Science doesn’t enjoy being wrong, but it should, as it happens all the time. Remember when the Earth was flat?? Sure, you could argue that that’s from an old uneducated science – or mockery of science depending how critical you’d like to get, but you get our point.
The same thing still goes on today – take for instance, the Big Bang Theory. From whence sprang the universe is a difficult question indeed. What drives us nuts is that instead of giving an always honorable and forthright “I don’t know,” we get a theory some quack dreamed up while scrubbing his nethers in a bubble bath.
All indicators seem to point to The Big Bang Theory being wrong, or at least extremely incomplete.
The Big Bang Theory stems from scientists noticing that the universe seems to be expanding from a central point – and at a rapid pace. This is implying that everything was thrust outward by one big and powerful force – i.e. the Big Bang.
Something exploded, a cloud of gases, an atom, whatever… it’s not relevant – it’s supposed to have been the kick start of evolution. What we want to know is what was around before that gigantic universal clap. The theory fails to answer that.
The fact is there’s no such thing as nothing – it’s an impossibility. Bare minimum you’d have a big empty space, but that’s still something. That being true, something must have always existed – always. What exactly we can’t tell you, but it has to be true. Something must have made those gases, atoms, vast arrays of molotov cocktails… or whatever it was that caused that explosion.
If something always has existed, then we can plausibly extrapolate it further by saying something will always exist. Sure, eventually our sun will expand, swallowing our sweet blue planet (Don’t worry, hecklerspray has a spaceship – sorry it’s a two seater), and that may spell the end for Earth, but not the end of all. Even if every living thing in the universe came to a screeching halt, and all matter evaporated to nothing, we’d still have a big black vacuum – and that’s still something.
Stupid Science. Thanks for the cars, instant oatmeal and dog shock collars, but leave everything else the hell alone. If you would please. Sir.
Science: 0, Entertainment Blog: 1
[story by Shawn Lindseth]
James says
One possibility put forward by those same “quacks” is that there could have been a universe just like this one, prior to the big bang. As you know the universe is expanding, but it’s also slowing down. What happens when it stops expanding? Gravity will start to pull it in, faster and faster. Then after a few million million years it will all smash into a big lump in the middle. Now that’s a lot of energy. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that we will then get another “big bang”.
This is all fairly basic stuff which anyone with a feeble grasp of science will know. So I don’t really see the point of this article.
Eli says
Yeah, but what was before the first expanding – contracting universe, and what is it currently expanding into? Ponderous, man.
James says
Who knows. Maybe our Universe exists amongst the fluff and sweet wrappers kicking around in a massive blazer pocket. Or we are just a science project for some spotty faced higher being trying to get gook marks in his “Create a universe etc” coursework.
Another James says
I find it largely hilarious that a site that launches various adhomenin attacks against celebrities vis a vis their relative ignorance should publish something this trite and full of undeserved pride. Shawn, put the computer down before you accidentally ingest it, and go back to bricklaying or sports reporting.
“but you get our point.”
Your respective hats cover them well. Science is _all_ about being wrong, which is why it tends to move towards being right through hypothesis, experimentation and peer review. Your example of the world being flat was a religious argument that placed the holy land at the centre of the universe and ignored the sterling work done by the greeks in proving curvature. I probably should point out that Religion is the thing that mucks about churches, science is the one that deals with universities.
“I don’t know,” we get a theory some quack dreamed up while while scrubbing his nethers in a bubble bath.”
Better than the incurious toejam served up as commentary from someone that doesn’t even seem that interested in the subject that they’re writing on.
“All indicators seem to point to The Big Bang Theory being wrong, or at least extremely incomplete.”
Really? You don’t seem to actually mention any. There is the instant before Planck time, roughly 10^-64 (0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000064) seconds after the big bang being a bit of a mystery, but that’s not a bad considering you’re working on inference from the COBE satellite and a few billion years of trajectory.
“it’s supposed to have been the kick start of evolution”
No, that was the binding of amino acids that was widely acknowledged to be the beginning of life, evolution being a biological process. You might be mixing it up with ‘the universe’. No, the mouse does not taste nice, put it down.
“The fact is there’s no such thing as nothing – it’s an impossibility.”
No, it’s an absence of ‘something’. Although many people fail to consider that the current universe is a see of baryons popping into and out of existence and thereby providing space with dimensions, there is a place beyond the expanding wavefront of the universe that could probably be darned close to ‘nothing’. There’s also the spaces between the quanta that comes close to being nothing, but on extremely small scales.
“If something always has existed, then we can plausibly extrapolate it further by saying something will always exist.”
Religious argument that assumes longevity through no critical mechanism. You’re hiding behind ‘always’ as a weasel word.
“Even if every living thing in the universe came to a screeching halt, and all matter evaporated to nothing, we’d still have a big black vacuum – and that’s still something.”
Look up ‘Absolute Zero’. You’ll find it in an encyclopedia.
Emma says
you go, another James! right behind you!
David Byrden says
Before writing about something it’s advisable to understand it, don’t you think? Which step was unfortunately not taken in the creation of this article.
>> “the universe seems to be expanding from a central point”
Well, no it doesn’t. There is no special point.
>> “it’s supposed to have been the kick start of evolution.”
Well, no it wasn’t.
>> “The theory fails to answer that.”
It also fails to answer who won the 1982 World Cup, and many other questions that are outside its scope. So what?
>> “something has must have always existed – always.”
This is really funny. You start out mocking people who assumed the Earth was flat, and you end up assuming that spacetime is flat. What makes you think there was a time before the Big Bang?
