More ramblings from an old man about the Big Bang

Apr 30, 2020
7
0
30
Einstein can be forgiven for getting it wrong – his successors didn't do any better.

The only thing that could possibly justify scientists’ expanding universe/inflating space theory otherwise known as the ‘Big Bang’, is the assumption that light must always travel in a straight line. Only by employing this to me unbelievable deduction, can the universe accommodate the distance light has actually travelled from distant objects to reach us. We have assumed that the total distance travelled is its actual radial distance!

Last year was the 100th year anniversary of discovering that light can be curved by gravity. So if light curves on it’s way to us, it must necessarily cover a greater distance than if it traverses the distance directly. It's a bit easier for a dunce like me to imagine the light from stars bending suddenly and then the distance covered will be equal to two sides of a triangle of distances, light's
actual course. Their sum will always be greater than the direct route, the third side of the triangle. An object's radial distance will nearly always be less than its distance travelled to us.

There is little point in attempting to define a gravitational constant since as far as gravitational bodies are concerned there is not necessarily any relationship between distance travelled and gravitational effects. They are random. Because of this, the route taken by light to reach us cannot be determined. It will encompass a variety of gravitational effects curving light in every possible direction. Even an object's position in space is similarly indeterminable. The slightest deflection or deviation caused by gravitational bending of a spacial object's light will ‘blind’ us to its
actual position and its actual distance.

Light from distant objects bends 'hither and thither' in the enormity of space on its journey to us due to its relatively close encounters with large gravitational forces. A longer journey caused in this way is longer than its radial distance from us and causes light to lose more energy than it will expend on a direct route; this can be measured by luminescence or red shift. However, we have wrongly misinterpreted these measurements as recessional velocity. Why the Doppler Effect which works for sound waves should have been assumed to also act for light is beyond me but I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.

Using red shift and luminescence has led us to conclude that light’s 'roundabout' journey to us from the stars shows us something quite different. Light is telling us it's had a long, hard, variegated route through the heavens and scientists are telling us that the universe is expanding so that this dubiously tells us the
'radial' distance of the light's source. Funny, I thought we were meant to believe it's the object's velocity away from us.

We have concluded that space is expanding and light travels faster than light to accommodate some very irrational thinking. Surely, it's not space that bends it's the light light passing through it that does so?

Before it's time for me to get my usual 10 hours' sleep, let me leave you with another thought to keep you awake. When light or for that matter any object travels from one point to another indirectly, it not only travels further than going straight there, it also (assuming it travels at a constant speed), takes more time to reach its destination! So light that gets deflected on it's way here ages more than than it should as well as arriving later in time.

Light from two stars which are actually equidistant can therefore seem to us to have different ages and different radial distances dependent on the vagaries of their respective routes. How much do we know about space? Please give me a clue. Am I being stupid?

Surely it’s time to re-write the textbooks! Can someone with half a brain please tell me what is wrong with this argument? Good night!
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2019
16
5
35
Afternoon Whitefeather, My thoughts on the Big Bang goes like this. One day while out fishing I noticed a man throw a stick of dynamite in the lake. In watching I thought to myself, this might have been what the big Bang looked like. Though in the big bang there was a magnetic ball that encapsulated the blast. While being in a space with unlimited area the spinning and gravity formed our many universes.

As to the light it goes the same way. We can not imagine that a single spark can be seen in an instant it is created to the time it ceases to exist. So did it travel to our eyes or did our eyes travel to it? That is for Father to know and for us to sit in amazement and rejoice that we are privy just to be here to see it.
 
Mar 19, 2020
148
15
105
@tmar2003(Jim)
The big bang is not like an explosion. But good on you for seeing a dynamite lake, that sounds like quite the experience. The Big Bang theory adresses the formation of our universe, (in the singular).
 
Apr 30, 2020
7
0
30
Afternoon Whitefeather, My thoughts on the Big Bang goes like this. One day while out fishing I noticed a man throw a stick of dynamite in the lake. In watching I thought to myself, this might have been what the big Bang looked like. Though in the big bang there was a magnetic ball that encapsulated the blast. While being in a space with unlimited area the spinning and gravity formed our many universes.

