I just find it amazing. Back in the 80s, when my mind was first questioning and understanding concepts like time, I read up on the beginning of what we know as the Universe. There were two main theories at the time, one was a quiet method with a lightning streak in the diagram. And the other was BBT. Both were theories, both were stated to be just pure conjecture because no evidence existed enough to support or prove they could have happened. There was more than mention in the article that there were plenty of other theories.
Sometime by the late 90s, however, it became holy doctrine that BBT was the One True Origin and anything else was heresy. All science articles, all websites, spoke as if it was settled law and everything was to flesh out this crackpot theory. To support it, they came up with multiple universes, that it all began and ended again and again, that these blasts and collapses were inevitable.
And yet, there has been no proof. Sure, they interpret things like red shift to somehow be proof, but that's just a natural state of light. It doesn't mean the universe is expanding and cooling.
Any evidence that the universe is infinite and always has been, well, that's burning at the stake voodoo witchcraft talk.
Sure, they interpret things like red shift to somehow be proof, but that's just a natural state of light. It doesn't mean the universe is expanding and cooling.
Big Astronomy is hiding the truth: Light just do that.
Red shift is that the further away a light source is, the less colors we can define. Red is the last bit of light we can see from a great distance. So, the further away, the greater amount of red is visible until only red is visible.
They used this as evidence that: what is visible is decaying, thus, getting colder and further away, so everything is spreading out from a central location and dying off since the big bang. The furthest they can see limits the age of the universe based upon the distance vs speed it takes to have gotten there.
What we are learning: red shift just means shit is beyond our visible spectrum until new technology comes along and we can actually see what's out there beyond the old limits. And, what do you know, it's just more of the same fucking shit, not decayed galaxies and fading stars.
Red shifting it the light waves being stretched out my the motion of the source relative to the receiver. Red light has longer waves so the light moves towards the red end of the spectrum... It's not literally red and the colour has nothing to do with how far it goes.
Okay, I got the how of it, wrong, but the components right. And, it does have a visual component. Light going away from you is red shifted, coming towards you is blue shifted.
They use red shifting as an explanation for their BBT, but it doesn't actually support it. It merely explains how they can determine distance and direction.
They've long known that there are problems with the BBT, because a truly sound theory wouldn't lead to singularities. But they don't have much in the way of a viable alternative yet, besides human-dick-sucking-sky-fairy-"theory" (and similar woo nonsense) and the plasma theory in that book that's been popping up, "The Big Bang Never Happened", which I vaguely remember reading back when it first hit the local library (at which I was working at the time.) It basically is an attempt to revive Steady State theory (the former competing theory to the Big Bang) by claiming that cosmic plasma (or whatever the fuck) ensures that new stars/star systems/galaxies are born all the time in a universe that can still be expanding all it wants. The problem with the theory is, it has no origin aspect to it; as far as it's concerned, the universe simply always existed. (But! Brane theory coupled with this might be a way to solve that, especially the idea of two three-branes colliding and resetting each other: see Brian Greene.)
The problem with both is that they are the old Euro myth, helio-centric universe. That we are close to where the universe started. That it has a beginning.
That still has the problem of rationalizing that there was a beginning. Everything we know of and experience is constantly in flux (is ever changing). We can arbitrarily decide a point is a beginning or an an end, but that does not actually make it a physical start or end.
It's like an evolutionary identification of an extant species compared with its ancestor. They both existed, one no longer does, but it didn't die out and it wasn't the start of their entire line.
It all comes from something, it all goes into something, but the literal amount never really changes.
While this might be a step too far for some here, I think many would be surprised just how full of holes the theory of evolution is as well.
There is definitely some truth to evolution -- particularly on shorter time scales -- but there are so many issues with evolutionary theory as a whole that continue to be ignored or brushed off as unimportant, that it's really just a house of cards waiting to collapse at this point.
Basically, scientists have GREATLY underestimated the complexity of the systems which support life and the timescales required to randomly produce these systems. Still, the establishment clings to it out of pride -- many careers and many fields have been established on the assumption that evolution is true -- and fear that they might lose hard-fought ground in the public sphere to religion which they disdain.
It's not evolution people think of, it's adaptation. The problem is not that it's full of holes, it's that people see only the holes and forget theories are called that so they can be altered with evidence. The theory of evolution is sound in practice. Religion is what will lose the fight every time, whether abrahamic or trust the SCIENCE!
In every age, cosmology has reflected the zeitgeist of the time. The cold death of the universe is nothing but an expression of the nihilism of modern day science.
I just find it amazing. Back in the 80s, when my mind was first questioning and understanding concepts like time, I read up on the beginning of what we know as the Universe. There were two main theories at the time, one was a quiet method with a lightning streak in the diagram. And the other was BBT. Both were theories, both were stated to be just pure conjecture because no evidence existed enough to support or prove they could have happened. There was more than mention in the article that there were plenty of other theories.