Gerald says
The big bang discussion IS relevent. Much more so than who won the World Cup in 1982. Whether we think there is a God or not will determine how we order our lives. If there is a big bang, there is no need for a God to have created everything. Which, I think, is the purpose for proposing that there actually WAS a big bang. The big bang has many assumptions, little proof (primarily mathematic and computer scenrios), and no emphirical science. Pretty bold statement. Actually Joseph Silk in his definitative book on “The Big Bang” (now in it’s 3rd edition) left many unanswered questions. In Steven Weinberg’s book, “The first three minutes,” he assumes the initial explosion of the original “singularity.” These well qualified expert s do not have the answer to what caused the original singularity to begin it’s outward expansion. Actually, the singularity without time, space, matter, and only energy is the definition of a thermal death. The original singularity could not have produced anything. And then there is the “rate” of the the explosion (that had no cause). The outward expansion had to have been exactly perfect just like Goldylocks: too fast and nothing would have stopped the expansion, and too slow and the expansion would have collapsed on itself. Then there is the problem of “clumping.” The expanding debris of dust, energy, and gas could never clump. It would have continued its outward shockwave flow forever. Only kilometer size material has enough mass to collect other matter and overcome wind shear. And then there is the problem stellar evolution: Type II population stars consist of hydrogen and helium with a little of deuterium and lithium. Then they explode and recoalesce into type II stars, which explode and recollect into type I stars. But, have you ever been told that no one has ever seen a type III star? NONE EXIST! But they must in order for the big bamg to work. There are very few type II stars in our galaxy with the vast majority type I. Then ther is the problem of chemical evolution. But for natural selection to work, you must have a living organism to select. How did the 20 amino acids collect into polypeptides. Did you know that 19 of the 20 amino acids form mirror image arrangements? But in life, be it plant, animal, bacteria, or virus ONLY L-amino acids are used? If only 1 D-amino acid (right hand) is substituted in the string of assembled amino acids, the protein will not function. That’s how we get “Sweet & Low” a right handed amino acid is used and our body simply flushes out the entire protein string. In order to Hook up the amino acids, a water molecule is released. But, evolutionists attempt to use a “primordal soup” like ocean for these acids to form in. But, the water would break them appart as quick as they would form. Stanley Miller and later experimenters have been able to synthesize only 10 or 12 amino acids in their apparatus. The others can be made ONLY with bio-reagents in the labratory. Actually, cytosine has never been synthesized in the labratory. But, if these can only be made in the labratory, isn’t that actually Intelligent Design? Hemoglobin requires 206 amino acids in the correct order. If only 1 of these are substituted for another, sicle cell anemia results. Human DNA requires 3 billion pair of nucleotides. The limit of probabillity (actually possibility) is reached before 86,000 nucleotide pair are randomly selected. That is 10 to the 150 power (the number of estimated atms in the universe X the number of calculated seconds since the big bang). We are either the random, chance result of a cosmic accident with no puropse, no reason to exist, and no future, OR God made us in His image, we have a reason to be hers on planet earth, and we will, some day, be held accountable to our Maker. I have 120 excellent books on Creationism. many are technical tomes by Ph.D’s; nmany are readable and reasonable. Don’t take my word on it; search out the truth for yourself. [email protected]
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mr. David (and others who might read, but not respond),
Thank you for taking me to school on several points. But when you come to school, remember your books. Look up at my posting and look back to your posting and see who used facts and who used opinion. Opinions are fine, but in your words, they are not science. I can accept belittleing, but it shows you have a weak position.
Actually, there are only 2 choices: either God made it all or He did not. The alien angle is not actually a third, as it only removes the origins discussion to some planet long, long ago and far, far away. Sound familiar? Francis Crick realizing that DNA was so complex that it could not have evolved, suggested Panspermia – alien seeding of earth. Sounds rather farfetched for a true brain.
Please list some of the “weird, funky stuff in the sky” that is better explained by the Big Bang. I listed several observations (real science again) that the Big Bang cannot account for. I realize that no theory explains everything, but a working theory should, at least, explain the major points. Again, the Big Bang does not explain the actual beginning of the universe and galaxy formation (lumpiness). If it doen’t accomplish these 2 points, it’s not much of a theory.
Please list for me what you know for sure about evolution. Facts only, please. Please correct my naive ignorance.
Gerald Whitely
whitely@ catt.com
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mr. David and others,
Again, you have dodged the issue. When you say, “I don’t have time to list all the evidences of evolution,” you are actually saying, “I really don’t have ANY examples of evolution, so for a smoke screen, I’ll just say that I don’t have time to list all the examples of evolution.” Please, I have plenty of time, and you have plenty of time. Just list me ONE example of evolution that you know for sure. If you don’t, we’ll both know that you are bluffing.
You took me to task on the probability of DNA evolving randomly. I have actually done the math. Have you? There are only 4 base nucleotides in DNA, a polypeptide of 3 BILLION base pairs, ALL of which must be written perfectly in order to function. Let me lead you through: 4X 4 X 4 … = 4! which is 4 to the 86,000 power =10 to the 150 power, which is the commonly accepted limit of probability (actually the limit of possibility). We have reached impossibility at 86,000 nucleotides, EXTREMELY before 3 billion!
Actually, Mycoplasma genitalium is the simplest free-living organism. It has only 1 chromosome with 470 genes, which contain 1,040 nucleotide base pairs. Using 3 nucleotides for each codon, the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids. The probability of forming, by random assembly method, ONE such average size protein containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is 1 in 10 to the 451 power! Again, well below 10 to the 150 power.
I suggest that not everything in our world has a naturalistic explanation. Some things are obviously made by a Superior Intelligece. For example, If we found a body on the sidewalk, we might forensically begin to look for a cause of death. We may suspect Anthrax, or Ebola, or draw blood for a lab work-up. But if we see a knife sticking in the back of the body, our time might be better used looking for a PERSON.
Our world is too complex to have evolved; we need to be looking for a source of knowledge and information that is extremely higher than all of the organization that we see in the body of scientific observations. David, I am compelled to believe that there is a God. What is your take on the facts?