As to the light it goes the same way. We can not imagine that a single spark can be seen in an instant it is created to the time it ceases to exist. So did it travel to our eyes or did our eyes travel to it? That is for Father to know and for us to sit in amazement and rejoice that we are privy just to be here to see it.
Hi Jim. Interesting what you said. Thing is that we live in the past. Apart from what's in our heads everything we are aware of happened some time ago. We can't even predict what has already occurred. Quantum Theory does change things. Electrons are in touch with everything everywhere. The obvious alternative to the Bug Bang Theory is that there wasn't one. The Universe is infinite in size and age. It has no boundaries, start or beginning. Because people find this difficult to understand, they have invented something more plausible to dispel our disbelief. Trouble is that all we have done is create even more ridiculous theories. Time only exists when you have to store memories. Best wishes, Mike
 
Nov 26, 2019
16
5
35
So being stuck in the past is a hindrance along with the inability to imagine. Then it goes back to the Chicken and the Egg. Quantum theory, as you said helps, like salt in a pepper field you are then able to see the salt and you disregard the pepper when in reality, like cooking, they work together to enhance the flavor.

Myself I believe in the KISS approach trying to relate it to things that I know. Then the unknown doesn't exist for it already is and already was.

When I was little I saw a vision that kept me awake at night. Until a spiritual friend explained to me that you control your dreams and thus became me. I learned all things are not as they seem and even even in your dreams you can change or rewrite them. So we need to make Quantum theory our pepper field and like before something will again become our new salt. :)
 
Nov 26, 2019
16
5
35
Hellopunyhumans, no dreams don't but controlling them give you insight, or at least your minds insight, into what the future holds. The vision was so real that I actually touched a person within it.
 
Mar 19, 2020
148
15
105
I'm going to assume your mind was making that sensation up. Although you are correct that dreams do serve an evolutionary benefit of future-postulating
 
Nov 26, 2019
16
5
35
The mind is the most powerful tool we have as human beings. It can see and feel due to memories and such. It is said that one can kill themselves so for me it was a wake-up call that at the time I needed to learn.

It is the same with the big bang with the considerations that we started from nothing or that something was always there. Hard to believe but it can be imagined.
 
Mar 19, 2020
148
15
105
@Whitefeather
I don't belive I have half a brain, but my certainty that I have a whole one is through the roof. Don't call yourself thick. These is a great
I think you aren't considering our situation with redshift. Everything outside our local group (Pinwheel, Andromeda and Chocolate, Carmel, and Toffee) is redshifting. The redshift says its moving away from us, not measuring distance, so it isn't distorted that way unless it does a 180, which is possible around a black hole, but it's hard for light to escape that.
 
Apr 30, 2020
7
0
30
@Whitefeather
I don't belive I have half a brain, but my certainty that I have a whole one is through the roof. Don't call yourself thick. These is a great
I think you aren't considering our situation with redshift. Everything outside our local group (Pinwheel, Andromeda and Chocolate, Carmel, and Toffee) is redshifting. The redshift says its moving away from us, not measuring distance, so it isn't distorted that way unless it does a 180, which is possible around a black hole, but it's hard for light to escape that.
Hi,
Redshift is a measure of energy loss. When light loses energy, the effect is that its wavelength and possibly frequency. Certainly its amplitude is lessened; this is the 'height of the wave. Because of these changes the red shift section of the spectrum is increased. Just because the Doppler effect of sound waves indicates the object making the sound is moving away, doesn't mean that light behaves similarly. Light moves at the same speed in a vacuum regardless of what its source does.
If light is deflected, reflected or refracted, it will lose energy and its red shift will change. Since distance travelled is equivalent to red shift, it's an indication of distance of objects not their speed away from us. What has been suggested is about the craziest way to describe the Universe I've ever heard!
Do you know that for all of my bumbling for two years, not one Big Bang supporter can pick holes in my simple to understand ramblings!
Best wishes,
Mike
 
Apr 3, 2020
4
1
15
Einstein can be forgiven for getting it wrong – his successors didn't do any better.

The only thing that could possibly justify scientists’ expanding universe/inflating space theory otherwise known as the ‘Big Bang’, is the assumption that light must always travel in a straight line. Only by employing this to me unbelievable deduction, can the universe accommodate the distance light has actually travelled from distant objects to reach us. We have assumed that the total distance travelled is its actual radial distance!

