth, or certainty?
Word Count 324
Joan, you've known for years how to think critically.
It requires only that you tell yourself or others, "I don't know, and I won't know until I have empirical evidence."