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
john hudson says
gerald,
You have made some very rational points, when you look at the intricacy of the universe from the micro to the macro, you can only wonder at the creator of such a thing. Even if you can’t bring yourself to say the words “i believe in god” you can appreciate that whatever did create us and the sublime precision of the universe and its constants, you have to say that whatever did create it is way beyond our imagination. I am muslim, so i will give you my view – obviously the Islamic view.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
(Al-Anbiya 21:30)
This is one of the many miracles of the quran, which i believe along with 1 billion others is as constant as these laws which make our universe. It was revealed 1428 years ago to an illiterate desert arab. I urge you to find an arab or go to islamic sites to check it out. ( anti islamic sites do try to alter the words, but we have the first quran, we have version control )
the quran said this 1400 years ago.
In more direct answer to your last comments, I think there was something before this big bang. Allah is eternal. Allah being arabic for the singular almighty creator.
We dont believe that the universe is eternal because testable evidence is to the contrary. Everything is finite, no matter how large the number or how difficult to imagine with our relativly inept brains. Also the very crux of monotheism is Islam and in islam science is embraced as proof of creation and creator.
Unfortunately Modern science is having its brain amputated, as we refer to the creation as “mother nature” and fail to refer science to the creation, instead of the creation to science.
We are missing the point: that if we can prove big bang ( which i believe we will as the quran suggests this :-) ) we cant then decapitate ourselves scientifically again and say “that means there must be no God” because the very nature of an “impossible to imagine amount of mass in a point of zero volume” then exploding and instead of absolute destruction creates absolute perfection only really points to one thing doesn’t it.
The next step once we realise that there must be a creator is “what does he want with me”? How come we can have a profound discussion about the origin of everything? And surely there must be a communication by this being otherwise this whole creation and this whole discussion would have been created for no good reason, which is as illogical as it gets.
Does it have anything to do with us? Is there evidence of a message? What are the implications if there is? How do we ind out the truth?
These questions i believe are as within our grasp as the conquering of the science o the physical aspect of the creation of the universe. I think they are bound together.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mr. John,
Thank you for your kind comments. Obviously, you are approaching the question of the Big Bang as I do: There must be an Intelligent Designer. In my discussions with Mr. David, I intentionally minimized the name of God. As a scientist (actually, a layman with a scientific bent), we should approach the question of origins from a logical standpoint. I sincerely do believe in God, but in the scientific discussions, that belief comes after we have exhausted the natural explanations. At the end of our naturalistic quest for answers to origins, we come up empty, therefore, there must be a God.
It is interesting that the Qur’an states that Allah sent us the truth by the law (Moses) and by the Gospel (of Jesus) to guide mankind. Surah 3:2-4 Actually, all Muslims are commanded to read and believe in the Injeel (the Gospel of Jesus). Surah 2:136 and Surah 57:27 True Christians are actually friends to Muslims. Surah 5:82 Christians must judge all revelation by the Injeel. Surah 5:47, 68 Many imams teach that Moses was corrupted, so God sent Jesus. Then the Gospel of Jesus was corrupted, so God sent the Qur’an, which is incorruptible. However, as you can see, the Qur’an never makes such a claim.
Please read the above verses for yourself and see what they truly say. Then read the Gospel of Jesus (Injeel) and see what it truly says.
I have found, in you, John, a resonant opinion as to the Big Bang.
What about you, David?
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
john hudson says
Hi Gerald,
I have to say, your explanation of these verses are a little biased!!!
3:2-4
(2) He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. (3) Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion of right and wrong. Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).
The meaning here is that all muslims have to believe in the torah an injeel but we follow the quran in truth. muhanmed said “if moses were here today he would only follow me”
Allah wants us to be true to all the messengers, not pick one and call him god… may allah save us from this.
2:136-137 ( you need 137 to understand 136 fully)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (136) And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (137)
57 : 26-29 (again 1 verse isnt enough, this is a dangerous way of quoting quran)
Then, We sent after them, Our Messengers, and We sent ‘Īsā (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), and gave him the Injeel (Gospel). And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion and mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them, but (they sought it) only to please Allâh therewith, but they did not observe it with the right observance. So We gave those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh). (27) O you who believe [in Mûsa (Moses) (i.e. Jews) and ‘Īsā (Jesus) (i.e. Christians)]! Fear Allâh, and believe in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), He will give you a double portion of His Mercy, and He will give you a light by which you shall walk (straight), and He will forgive you. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[] (28) So that the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) may know that they have no power whatsoever over the Grace of Allâh, and that (His) Grace is (entirely) in His Hand to bestow it on whomsoever He wills. And Allâh is the Owner of Great Bounty. (29)
5:82 ( there is no indication of your explanation in these verses… )
Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikûn (idolators), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: “We are Christians.” That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud. (82) And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognised. They say: “Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses. (83) “And why should we not believe in Allâh and in that which has come to us of the truth (Islâmic Monotheism)? And we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people”(84) So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of Al-Muhsinûn (the good-doers).
5:68
Say (O Muhammad SAW) “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing (as regards guidance) till you act according to the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel), and what has (now) been sent down to you from your Lord (the Qur’ân).” Verily, that which has been sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) from your Lord increases in most of them (their) obstinate rebellion and disbelief. So be not sorrowful over the people who disbelieve. (68)
Obviously the true gospel is simply not here today. Also the torah has been all but replaced by the thamud, which is another altogether manmade scripture. In another verse allah says :
“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). (The Noble Quran, 5:13)”
Allah knows what is in the hearts.
I have read the bible twice and found major discrepancies in the message, language, and cannot in my right mind attribute that to allah. based on our scientiic methodology of arriving at truth of god, i could not accept a religion which was based on a faulty document.
Which is why, as i said allah gave us the quran and promised to protect it, and promised muhammad as the seal of the prophets. The verses you pointed out are points of interfaith dialogue between the jews and christians of the time and muhammad. they are just as relevant as today!