Last year was the 100th year anniversary of discovering that light can be curved by gravity. So if light curves on it’s way to us, it must necessarily cover a greater distance than if it traverses the distance directly. It's a bit easier for a dunce like me to imagine the light from stars bending suddenly and then the distance covered will be equal to two sides of a triangle of distances, light's
actual course. Their sum will always be greater than the direct route, the third side of the triangle. An object's radial distance will nearly always be less than its distance travelled to us.

There is little point in attempting to define a gravitational constant since as far as gravitational bodies are concerned there is not necessarily any relationship between distance travelled and gravitational effects. They are random. Because of this, the route taken by light to reach us cannot be determined. It will encompass a variety of gravitational effects curving light in every possible direction. Even an object's position in space is similarly indeterminable. The slightest deflection or deviation caused by gravitational bending of a spacial object's light will ‘blind’ us to its
actual position and its actual distance.

Light from distant objects bends 'hither and thither' in the enormity of space on its journey to us due to its relatively close encounters with large gravitational forces. A longer journey caused in this way is longer than its radial distance from us and causes light to lose more energy than it will expend on a direct route; this can be measured by luminescence or red shift. However, we have wrongly misinterpreted these measurements as recessional velocity. Why the Doppler Effect which works for sound waves should have been assumed to also act for light is beyond me but I'm as thick as two short planks anyway.

Using red shift and luminescence has led us to conclude that light’s 'roundabout' journey to us from the stars shows us something quite different. Light is telling us it's had a long, hard, variegated route through the heavens and scientists are telling us that the universe is expanding so that this dubiously tells us the
'radial' distance of the light's source. Funny, I thought we were meant to believe it's the object's velocity away from us.

We have concluded that space is expanding and light travels faster than light to accommodate some very irrational thinking. Surely, it's not space that bends it's the light light passing through it that does so?

Before it's time for me to get my usual 10 hours' sleep, let me leave you with another thought to keep you awake. When light or for that matter any object travels from one point to another indirectly, it not only travels further than going straight there, it also (assuming it travels at a constant speed), takes more time to reach its destination! So light that gets deflected on it's way here ages more than than it should as well as arriving later in time.

Light from two stars which are actually equidistant can therefore seem to us to have different ages and different radial distances dependent on the vagaries of their respective routes. How much do we know about space? Please give me a clue. Am I being stupid?

Surely it’s time to re-write the textbooks! Can someone with half a brain please tell me what is wrong with this argument? Good night!
Okay I am not sure if this was the thought of the Scientist that removed their shoes to add all this up but this could be the thought. All light heads out from point A as A group. You know the deal all for one stuff. Than this group to the side sees something interesting and some of the light drifts over there while other streams of said light just did not eat breakfast and run out of light. Meanwhile the Marines of light deter not one bit from there straight ahead full speed goal and that light arrives here undeflected which is what we measure.
 
Mar 19, 2020
148
15
105
Hi,
Redshift is a measure of energy loss. When light loses energy, the effect is that its wavelength and possibly frequency. Certainly its amplitude is lessened; this is the 'height of the wave. Because of these changes the red shift section of the spectrum is increased. Just because the Doppler effect of sound waves indicates the object making the sound is moving away, doesn't mean that light behaves similarly. Light moves at the same speed in a vacuum regardless of what its source does.
If light is deflected, reflected or refracted, it will lose energy and its red shift will change. Since distance travelled is equivalent to red shift, it's an indication of distance of objects not their speed away from us. What has been suggested is about the craziest way to describe the Universe I've ever heard!
Do you know that for all of my bumbling for two years, not one Big Bang supporter can pick holes in my simple to understand ramblings!
Best wishes,
Mike
Dude, I'm doing that. Thats not how this works. In my state, this is GT 7th Grade ciricula. Only the wavelength is lessend in redshift. Amplitude is decreased, causing the conservation of energy to force the light into increasing wavelength and frequency. This is not a deacrease in the speed of the light, it is an increase in wavelength. It does mean exactly that. You see, light behaves like a wave and a particle at the same time due to I thing my friend who I disscuss physics with "quantum wigglyness". When the universe expands, the light has to travel farther. The speed does not change, the Area it has to cover does. This makes sense with the fact that light in a vacuum keeps its speed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY