LOG IN HERE
Username
Password

arrow Register here

Forgotten password?

THE CHATTER BOX

 
  
  
  The Chatter Box : Blathering On
  
  
  
 
Messages 1 2 

Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 8:39am
 
OK, you maybe need to be an astrophysicist to understand but I'll try to keep it understandable.

They say that the big bang theory is verified by the red shift of distant galaxies in an expanding universe.

Red shift:
If an object is making a noise and it is moving away from you its tone drops. If an object is making a noise and it is moving towards you the tone rises. (This is known as the Doppler effect)
That is the relative frequency of the tone is changed by the movement of the object.
The same applies to light except that an object must be moving many times faster away from you for the frequency change to be noticed. Yellow light becomes more red if the object emitting it is moving away from you. Conversely, yellow light becomes more blue if the object emitting it is moving towards you. (Colours of the rainbow ROYGB - yellow in the middle, red to the left and blue to the right).
Now, if the big bang theory is true then there must be a centre to the universe. The universe is so big it is impossible to assume that we are at the centre of it so I must make an assumption that we are not at the centre of the universe. I will assume that we are halfway between the centre and its furthest extremity.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 9:28am
 
Looking away from the centre in one direction we will see red shifted galaxies. Looking towards the centre in the other direction we will see red shifted galaxies and at the other side of the centre the light coming from them should be shifted towards infra red. I can simplify this by going back to the colours of the rainbow and using Orange shift. In one direction we will see orange shifted galaxies and in the other direction we will see red shifted galaxies on the other side of the centre.
As far as I am aware we are seeing red shifted galaxies in all directions therefore we are either at the centre of the universe or the centre is outside our field of view.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 9:40am
 
I have already said that it is impossible for us to be at the centre of the universe so if that is impossible then it is impossible that it is outside our field of view.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 9:48am
 
I think that the red shift is caused by cosmic dust. At sunrise when the sun is seen through more of the (dusty/polluted) atmosphere it appears orange and when overhead it is bright yellow.
Therefore if the red shift is caused by cosmic dust then the universe is static with very fast objects moving around within it.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 9:57am
 
If half of the sky is showing more infrared than the other half then the Big Bang theory can be proved as true and we should be able to approximate the centre of the universe.

You may find this http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0424 and 'infrared sky map' using your search engine useful. From the infrared images it looks impossible to determine a pattern for the overall red shift as the image is too greatly affected by our own galaxy, The Milky Way.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 10:01am
 
I'll bet you never thought that palinstravels would get into travelling the universe!
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 2 August 2013 2:49pm
 
Or perhaps you did as one of the topic possibilities in the introduction to Blathering On is the universe.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 3 August 2013 7:48am
 
It is said that measurements have been done which show the universe is expanding and it is getting colder. This apparently proves the Big Bang theory.
We have only been able to make measurements like this over the past 50 years or so. The universe is said to be 35 billion years old (approximately). It is impossible to make these 2 measurements on 50 years worth of data within a 35 billion year timeframe and derive any assumptions from them. No measurements made over a 50 year period can be extrapolated reliably to 35 billion years.
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by Ken Dunn on 3 August 2013 7:49am
 
I'm definitely with Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who named the Big Bang theory but was opposed to it and I'll leave stellar nucleosynthesis for another day.

Well, that's that. What do you think? You don't have to think anything if you find it too complicated or beyond you. It's pretty near beyond me!
 
Re: Big Bang Theory disproved. by suzulu on 3 August 2013 4:54pm
 
It is too much for my brain! Interesting stuff, though - if I could understand it.
 
Messages 1 2 




  Reply to this post:
 
 
  Username 
 
 
  Password 
 
 
 
 
  Register here
 

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a discussion theme.
Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).

To start a new discussion topic:

Write the name of the topic in the 'Subject' box.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To join a discussion topic:

Click on the discussion topic of your choice.
Type your message in the larger box to contribute.
Click 'Submit'.

To edit your message:

You can edit a message at any time after posting it as long as you're signed in.
Click on the 'Edit your message' link above the message.
Make your desired changes.
Click 'Submit'.

If you find you don't want to change the message after all, click on 'Return without changes'.

To set a chatmark:

Register (or log in if you have not yet done so).
Click on the "Set chatmark" link on the Chatter Box pages. This will set the time at which you have logged in.
Click on the "Go to chatmark" link to see all messages posted since you set your chatmark.

You can set your chatmark at any time and as often as you like.