Due to the prominence of Islam in todays society as an “evil ideology” we get many websites such as “answering islam” all over the web. This is natural. Any system which takes the power away from man and gives it back to god will get this kind of propganda.
Here is a link to a website which is very nice, and has authentic translation of quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com – surat mary – 19 may be interesting
also a link to a talk by a muslim scholar – i think you will be impressed at the level of it:
http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=2032&TitleName=Khalid_Yaseen
Gerald Whitely says
I have read the Bible through at least once each year for the past 30 years and have not found the errors that you say exist. Please list them for me. Actually, the Jewish scribes went to extreme pains to insure that the texts were copied exactly. Each of the scribes who copied the Torah did so with demanding and extraordinary precision. With the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the scrolls of the 5 books of Moses have been brought back from the various communities thousands of miles apart, separated for thousands of years! The scrolls brought from Poland and Germany during the holocaust were compared with those brought from Yemen, which were taken there during the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. Each were identical, containing exactly 304,805 letters! The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the last century, have verified other texts as well.
The Bible itself claims to be the inspired word of God, and not just the word of men. II Timothy 3:16 The Bible itself says that every word is pure. Proverbs 30:5 It is not the word of men, but Holy men wrote the words that God himself told them to write. II Peter 1:21 The Bible claims that the only way to heaven (salvation) is through the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12 The Apostle Paul reminded the church at Galatia that Jesus Christ was the only way to heaven, and that even if an angel were to come down and preach to them another gospel, he should not be believed, but be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9
Mr. John, I do not want to argue religion with you; this is about the Big Bang and Evolution. Thank you for agreeing with me on these two topics. But, your decision on Jesus Christ is paramount. That will decide where you will spend eternity.
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
ahSan says
Hi. Even though everyone seems to conflict with Mr. Lindseth, I am convinced that he is right. I am studying astrophysics in England. Once my teacher told me that when some scientists say ‘no’ to your questions, in majority, their theories cannot handle them. This is not a problem that some ideas are not in the domain of their theories i.e., World Cup has no link with Big Bang, but just because their theories cannot solve them Big Bang has to explain why we all are here in the first place to be able to play and see the World Cup.
Because frankly speaking, I too have no answer to any of the points of Mr. Lindseth though I can explain through Inflation, Quantum Gravity, Relativity, and so on but I myself is not satisfied with the answers. Only thing I would like to mention and which is the only hope for me is as following:
‘Say: There is One God. He is Eternel and Absolute. Nothing gave birth to Him and Nothing is born out of Him which is like Him. And, There is Nothing like Him’. The Holy Qurran. I believe that circumstances around the primvel subatomic particle of our Universe which Mr. Lindseth said is the same God. No flight of imagination can comprehend Him and yet He is everywhere.
Though Mr. Lindseth may not be knowing that but this is the only answer which the Creator of the Universe Himself gave. This is authentic and human knowledge is no more than a conjecture.
Thanks
DarkClow says
hi this will be my first and last post here but to argue the point a theory is jsut a theory unless proven wroung but to let you all know im in class 101 and yet nothing can be answered or be denyed because right has we are speaking we are killing a different universe and killing in we are not standing still and i do belive in the big bang theory because you all see exploding stars in the sky every time if you check out the net for expolding stars you will see what im talking about also check out nasa and you will find alot but theorys in High schools are always proven wroung thats way theres steps you gotta take so for mister Gerald i think he needs 2 brush off his books and head to dummy’s 101 if anyone wnats to talk to me (Gerald) contact my email at [email protected] i know everything about this stuff has i get 100% in my class and also in my debate i have won it 10 years straight in my school an undefeated if you have the guts to take me on email me
Jim Walsh says
“Again, you have dodged the issue. When you say, “I don’t have time to list all the evidences of evolution,” you are actually saying, “I really don’t have ANY examples of evolution, …”
Well, the evolution of the flu virus (which happens many times a year), requiring a re-working of the flu vaccine is ONE piece of evidence for evolution. The evidence for evolution fills many many books. (As you know but pretend not to know.)
AP says
> We are either the random, chance result of a cosmic accident with no puropse, no reason to exist, and no future, OR God made us in His image, we have a reason to be hers on planet earth, and we will, some day, be held accountable to our Maker.
Why the false dichotomies, why not both? Perhaps there is a God as is described in Christian literature, and perhaps the Big Bang was His vehicle for our creation.
> Human DNA requires 3 billion pair of nucleotides. The limit of probabillity (actually possibility) is reached before 86,000 nucleotide pair are randomly selected.
It is not assumed that 3 billion nucleotide pairs occurred from any single “attempt” no more than a BMW could have been made from a single “attempt” (i.e. building upon existing information). Hence disproving by saying human evolution as a whole surpasses the limit of possibility is not quite valid.
Snapper Winsten says
Another James, perhaps you are the one who should be looking up “absolute zero” in the encyclopedia since it has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. If anything it contradicts you. Absolute zero is yes, just a theory but it is impossible to be reached since it cannot be connected to nothing therefore there will always be some degree of warmth no matter how close it is to Absolute zero.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mr. Jim,
The “mutating” flu virus is a misnomer. Viruses are not viable without a host to live inside of. (prepositions are not to end a sentence with.) They need a host cell to invade, hijacking its DNA and using it to trick the host organism into believing that the virus is really a dividing “friendly” cell. The “mutating” virus, therefore, is not really mutating in the sense of changing into a new organism. Now if a cat mutated into a dog, well that would be news. But there has never been, nor ever will be, a “dat” (or a “cog” if you prefer). 10 times in Genesis 1 God commanded life to reproduce “after its own kind.” The stasis of the unique organisms is science. Dark or light varieties of the peppered moth may change population numbers, but they are still all peppered moths. None of them have mutated into a new butterfly. There is variety within a “kind,” such as with varieties of dogs or horses, but these varieties are only the random recombination of the existing DNA through sexual reproduction. No new information has been added to the canine genome when we produce a “new” breed of a dog. Also, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are not mutating; the “healthy” bacteria have been killed off by the antibiotics, leaving only the weak bacteria to proliferate, which cannot process the antibiotic enzymes, and are therefore immune to the antibiotics. Again, only a population shift, not evolution. There is no proof for evolution. No true science, only philosophy.
