|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
big bang or not big bang that is the question
Posted on: July 28, 2007 - 3:07pm
  Offline
big bang or not big bang that is the question
I stumbled across this, as you do http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html It's got me thinking, ( I'm not too happy about this, as it distracts from eating doughnuts and watching wrestling ) ? anybody else seen this before
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Saw similar crap, but not that specific one. That's just plain dumb.
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
Sure but this dumb fucked up shite, has evidence, the kind of evidence that nobody likes, but it's there
My mind is officially blown.
My Artwork
I've been checking , it's hard to tell at the mo, it looks like it every nut is subscribing to this theory, while the serious people are trying to brush it aside, and there still arguing about the evidence, I will continued checking, mostly because I'm prejudiced and I don't like the idea, but if it's true
That's the nice thing about evidence. Eventually it has to be accepted or refuted.
My Artwork
The original link bares the hallmarks of sensationalism.
The first half of the article deals with unrelated mistakes made in science and religion purely to artificially substantiate some merit to the bizarre claims to come later.
This shallow spin is often imputed to conspiracy theories. If the theory had its own worth the facts would stand alone.
Also the claims drastically overstep what is reasonable given the data.
To conclude that red-shift 'is quantized' when evidence is in a tentative phase is inapposite. Using a phrase like 'feasibly periodic' would seem less of a leap and more in the realm of erudition. The term quantized implies too much form and rigidity and perhaps plays on the contemporary connotations of the word. Next to assert that this means the universe is not expanding is particularly shady:
Light is - still - red-shifted.
There is background radiation.
The ratios of the elements.
All provide evidence for the big bang and hence an expanding universe.
The author does attempt to deal with cosmic background radiation by supposing that the earth exists in the wake of an ancient supernova. One of the properties of CBR is that it is highly isotropic (equal in any direction) for the supernova idea to hold the earth would have to be in the epicentre of the explosion.
At an initial standpoint this seems hopelessly far fetched.
The observations however may well deserve scrutiny, it is the conclusions that I have an aversion to.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Discarding the big bang seems a bit extreme. But it is a fascinating observation.
My Artwork
I would not be so brave to elucidate any significance of the observations though my partiality would drift me towards erroneous over fascinating.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.