0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
Light does not bend to EM.It has no charge.Distance doesn't matter.A gravitational field will not take away its intrinsic energy.All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance'.
QuoteThere is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these. There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength.
There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption.
Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough.
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.
Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.