Gerald [email protected]
Jim Walsh says
First let me respond to Gerald Whitely who rejects changes in the flu virus as evidence of evolution. He basically claims that changes in the DNA can produce differences in a species but never a different species.
I wonder if he acknowledges that most of the plants and animals which once lived on this Earth are extinct. If so, does he imagine that all of the species currently found on the Earth also lived side by side with the dinosaurs?
If yes, I can only smile at the twists and turns a mind can take to avoid reality.
If no, then that is proof of evolution. Sadly, for you, your argument by definition does not apply to the Earth we live on.
The basic argument against the big bang comes from this claim: “The fact is there’s no such thing as nothing – it’s an impossibility.”
I can prove that “nothing” does in fact exist. I will prove it by comparing the universe we live in with one in which “nothing” was impossible.
The “no nothing” premise means that there is something (i.e, empty space) for infinity in every direction. That is a possible universe (btw) but it is not one we live in. The universe we live in contains gravity. And gravity bends space. This bending creates a shaped universe. That is what we have. Not a flat universe going on forever in every direction.
Because of the shape of the universe, we can postulate a point (and give it mathematical coordinates) which is not inside our shaped space. You may claim that that point “exists” if you want.
But, given the law of gravity and the distribution of mass, there is no way anything (not even light) can go to that point. It is truly nothing.
In other words, although it is very large, our universe is finite (according to quite a bit of excellent evidence).
Joke Police says
I’m not that bothered about whether the universe is finite, or what the definition of absolute zero is, etc etc.
I’m more interested in the debate over on that World’s Biggest Penis article.
Is this normal?
euclid says
It’s all Big Bang for you JP, isn’t it?
Incidentally, Absolute Zero is the wrong
thing to look up to prove the point of a universe in
eternal flux – Heat Death is the correct one. Enjoy!
mst3kster says
With all these intellect-types replying to each other’s posts on this topic seems to prove the Big Gang-Bang Theory, doesn’t it?
gir says
“Also, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics are not mutating; the “healthy” bacteria have been killed off by the antibiotics, leaving only the weak bacteria to proliferate, which cannot process the antibiotic enzymes, and are therefore immune to the antibiotics.”
This is absolutely the most retarded misunderstanding of microevolution promulgated as fact I have ever seen. Congratulations, you incredible moron.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mr. Jim,
The fact of extinct organisms does not prove nor explain evolution. They just died out. The fact of “extinct organisms” does not prove that they evolved into us. That is assuming evolution and mere circular reasoning. We are here, they are extinct, therefore we evolved from them. Come on Mr. Jim, that is not science. Observe and measure: who was there to observe this evolution? If they were there, where is their record? Oh wait a minute, that’s called the Bible and the observer is called God. But then we must reject God out of hand, we must have only a naturalistic solution to incredibly complex systems and structures. May be Mt. Rushmore is the product of erosion? What about the tooth fairy? A complex structure with details and design must have a Designer greater and more complex than that structure itself. DNA and galaxies scream that there must be a God. Check out Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled” that is out today.
Let’s separate science from philosophy. I admit that I believe the Bible by faith; but you should admit that you believe evolution by faith as well.
Euclid is right, we are headed for a heat death. II Peter 3:10 says, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Sounds like thermonuclear meltdown – predicted 2,000 years ago.
euclid says
wo wo wo wo wait a minute here.
Heat death and Jesus stink are two very separate and distinct
categories of thought in my universe.
“A complex structure with details and design must have a Designer greater and more complex than that structure itself.”
Ever hear of entropy? Complex structures tend toward more complex structures.
So when you die the great complexity that is your living organism and all the microorganisms that it is host to will fall into a state of decay, at which point they
will be rendered more complex. Disagree? Try putting someone dead for
a few years back together.
Oh, never mind. You and this whole Creationist reality-averse flat earth stupidity
are beyond merely tedious. You are aggressively tedious. If you want
to be a bore, please go right on ahead, but do us all a favor and keep it to your own.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Euclid,
wo wo wo wo; now you wait a minute. You are using the bait and switch tactics of a used car salesman, not the facts of a scientist. Your statement that complex organisms give rise to more complex organisms is not entropy, nor evolution. It is fiction.
First of all, the law of entropy states that systems tend towards less and less usable energy. By correlation, systems tend towards disorder, not more order. When I pull up a radish and eat it, we are not witnessing the radish evolving into a human; you’ve got to be kidding! The radish goes from being a growing, complex organism to being nothing but food for a more complex organism. You are saying that is evolution?! Or entropy?! Your organization into a more complex organization is only possible by the cellular machinery of digestion, assimilation, cellular transportation, cellular respiration, and mitochondrial action, and only possible because of the instructions of DNA that are evident, not increasing. Secondly, there has never been one single account of information added to any genome, only recombination (sexually) of pre-existing DNA information into novel organisms. Please correct me. The stasis of the genome is a fact. Again, please correct me. Radishes remain radishes; Euclids remain Euclids. If a few finch beaks change a little in the Galapagos Islands, that’s not evolution. Show me a finch turning into a giant tortoise and I’ll be Euclid junior.
Give me some facts; take me to school. But please remember to bring your books, not just opinions.
MRS SK Reece says
The “BIG Bang” theory? Were Black Wholes discovered prior to the BB theory? If not could they have supplied the necessary environment for hydrogen and helium to form. If so would the BigBang theory exist if black wholes had already been discovered being that the birth of the mentioned elements was the fuel for the theory?
