Red shift is far from the only evidence we have for the big bang theory. Red shift is far from the only evidence we have for expansion. And the big bang theory is not derived from temporal recursion of expansion. You are oversimplifying to the degree of it becoming dishonest.
Redshift may not be the only evidence we have but the most fundamental.
If the Big Bang is is not arrived at by going back in time starting from today's state, based on assumptions of some observed expansion... then what is it based on? A mere idea of how expansion just might have been working out?
The music on this video made it hard to concentrate on your points. That being said, we first made the observations that galaxies were receding from us, and those farther away were receding faster. We then proposed a theory to explain this observation - not the other way around. General Relativity is the most successful scientific theory ever presented. This isn't appeal to authority, it's appeal to evidence. And that does hold up to reason.
I don't think we've made that observation of expansion at all.
What we have is an interpretation of the radiation coming from all kinds of directions and a phenomenon we call redshift ...which scientists desperately tried to account for, yet unfortunately stuck with the idea of universal expansion ...all of this under the false assumption that all along it's journey those radiative patterns progress somewhat unchanged.
"General Relativity is the most successful scientific theory ever presented."
In what respect?
What seems successful about it, is that physicists seemed to have jumped on the train ever so willingly.
Well, from our relativistic earthlings perspective it even makes certain sense to pinpoint "the speed of light" as a (relativistically) constant value.
The problem with that is twofold:
a) What is light(speed), if not a relative phenomenon?
@realisoph GR has been tested and confirmed 1000`s of times to an incredible degree of accuracy. GPS would not work if it were wrong. The Cassini spacecraft has confirmed it as well as many other experiments (Google "cassini general relativity"). GR was met with hostility by the scientific community, only to have it's bitterest opponents accept it under the weight of evidence.
The speed of light was also originally thought to be variable, and through numerous experiments this proved wrong...
b) GR sets this as the universal speed limit (in space) and GR has been confirmed over and over, so we can say with an incredibly high degree of certainty that yes, the speed of light is the universal upper limit.
You make this sound like a philosophical problem when its just science. Science that can be confirmed or refuted by experiment, not really by thought experiment.
To me, light above all, is a relativistic phenomenon.
To ask what it would be to like to ride on a "beam of light" is somewhat superfluous, as you would no longer call it "a beam of light", since that - as the relativistic phenomenon it is - is defined as a wave/particle construct oscillating and moving at certain speeds... which it no longer would, if you "rode on it".
What would a human tall as the milkyway call a from our perspective "regular" ray of light?
To define relativity on the basis of constancy is a direct continuation of all those XYZ-centric world-views, be they Ego-, Theo-, Geo-, Helio- or Big Bangish.
All defy the fundamentally emergent nature of reality and all that which it is composed of ...by imposing an arbitrary perspective or assumption to be the ultimate needle in the haystack.
If relativity means anything, then a fundamental requirement to acknowledge the validity of an infinite number of different perspectives.
Sorry - @ejasem1 - but "God did it" just wont cut it for me, ever, period.
There is no point qt all to an all-encompassing, all-knowing, almighty, conscious, or even intelligent entity that not only stretches thoughout all of existence but even extends it so that it can be its creator... I could accept the idea of there being somewhat "higher" beings ...but then, they're just not alone in their relative position, just as we're not human all on our own.
1-what bang??? by logic who was there to calculate ? all these just theories ?? no facts . figures,calculations, assumptions ,etc >the earth is the central of universe &it fixed in its place not revolving nor rounding > the universe is limited & not infinite _ god create humans by his will from earth mud 7000 years ago -think logically & you will see how much deception we are living in _ thanks for this efforts
Neat video! A lot of people think the theory of a Big Bang is built on thin ice the red shift must be an expansion in time and space. Because it is spacetime that is expanding maybe our Reason and understanding expands with it. If it was just a physical expansion we would have a centre of the Universe somewhere but there is no centre. I have read that there are Galaxies that seem to be connected to objects with different red shift it is all very odd.
I tend to agree, it's a big leap going from saying the universe is expanding due to redshift observations to saying therefore it all must have started at one point in the creation of the universe.
