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.
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.