MRS SK Reece says
Just a genuine question not a statement; no insults necessary.
Gerald Whitely says
Mrs. Reece,
In order for anything to “clump” or “form” in the vacuum and zero gravity of space, there must be attraction: electrical or gravitational. To form hydrogen a proton and an electron is requited. These would annihilate each other, resulting in a neutron, should they get anywhere near each other. But to form hydrogen, they would have to be very near each other. If the neutron forms (from an electron and a proton) it will attract nothing. In space, nothing smaller than 1 km has enough mass to have any appreciable gravitational pull: 2 house-sized objects (or smaller) would never attract each other.
The Big Bang does not address clumping, and without this being solved, there is no reason to go any further. By default: Intelligent Design. Something or Some One had to have made our universe.
A good read: “Dismantling the Big Bang by Alex Williams and John Hartlett.
I appreciate honest interest and inquiry. For those are the traits of a scientist. Dogma and narrow mindedness belong in the philosophy department.
Gerald Whitely
Ringgold, GA USA
[email protected]
gir says
“The Big Bang does not address clumping, and without this being solved, there is no reason to go any further. By default: Intelligent Design.”
Thanks, I love a logical fallacy in the morning.
gir says
“To form hydrogen a proton and an electron is requited. These would annihilate each other, resulting in a neutron, should they get anywhere near each other.”
Oh wow. Not only are you fucking stupid, you’re dishonest.
gir says
“A good read: “Dismantling the Big Bang by Alex Williams and John Hartlett.”
Thanks, but if I want to read poorly-written pseudoscience with a healthy dose of logical inconsistency and a dollop of cognitive dissonance, your hecklerspray posts are free.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear gir,
You obviously have some deep seated anger – but no scientific facts. If everything is explosively expelled out from a central point (the singularity) what DOES cause it to clump? No name calling, just a scientific answer, pleez. What DOES happen when a proton and electron approach? I say neutron. What say ye? Have you actually read Williams and Hart? If not crawl back under your rock. “A fool answers a matter before he hears it.” But then wait, that’s a quote from that despicable, unreliable Book, called the . . . NO, NO I just can’t bear to say it.
I just finished “What Darwin Didn’t Know” by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. A good read, IF you are actually interested in what the opposite side actually says.
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
gir says
“You obviously have some deep seated anger”
FINALLY one of them understands; yes I do, and it’s at you and your ilk.
“No name calling, just a scientific answer”
Bullshit, you fucking lying faggot. You’ve consistently demonstrated your unwillingness to even approach the merest hint of intellectual honesty. You’d rather dress your arguments in obfuscatory language and then try a land-grab for the moral high ground when people arguing in good faith finally get frustrated enough to insult you in a fit of pique. Well I come pre-frustrated, motherfucker, and you and I both know the ninth commandment doesn’t have any clause that states “unless you are trying to score rhetorical points on a message board.”
“What DOES happen when a proton and electron approach?”
I don’t know, and I’m honest enough to say so.
“I say neutron.”
That’s because you’re an idiot who refuses to do even cursory research. Where does the extra mass come from? Oh, right, God probably puts it in or some shit. Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.
“Have you actually read Williams and Hart?”
Why should I? So I can read the same bullshit and pay money for it? There are thousands of morons just like you all over the internet, all of you pumping out the same stream of pseudoscientific diarrhea. You don’t have a monopoly on your particular brand of rhetorical masturbation.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Mrs S K Reece,
Black holes are probably formerly neutron stars: stars who are at least 30 times the mass of the sun and who have collapsed under their own gravitational weight. Any light emitted from them would be immediately sucked back into their immense gravitational vortex. Hence, one could not “see” a black hole; only receive radio wave images from near the edges. A Black hole is an attempt to answer the problem of the “missing matter” in the universe. Big Bang theorists prefer to call the missing matter “dark matter,” for it is matter that they MUST assume is there in order to balance the observable rotation of the Galaxies. One must add approximately 90 % “dark matter” to the observed matter in the stars in the galaxies in order for there to be enough “matter” for their combined gravities to hold them together. My explanation, however, is that the universe is simply not that old. 6 of the 9 types of galaxies in the universe are spiral and/or barred galaxies with arms extending out in a swirl. Most of these show evidence that they have rotated only about 1 ½ times. Otherwise there would be no distinguishable arms left; they would be homogenized – all mixed together. Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity could be used proving that the faster objects travel, the slower their emitted light travels. God could have used, in essence, a “White Hole” and, at the beginning of the universe, stretched out the heavens, making them appear to be billions of light years across and billions of years old. In fact, they could be only about 6,000 years old. “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.” Isaiah 45:12 see also Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 51:13; and Jeremiah 10:12. A good read is “Starlight and Time” by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
P.S. gir, I can’t believe you are wasting your time reading this.
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
gir says
PS I didn’t, saw your ps though thanks. You are an evasive little faggot, and you’ll go to hell when you die for being a big fat liar.
MRS SK Reece says
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
Just a guy says
This is a furious discussion. I want to present my own theory and see what kind of response I get. I suggest that the universe as we know it is perpetual, a continuous cycle of expansion and contraction as matter and dark, or anti, matter continuously interact. I believe the origin of the big bang is a black hole that was massive enough to suck in all the matter in the universe, eventually becoming so massive that the matter existing in the black hole started collapsing inward on itself to a state of infinite density and energy, enough to escape the forces confining it and rapidly expand, the “big bang”. A non-uniform distribution of this matter and dark matter created clumps of matter, eventually creating stars and dark matter, creating black holes, which we see (or don’t see) today. I think our galaxy is doomed to succumb to this cycle again, black holes slowly sucking up all the matter eventually combining into one super-massive black hole and expanding once again after that point of infinite density and energy.
