Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Big bang flaws:

  1. #41
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,219
    I come back to the Compton effect, which is connected to the interaction of energy with electrons. The electron will absorb some of the energy and the original energy will red shift into lower energy. The Compton effects makes the sun appear to red shift even though it is not moving away from us. It is reasonable to assume that all stars have a base Compton effect since they all output energy and all should have free electrons on the surface.

    According to the current theory, only the sun shows the comptom effect and all the rest of the stars red shift due to motion. There are no free elections from the end of the visible universe to the earth, therefore there is no Compton effect, that will increase with distance, due to more photon-electron interactions over time. How does the current theory prove this?

  2. #42
    Please demonstrate the Compton effect makes the visible light from the sun redshift.

    The Compton effect is a process which scatters light and has a strong frequency dependence, so cannot be used to explain gravitational or cosmological redshift which affects all frequencies the same and does not blur images.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html

    // Edit:

    Compton scattering is just another failed attempt to replace the implications of cosmological redshift by fantasy worlds, without physical evidence. It was examined and found impossible to work in 1929.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In general, any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:
    • admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band
    • not exhibit blurring
    • follow the detailed Hubble relation observed with supernova data (see accelerating universe)
    • explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.
    Related to cosmological redshift is the gravitational redshift of light emitted from a star. This too, is something that gets tested.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../280255a0.html
    Last edited by rpenner; 02-10-12 at 09:48 AM.

  3. #43
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by sifreak21 View Post
    couple things here
    1. Alot of people DO NOT believe in life outside our planet. yet they do believe in the BBT.
    IF there was a big bag then every thing in the universe is made up of the same materials. SO IF that was true there must be a high chance life was created elsewhere to
    2. we dont even know whats on the sea floor yet we know that starts 12 billion lightyears away are moving 8/
    how's your 2012's Doomsday Book coming along???

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by markl323 View Post
    how's your 2012's Doomsday Book coming along???
    I heard it was due to be published in early 2013.

  5. #45
    It's always risky to take on the big bang theory, but to me it's just like witchcraft. Sometimes I feel like man has never evolved at all. The flaws are so obvious that it is hardly worth pointing them out, it's like Noah's Ark. Christians can't see why it's wrong, but it's very obvious.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 03-07-12 at 04:31 PM.

  6. #46
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    It's always risky to take on the big bang theory, but to me it's just like witchcraft. Sometimes I feel like man has never evolved at all. The flaws are so obvious that it is hardly worth pointing them out, it's like Noah's Ark. Christians can't see why it's wrong, but it's very obvious.
    What's wrong with Noah's Ark?

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    It's always risky to take on the big bang theory, but to me it's just like witchcraft. Sometimes I feel like man has never evolved at all. The flaws are so obvious that it is hardly worth pointing them out, it's like Noah's Ark. Christians can't see why it's wrong, but it's very obvious.
    It's obviously incomplete, but it does fit the data.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    It's obviously incomplete, but it does fit the data.
    A Galaxy fits the data, and like Noah's Ark it is smaller than everyone has suggested. You are looking at a multi-verse, I say wake up. And I don't want replies that use word semantics. Science isn't about semantics.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 03-08-12 at 03:41 AM.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    A Galaxy fits the data, and like Noah's Ark it is smaller than everyone has suggested.
    WTF is that suppose to mean?

    Science isn't about semantics.
    Oh, great now your anti-semantic.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by origin View Post
    WTF is that suppose to mean?



    Oh, great now your anti-semantic.
    Oh nevermind, I can't be bothered.
    Last edited by Pincho Paxton; 03-08-12 at 08:47 AM.

  11. #51
    Arguing with a crank - useless AlexG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,851
    Science isn't about semantics.
    And you're not about science.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    And you're not about science.
    That's true, I'm about the truth, and nature...Pinchoism.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. By Reiku in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 07-28-11, 01:32 PM
    Replies: 23
  2. By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 12-30-10, 10:07 AM
    Replies: 1953
  3. By jsaldea12 in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 07-06-09, 09:46 AM
    Replies: 7
  4. By jerrygg38 in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-29-09, 08:49 PM
    Replies: 13
  5. By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 06-25-08, 09:36 PM
    Replies: 37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •