Re: The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]


William McHale wrote:
> Ralph Hertle <ralph.hertle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > B. Dean:
>
>
>
> > B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:
>
> If the question was asked on alt.astronomy why reply to
alt.astro.amateur?
>
> <Massive Snippage>
>
>
> > Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything
continues to
> > exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence
has been
> > explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment
ever
> > conducted and human identification of the facts of existence.
Continuity is
> > a demonstrable fact of reality.
>
> Actually in your extended rant against Big Bang Cosmology and the
expansion
> of the Universe you neglected several important facts.
>
> 1. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which still remains the
best
> explination of Gravity on large scales shows that the Universe must
be
> expanding or contracting; it is almost impossible for it to remain in

> a continuously stable state.
>
> 2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of Big
Bang
> Cosmology and up to this point, its existence and the variations in
it
> agree well with the predictions of the theory. I see nothing in your

> alternative that would explain it.
>
> 3. Where does all the Hydrogen come from? In a Universe infinitely
old and
> one that will exist into infinity, where do we get hydrogen for the
continued
> birth of stars?
>
> > Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
> > everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.
>
> I would not write off the Big Bang yet. Even to a relative lay
person
> like myself, I have not seen any of the alternatives proposed make a
compelling
> case to being a real alternative.
>
> --
> Bill

Excellent retort. The CMBR issue occurred to me immediately, but the
other two (especially Einstein's Theory of General Relativaty) should
have also occured to me.

By the way, Ralph, the one part of your argument regarding the redshift
was unclear to me. I understand your argument that the "inelastic
collision" of hydrogen atoms and photons can cause redshift (By the
way, Brian, are these collisions really inelastic? That seems
counter-intuitive to me, but I am a layman). What I did not follow is
why this MUST be the explination of the redshift. I also notice you
did not discuss blueshift. In space, it would seem that the percentage
of hydrogen atoms alone, all other factors aside, would not be high
enough to produce the observable redshifts. Also, given that these
would be random, as Brian points out, why would galaxies of equal,
measurable distance by other means yield a similar redshift?

Erik
socalsw

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... The assumption is that redshift is entirely due to Doppler shift, ... us appear to be at the center of the universe. ... difficult to say that space itself is expanding and than use a stable ... ignites the radiation and this energy expands back out, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: Physics for ex-farmers
    ... >>Galaxy Ageing, Supernova Redshift, MOND, and Pioneer Blue-shift? ... >>consistent with observation for a universe expanding at half the rate ... >>and twice as old as indicated by a linear law, ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: FINAL CRISIS #1: A Very Short Review
    ... Continuity in the main universe ... Pre-Crisis you didn't have this 'which stories actually ... DC's current earth has so many freaking heroes that it is ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: In the beginning
    ... big bang is a hypothetical consequence of an expanding universe. ... Doppler redshift should never have made sense to anybody. ... energy - redshifted photon energy = energy imbalance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: FINAL CRISIS #1: A Very Short Review
    ... Continuity in the main universe ... Pre-Crisis you didn't have this 'which stories actually ... DC's current earth has so many freaking heroes that it is ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)