It has also been theorized that as matter approaches the speed of light (kinetic energy approaches infinity), time slows down, and eventually stops at the speed of light. Keep in mind that traveling close to the speed of light and approaching this infinite energy state is kind of like absolute zero, it’s just not explainable by any current theory as it takes an infinite amount of energy to propel matter the speed of light. Picture the marginal energy required to propel an object on the y axis and the velocity of the object on the x axis, with a horizontal asymptote at the speed of light; hence why photons, the only objects known to travel at or near the speed of light, have no mass. Anyways, as density increases and matter is compressed, kinetic energy increases as mass is converted into energy. Combining those two theories, I suggest that this infinitely dense ‘hunk’ of matter had enough kinetic energy to make time come to a screeching halt, making a timetable surrounding this big bang impossible to explain. So, in summary, I can theorize what happened leading up to the big bang and right after it, and that it will happen again. The instant of the big bang is scientifically like dividing by zero, or explaining infinity.
One more thing-“In space, nothing smaller than 1 km has enough mass to have any appreciable gravitational pull.”
Mass has nothing to do with volume or “size.”
It’s been awhile since I was into this stuff and I don’t have the patience to reference the language used or put it nearly as eloquently, but my basis for this was “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. I apologize again if my language was a little lay, but I invite comments on any level, as long as religion is not discussed.
XQB-553 says
Dude,
It is like when you get to 10 exp. -43 second in time and poof you have a matrix form from the ether. What was the time before the ether, time without time, negative time ( counting backwards from Zero time ) ? Sort of like the problems with the Oscillation and Steady State Theories of cosmology. That by stating that there is an absolute starting point for the development of the cosmos. There must be a time before time in this time line or is this just a different time line to contend with in the development of the cosmos and that would make it a Oscillation theory, theoritically. What are the building blocks of the ether, the charm particles ?
The blocks would have to be a form of energy in some form forming into a form of mass, however miniscule (for a thousand, or milliom, or billion years matter was quarks/charm particles or somewhere between energy and mass, but where did that come from). The hand/breath of God, let’s not go there, ( A theory is a belief, but a belief is not a theory ). But for change within a system, it has to be acted upon by another system, somebody made some laws, and then you play dice ( time is irrelevant, a human concept need to think of time as/in a cosmological epoch ( a point of reference, we donot live on Pluto( longer summer vacations))). How do you get energy to slow down in a vacumn where there is nothing to interact with it, unless you have the same form of a neutral, no charge what(eneregy particle)?interacting with its own kind ( like charges repel different charges attract, but how do you get these unless a neutral charge has been acted upon to dissociate itself (this charge) into two different (halves) or multiple functions) by another neutral particle. And, we are forever falling aroung the sun.
euclid says
Some fall faster than others…
gir says
Shut the fuck up you stupid stoner.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Just a Guy, XQB-553, euclid, et al,
There are (as I see it) 3 areas of thought on the universe’s origin:
1. Total theory – anything goes; we are just TOTALLY postulating.
2. Theory based on currently observed facts.
3. Facts that we KNOW about origins.
Reality is somewhere in #2. #3 cannot be factual as origins are outside of empirical science. i.e. observational. #1 is non-productive as it is not based in reality, only limited to our imaginations. The observed facts of our universe say that the universe is expanding necessitating a point of origin i.e. the big bang OR the original creation (don’t cut me off – hear me out). Black holes are thought to be neutron stars 30X more massive than our sun. But, if everything is sucked into a bigger and bigger black hole, NOTHING would ever come out: a matter/heat/energy sump. Cosmic Microwave Bacground Radiation (CMBR) is uniform and omni-directional evidence of some beginning. But, we cannot revisit this beginning. Steady-State won’t work; Sir Fred Hoyle (its originator) gave it up to write science fiction. Once again, the theory left standing is a Creator Who is 1. outside of time 2. before origins 3. more intelligent than all that we can opserve 4. the Owner of everything – including us. If He made is, we are ultimately responsible to Him. Read what He said He did. It makes sense.
Gerald Whitely
gir says
“Once again, the theory left standing is a Creator Who is 1. outside of time 2. before origins 3. more intelligent than all that we can opserve 4. the Owner of everything – including us.”
One last time: THAT IS NOT A FUCKING THEORY YOU FUCKING RETARD. Do not try to pretend that your idiot mythology has some scientific validity.
Shooty* says
Christ, how did I miss this thread?
You leave gir alone!
Gerald Whitely says
Dear gir & Shooty & etc.,
If you are sick of my stupid mythological theory, please state your own theory
Jeff G says
I so love it when people run off at the mouth without doing the research. It only serves to discredit them from the get go. What I bet Shawn didn’t know before he wrote this is that the “quack” who “dreamed up” the big bang theory (apparently while “scrubbing his nethers in a bubble bath”) was Georges Lema
Wayne Walls says
My view is that we must have emerged from something…what that is well who can really say? Given the fact the Universe is expanding, it does suggest the Big Bang as it is called, there is still the HUGE question of what initiated the event? Maybe that is a question too mired in philosophy or even religion, with its metaphysical edge obvious to all…theology is another stage on which it seems best able to perform…
There is also the question of what happened “before” the big-bang, which itself is a question really of metaphysics, its almost like trying to visualise the world befoer you yourself were born…
The essence of the big bang is that everything emerged from a singular point, in effect from “nothing”…now try to grasp that point for a moment or two, hmmmm, very difficult isn’t it? In fact it’s impossible for the human brain to fully comprehend the essence of that idea, because obviously we cannot view infinite dimensional objects, or even four-dimensional ones. As they say, just think of it like a balloon, with dots on the surface, expanding out…
I am to understand the big bang did not occur in a central point, it happened everywhere at the same time, which again is impossible for us mere mortals to grasp…
Just by way of concluding, I too feel the big bang theory is hugely incomplete, and there really is a lot that is to still be learnt about it, as there is still the dichotomy between relativity and quantum theory, of course string theory is one of the tools currently in use to try to decipher the sub-microscopc universe, wih there seemingly being a way to maybe one day incorporate relativity into the quantum realm with quantum gravity being investigated so thoroughly, all they need to try is to see how far they can go with these fields of endeavour…time will tell of course.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Jeff G. and Wayne W. and others reading,
Thanks for your interest and input. It sounds like you, Jeff are not a believer in the Big Bang at all. What DO you believe about origins? And you, Wayne, are not sure what is going on, but the Big Bang is not very explanative. Again, what DO you believe about the Origin of the Universe?