Sometime by the late 90s, however, it became holy doctrine that BBT was the One True Origin and anything else was heresy. All science articles, all websites, spoke as if it was settled law and everything was to flesh out this crackpot theory. To support it, they came up with multiple universes, that it all began and ended again and again, that these blasts and collapses were inevitable.
And yet, there has been no proof. Sure, they interpret things like red shift to somehow be proof, but that's just a natural state of light. It doesn't mean the universe is expanding and cooling.
Any evidence that the universe is infinite and always has been, well, that's burning at the stake voodoo witchcraft talk.
All high level science is basically just religion with extra steps.
They make random guesses based on observations, define truth by consensus and proclaim everything else to be heresy.
You dare deny Out of Africanism????
Big Astronomy is hiding the truth: Light just do that.
Red shift is that the further away a light source is, the less colors we can define. Red is the last bit of light we can see from a great distance. So, the further away, the greater amount of red is visible until only red is visible.
They used this as evidence that: what is visible is decaying, thus, getting colder and further away, so everything is spreading out from a central location and dying off since the big bang. The furthest they can see limits the age of the universe based upon the distance vs speed it takes to have gotten there.
What we are learning: red shift just means shit is beyond our visible spectrum until new technology comes along and we can actually see what's out there beyond the old limits. And, what do you know, it's just more of the same fucking shit, not decayed galaxies and fading stars.
Red shifting it the light waves being stretched out my the motion of the source relative to the receiver. Red light has longer waves so the light moves towards the red end of the spectrum... It's not literally red and the colour has nothing to do with how far it goes.
Okay, I got the how of it, wrong, but the components right. And, it does have a visual component. Light going away from you is red shifted, coming towards you is blue shifted.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-a-redshift/
They use red shifting as an explanation for their BBT, but it doesn't actually support it. It merely explains how they can determine distance and direction.
They've long known that there are problems with the BBT, because a truly sound theory wouldn't lead to singularities. But they don't have much in the way of a viable alternative yet, besides human-dick-sucking-sky-fairy-"theory" (and similar woo nonsense) and the plasma theory in that book that's been popping up, "The Big Bang Never Happened", which I vaguely remember reading back when it first hit the local library (at which I was working at the time.) It basically is an attempt to revive Steady State theory (the former competing theory to the Big Bang) by claiming that cosmic plasma (or whatever the fuck) ensures that new stars/star systems/galaxies are born all the time in a universe that can still be expanding all it wants. The problem with the theory is, it has no origin aspect to it; as far as it's concerned, the universe simply always existed. (But! Brane theory coupled with this might be a way to solve that, especially the idea of two three-branes colliding and resetting each other: see Brian Greene.)
The problem with both is that they are the old Euro myth, helio-centric universe. That we are close to where the universe started. That it has a beginning.
That still has the problem of rationalizing that there was a beginning. Everything we know of and experience is constantly in flux (is ever changing). We can arbitrarily decide a point is a beginning or an an end, but that does not actually make it a physical start or end.
It's like an evolutionary identification of an extant species compared with its ancestor. They both existed, one no longer does, but it didn't die out and it wasn't the start of their entire line.
It all comes from something, it all goes into something, but the literal amount never really changes.
While this might be a step too far for some here, I think many would be surprised just how full of holes the theory of evolution is as well.
There is definitely some truth to evolution -- particularly on shorter time scales -- but there are so many issues with evolutionary theory as a whole that continue to be ignored or brushed off as unimportant, that it's really just a house of cards waiting to collapse at this point.
Basically, scientists have GREATLY underestimated the complexity of the systems which support life and the timescales required to randomly produce these systems. Still, the establishment clings to it out of pride -- many careers and many fields have been established on the assumption that evolution is true -- and fear that they might lose hard-fought ground in the public sphere to religion which they disdain.
It's not evolution people think of, it's adaptation. The problem is not that it's full of holes, it's that people see only the holes and forget theories are called that so they can be altered with evidence. The theory of evolution is sound in practice. Religion is what will lose the fight every time, whether abrahamic or trust the SCIENCE!
It's half truth really. It's so vast that it might as well be infinite.
Or maybe it's infinite.
I just want the cold death of the universe not to be true, that's all I want.
In every age, cosmology has reflected the zeitgeist of the time. The cold death of the universe is nothing but an expression of the nihilism of modern day science.
It's billions and billions of years away if it even does occur, the heat death occurring is irrelevant from a human perspective.
We have no proof it can happen, let alone will.
It's true until next ground breaking discovery happens.
Kent Hovind was right.
In what way was the Flintstones fetishist correct? Did he say scientists were merely modern day biblical scholars?
"It's a Big Dud--it didn't happen."
I will give you that limited acceptance. The big bang didn't happen. Nothing else he says is reliable, though.
Why?
Everything went woosh then bang and the universe was created