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, that galaxies APPEAR to be moving away from a central point is due to an unsupported hypothesis.
Sound moves in air because variations in air pressure move in air, and moving sources of sound either compress or stretch these variations.
Light being either particles or waves does not allow a hypothesis that either of the above are true, but Big Bangers hypothesised an analogy.
They use that unsupported hypothesis to support other hypotheses.
In sound, Doppler shifts are SUPPORTED hypotheses.
In light, red and blue shifts are UNSUPPORTED hypotheses.
Edwin Hubble said he doubted that red shift measured recessional velocity, but LeMaitre ignored Hubble’s doubt and used red shiftt to support Genesis.
Xians needed evidence for Genesis and they seized LeMaitre’s conclusion.
My sources include the free PDF file available at www.newtoeu.com
That is a good point. Has anyone tried to reproduce a red shift using the Doppler effect?
Not reproduce, Jotham, but infer.
That requires a bit of explanation.
When a sound source (an auto horn, for instance) is moving farther away, the sound waves are stretched. The more the sound waves are stretched, the faster the sound's source is moving. The ear hears these stretched waves as having a lower pitch, or frequency.
From that, without evidence, Bangers inferred, or concluded:
1. when light waves are stretched the light source is moving away.
2. the more the light waves are stretched, the faster the light source is moving away.
If the link below works, then after a brief ad you will will see and hear more on the above.
BTW: The red shift is not from human vision, it is from spectrum analysers, so we have instruments that measure light frequencies and thus human optics is no longer a limitation.
We know our vision is limited, that is why we have instrumentation to reduce any such limitations.
Just as we have microscopes and telescopes that allow the human vision to see from microns to light years.
So sensory limitations are no longer an issue.
Dawg, you don’t understand instrumentation.
The electronics engineers who design the electric circuits for spectrum analysers put mathematics into their circuits that approximates the red shift hypothesis.
And because the hypothesis that red shift measures recessional velocity is not supported by evidence (Hubble himself expressed doubt), you have a garbage in garbage out instrument.
Big Bangers believe their unsupported hypothesis the way theists believe an unsupported piece of their religious doctrine, so they believe their spectrum analyzer is giving them gospel.
Electronics is my field of expertise and spectrum analysers don't discriminate.
And it is not spectrum analysers that they used to get the red shift as spectrum analysers are used for determining the contents of gases, but frequency analysers from radio telescopes and , the wavelength of light detected is in the red spectrum, and can be analysed without a spectrum analyser, so the light frequencies reaching us from those galaxies are in the red spectrum and that can be checked by multiple means for validation. The Doppler effect is valid.
They pick up all colours according to their intensity and that can be checked against the radio frequency received by radio telescopes for validation.
Our vision discriminates, in that it intensifies yellows and greens and we cannot see ultraviolet, yet if we had our lens removed, we would see a totally different spectrum, and ultraviolet, the world looks different without the lens.
Have a look at this video.
This map doesn't fit well in the big bang model of the universe.
Jotham, I looked at it twice and the scenes showing the Milky Way persuaded me that it was a well-executed computer animatiion. We mortals won’t ever have a vehicle that can approach and go around our home galaxy at the speed portrayed.
Changing gears, have you seen any of NASA’s Astronomy Photos/Pictures of the Day. You can find them by searching on “nasa apod’ or “NASA APOD’. The pic changes each day, at about nine pm I think. I use them as my browser’s home page so I see a pic each time I go on the web.
Dawg, a science teacher’s saying something is evidence is not evidence.
That’s true of religion teachers too.
Your Premise 0, teachers always tell the truth, is not true.
Here are Edwin Hubble's 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.“
RIP the Standard Model--the Big Bang--with Its Many Untested and Untestable Hypotheses
“It’s a mystery to me how comets work at all.”
–Donald Brownlee, principal investigator of NASA’s Stardust Mission
Nothing in the observed Universe has surprised astronomers and astrophysicists more than comets. Their “dirty snowball” hypothesis, for decades their theoretical bedrock, has time after time failed to predict comet behavior and comet composition. Since 1986, when negatively charged ions were found in the coma of Comet Halley, comets have produced “mysteries” that have left astronomers groping for answers:
1. Comet surfaces with sharply carved relief — the exact opposite of what astronomers expected under the “dirty snowball” model.
2. Highly energetic supersonic jets exploding from comets’ nuclei.
3. The inexplicable confinement of these jets into narrow filaments, spanning great distances, up to MILLIONS of miles, defying the behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum.
4. Jets occurring on the dark sides of comet nuclei.
5. Unexpectedly high temperatures and X-ray emissions from cometary comas.
6. A short supply or complete absence of water and other volatiles on comets’ nuclei.
7. Mounting evidence for the production of the OH radical in cometary comas, due to charge exchange with the Sun (the process that misled astronomers into thinking they were seeing evidence of water removed from the surface.)
8. Mineral particles that can only be formed under extremely high temperatures — the last thing one would expect from a chunk of dirty ice arriving from the outermost reaches of the solar system.
9. Comets flaring up while in “deep freeze,” beyond the orbit of Saturn.
10. Comets disintegrating many millions of miles from the Sun.
11. Comet dust particles more finely and evenly divided than is plausible for sublimating “dirty ices.”
12. Ejection of larger particles and “gravel” that was never anticipated under the idea that comets accreted from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust.
13. The unexplained ability of a relatively minuscule comet nucleus to hold in place a highly spherical coma, up to millions of miles in diameter, against the force of the solar wind.
All of those findings are predictable features of the electric model. Few know of them because space scientists through most of the 20th century have assumed that bodies in space are electrically neutral.
The Electric Universe views comets as negatively charged bodies moving through the electric field of the Sun, the most positively charged object in the solar system. The most energetic cometary displays occur with comets that spend the most time in the outer regions of the solar system, where they acquire a strongly negative charge. As they race toward the Sun, moving into a more positively charged environment, the nucleus is subjected to increasing electrical stresses.
Why do I stay on the BB’s case?
Because I am an educator and the billions of taxpayer dollars pseudoscientists are spending on futile searches for evidence are needed for real science. I was one of the many who 40 years ago cut off the flow of taxpayer money to people who wanted to dam rivers. It was a struggle.
For info that requires curiosity, but no math, go to http://www.newtoeu.com and download the free PDF file.