The interesting thing about the Big Bang theory is that if you do the math (Silk, Weinberg and Hawking), there is still not enough expansion to fill the 15 billion light years diameter of the universe that we can (with the Hubble telescope) see! This necessitates Alan Guth
Rob H says
<>
But I’ve talked with physicists who confirmed that there’s also a shock-wave which reflects back inward faster than the expansion. In that case you’d see all kinds of things happening in the fractions of Femtoseconds which I imagine causing resonances and rhythms (remember there are rhythms in harmonies!!!).
Imagine what would occur when the first inward shockwave reached the point of origin. Wouldn’t the collision of energies be an extremely important interval and then cause yet more outward wavefronts which themselves would have inwards fronts as well?
So much complexity and information in such an unimaginably short, energetic moment – fixed by the sudden entropic cooling so that the principals of creative elaboration would be forged probably for all time or close to it.
I prefer to keep my mind on things like this rather than giving up and letting someone else dictate their stories to me…
DarkClow says
hi there again after a year or two but again you are avoiding stuff we already know big bang’s/ super nova’s and all have been proven by nasa and other astrophysics’s. please take your time and read websites and real things not people that belive they seen green aliens and gave them stuff (not saying they not real but i havent seen any and i am in a hot spot zone for them) but super nova’s create such force that everything in so much raduis is gone but the main core witch turns into a sun again in so many million years but then comets and other stuff head into its gravity pull around it and smash into the debris to create planets and moon’s please search this up has its not a thoery
nerdsrules says
If you throw GOD in the middle of all this theory it all makes sense
after all it’s beyond our tiny little pea brains isn’t it
The universe if full of unexplained phenomenon we cant explain
its way beyond us
don’t be fooled there really is a GOD
Dustin says
I agree that the big bang theory is false, and I can prove that through Science itself:
Science states:
Everything has a beginning
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
Molecules are made of energy
now that we have those, lets look at this:
big bang theory says that there is the possibility of a series of big bangs leading up to this, so lets look at the first:
where did the gas and rock and whatever was there come from for there to even BE a big bang? Science can’t explain that, so for now, faith is the only thing that could be true, and which faith you choose could be right or wrong, but one thing is for sure, in the end, we will all know whose been right all along, and whose been dead wrong. my faith is in Yahweh(God), and that He made the universe, so, I guess when we die, we will see if my faith is correct or not, but I truly believe it is.
God Bless You,
Dustin R.
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Nerdsrules,
It sounds like you prefer to live in ignorance. I do not believe in a “God” because I can’t explain a given phenomenon; I believe that God is the best explanation in cases where something was obviously made. We don’t discuss how a 1963 corvette evolved, because an engineer at GM is actually the best explanation. To assume materialism as the only explanation is to limit our choices. Consider all possibilities and then eliminate impossibilities one at a time. If God is left standing, so be it. I am not afraid of facts wherever they may lead. Are you, Nerdsrules?
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Dustin,
Sounds like you are on the right track. Faith in God is not a leap in the dark, it is a reasonable faith. As we look at the complexity of the universe, and look at the complexity in the cell, there is no way that all of this could have made itself – even if you give it billions of years. There must be a Designer more intelligent than His creation, Greater than His entire creation, and, amazingly, desiring to make Himself known to us, His creation. Keep thinking!
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]
readquran says
i agree with you that the big bang Theory is wrong because according to Islam The Quran mentions:
Matt Watts says
I “knew” the big bang theory was too strange to take seriously when I first heard of it in the 8th Grade in 1964, but instead of it disappearing it just has gotten stronger over time. The psychology, religion, and politics behind the tyranny of this popular myth is much more interesting than the simple primordial seed in nothingness theory itself.
It is like a Genesis Plot or brain washing system.
Why things change so slowly and such mythology persists is just bizarre to me.
That’s just part of what humanity is and does I suppose. But it is changing and the world wide web is helping a great deal to educate people and to spread creative thinking and real live logic.
Thanks for the heart warming blog.
Gerald Whitely says
So Matt, if the Big Bang is too strange to take seriously, how do you think the universe (and us) got here? We are here. Are mater and energy eternal? If matter and energy had a beginning, what brought them forth from nothing? And where did the laws of the universe come from? When or from Whom did they come? Although belief in God may seem illogical, it is the only logical theory left standing. I am like “readquran”, in that I believe the Bible as authoritative (not the quran). But again, this is not a blind leap in the dark, nor the result of brainwashing, but logical testable faith. What are your theories, Matt?
Gerald Whitely
zuma says
Let
zuma says
The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
Let
Gerald Whitely says
Dear Zuma,
You have spent some time in thought on an expanding universe. The image that most physicists use is that of dots on a balloon. As you blow up the balloon, all dots are moving away from each other. There is no blue shift as you suggest. Since the balloon is expanding, all dots are moving away from each other – all would experience red shift as each observes all of the others. But the real question is not what, but when and why. If the universe is expanding – and it appears to be – there must have been an originating point. And when was it at the origin point? We assume the expansion is uniform, but why? If it is uniform, we can assume 15 billion years of expansion. But if the big bang occurred, what mechanism triggered it? Where did the laws to order it come from? Why did clumping occur allowing galaxies, stars, earths, Geralds and Zumas to form? Sticky questions that beg a Greater Power than this all – don’t you think?
Gerald Whitely
[email protected]