Big Bang Critics

There isn't any evidence of a "big bang" that I'm aware of.
Isn't that why the hypothesis relies on the non-scientific notion of there having been a "singularity"? Isn't a singularity a one of a kind excuse given due to the absence of any scientific evidence?Joman.

quote:

---

Chiroptera "The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which are proportional to their distance from our galaxy."

---

The redshift requires interpretation doesn't it.
Isn't the above interpretation of it (that is suitable for the big bang hypothesis) only one of the possibilities?
What if it's not proportional?
What is the red shift reference frame?
Our sun?
An earthen furnace?In my humble, and considered opinion, it is but, common sense to expect that light, regardless as to it's origin or structure as an energetic mass; will lose power in transit across space. The dielectric constant of space describes a capacitive insulator and should not be thought to be an ideal one. Leakage is the norm. I would expect a thermodynamic law effect to appear in the speed of light constant,and that it would be evidenced by the loss of power over time. And, so it seems.
The pattern of velocities of heavenly objects is a contradiction to common sense if the big bang were thought to be true.
Otherwise, there would arise the irony of the modern science establishment claiming that the earth is the apparent center of the universe. Do you think that a big bang would distribute redshifts the way we find them? I think the redshifts would evidence all kinds of variation due to the immense variation in vectors to be expected in such an event.I would expect that a appropriately sensitive redshift measurement of local objects (within parallax distance) would reveal that all spectra is shifted randomly +/- about a mean value due to the variation in vectors of the various objects in motion. Can some one show me the data that proves that many local objects with known vectors have been used to establish the validity of our redshift reference and possible effects from secondary causes?

quote:

---

Chiroptera "The Cosmic Microwave Background, which was predicted before it was observed based on the hypothesis of an expanding universe."

---

Data revealing a cosmic background radiation was recorded seven in 194. Gamov brought it up in (1948). The amount and the description of it has been disputed. The cosmology of the big bang can't claim any historical accuracy.

quote:

---

Chiroptera "If one extrapolates the expansion backwards, one comes to a point where the density and the temperature of the universe is infinite -- a singuarity."

---

There isn't any scientific evidence of infinity!
Extrapolation is math used when facts are unavailable!
There isn't any evidence of anything, existing anywhere, that possesses any of the qualities you've specified!
Infinite density? Infinite temperature?
Ridiculously non-scientific notions.
You can extrapolate a perfect vacuum but, you can't produce one can you?

quote:

---

Chiroptera "At any rate, the Big Bang hypothesis does not rely on the singularity."

---

What does it rely on then?The singularity in question is an extrapolation that proves the math is bogus since, it leads to a supernatural circumstance wherein, all known laws of physics are voided (avoided?).Joman.

How is the redshift of light frequency explained with respect to relativity?
Is the redshift we observe due to the relative motion between the two objects?
Does the relativity theory tell us that such motion is detectable?Joman.

quote:

---

Yes. In fact, I have done experiments in undergraduate physics lab courses in detecting doppler shifting of spectra (like the Mossbauer Effect). The doppler shift is real and is detectable.

---

Chiroptera,
Thank you for your response.If one assumes that all is exanding then, wouldn't the wavelength of the light widen on it's journey across the cosmos between two objects?
And, if the measuring stick used to determine the wavelength also expanded appropriately then, the expansion of the wavelength would remain observationally nulled.
But, if that is true, then the measured redshifts are not due to expansion and can't be used to describe nor predict the possible expansion of the universe, can it?Joman.

Quotes by Chiroptera.

quote:

---

Perhaps, but the measuring stick is not expanding. The space around it is expanding, but at a very small rate.

---

The measuring stick can't be immune can it? There's no such thing as space around the measuring stick being different than the space around each and every atom it's made of, is there?

quote:

---

The forces that keep the atoms that compose the measuring stick are enough to keep the atoms at the same distance. So the measuring stick will not expand.

---

The measuring stick can't be immune unless you propose the idea that the space around the atoms that the measuring stick is made of is different than the space around the measuring stick as a whole.
Such a notion would be like trying to say that the dots on the stretched balloon don't get bigger. It would also imply that the wavelength of light would be immune to expansion effects.

quote:

---

The reason distant galaxies are receding from one another is that there is a great amount of space between them. As all of this space is expanding, they are moving apart rapidly and so the gravitational pull of the galaxies on one another is not sufficient to prevent them from moving apart.

---

You said the expansion is slow. Now your saying that the galaxies are rededing quickly due to the slow rate of expansion?
And, this brings up the same point I've already made in this post. You make it seem as though only the space around the galaxies is expanding. But, the space that the galaxies occupy within themselves is throughout themselves also expanding. Agree? And, this isn't any different than the space contained within the structure of any object (measuring rods included). The logic of the Michelson Morley experiment relied upon the fact that space pervades all things...otherwise they would have deemed it necessary to do the experiment in outer space when the opprotunity presented itself. Which I think NASA should anyway. Have they?
I notice that you didn't say "because all of this space is expanding therefore..." Instead you said "As all of this space is expanding.." Do you wish or need to clarify?

quote:

---

Now, when galaxies that are close to one another, like in a cluster, there is not as much space in between them, so they would not be moving apart very quickly; in this case, they don't move apart at all because the gravitational forces are strong enough to keep them together, like the ruler.

---

Again. If the expansion force cannot overcome the effect of local gravity in the senario you've given above, then it would be utterly impotent in the case of enormously greater denseness of matter as proposed at the initiation of the expansion.

quote:

---

So the only things that expand are things where the forces that keep them together are not strong enough to counter act the expansion -- in this case, this is only galaxies that are far apart that feel the effect of the expanding universe.

---

All things are filled with mostly space isn't that true? Therefore your notion is false.
Again. Your saying that wherever such forces accumulate the expansion of space is thwarted. But, no greater accumulation of such forces has ever occurred than accurred at the moment of initial expansion according to the big bang notion. Therefore, such an accumulation would have easily prevented any expansion force present at that time.Joman.

Parasomnium,
I read the article thank you.Joman.