If it did all start at one point it seems like it would be important and easy to trace back the trajectories of things to find the focal point where it all started... I wonder how many books and shows have been sold due to big bang theory- the modern day explanation of the creation of the everything.
I made this video, as - on the background of my "premises of reason" - I wanted to give people a more open minded approach to reality ...and because many who consider themselves atheists - as I do - often seem to just put out their vote for the Big Bang as opposed to Religious Creationism.
So, I found a need to express that this argument is rather founded on on very thin ice ...even if, the likelihood of some big (but local) bang may be a thousandfold higher.
I like your point of view.
anomistars 6 months ago
@anomistars
Thanks, appreciated ...people like you don't seem to come by very often, as you can see from the poor ratings.
realisoph 6 months ago
Red shift is far from the only evidence we have for the big bang theory. Red shift is far from the only evidence we have for expansion. And the big bang theory is not derived from temporal recursion of expansion. You are oversimplifying to the degree of it becoming dishonest.
Josan117 1 year ago
@Josan117
Redshift may not be the only evidence we have but the most fundamental.
If the Big Bang is is not arrived at by going back in time starting from today's state, based on assumptions of some observed expansion... then what is it based on? A mere idea of how expansion just might have been working out?
realisoph 1 year ago
The music on this video made it hard to concentrate on your points. That being said, we first made the observations that galaxies were receding from us, and those farther away were receding faster. We then proposed a theory to explain this observation - not the other way around. General Relativity is the most successful scientific theory ever presented. This isn't appeal to authority, it's appeal to evidence. And that does hold up to reason.
JPO1618 1 year ago
@JPO1618
I don't think we've made that observation of expansion at all.
What we have is an interpretation of the radiation coming from all kinds of directions and a phenomenon we call redshift ...which scientists desperately tried to account for, yet unfortunately stuck with the idea of universal expansion ...all of this under the false assumption that all along it's journey those radiative patterns progress somewhat unchanged.
realisoph 1 year ago
@JPO1618
"General Relativity is the most successful scientific theory ever presented."
In what respect?
What seems successful about it, is that physicists seemed to have jumped on the train ever so willingly.
Well, from our relativistic earthlings perspective it even makes certain sense to pinpoint "the speed of light" as a (relativistically) constant value.
The problem with that is twofold:
a) What is light(speed), if not a relative phenomenon?
b) A universal upper limit, really?
realisoph 1 year ago
@realisoph GR has been tested and confirmed 1000`s of times to an incredible degree of accuracy. GPS would not work if it were wrong. The Cassini spacecraft has confirmed it as well as many other experiments (Google "cassini general relativity"). GR was met with hostility by the scientific community, only to have it's bitterest opponents accept it under the weight of evidence.
The speed of light was also originally thought to be variable, and through numerous experiments this proved wrong...
JPO1618 1 year ago
@JPO1618
It seems a bit like a circular reference to try and confirm a definition, e.g. the constancy of the speed of light.
GPS works, because models were developed based on the premises of GR giving accurate results with respect to the ends we're trying to meet.
That however doesn't mean that pinning down the speed of light would be the only way to account for "relativistic adjustments".
It's a matter of definitions and resulting models / perspectives.
realisoph 1 year ago
@realisoph a) light is electromagnetic radiation.
b) GR sets this as the universal speed limit (in space) and GR has been confirmed over and over, so we can say with an incredibly high degree of certainty that yes, the speed of light is the universal upper limit.
You make this sound like a philosophical problem when its just science. Science that can be confirmed or refuted by experiment, not really by thought experiment.
JPO1618 1 year ago
@JPO1618
To me, light above all, is a relativistic phenomenon.
To ask what it would be to like to ride on a "beam of light" is somewhat superfluous, as you would no longer call it "a beam of light", since that - as the relativistic phenomenon it is - is defined as a wave/particle construct oscillating and moving at certain speeds... which it no longer would, if you "rode on it".
What would a human tall as the milkyway call a from our perspective "regular" ray of light?
realisoph 1 year ago
@JPO1618
To define relativity on the basis of constancy is a direct continuation of all those XYZ-centric world-views, be they Ego-, Theo-, Geo-, Helio- or Big Bangish.
All defy the fundamentally emergent nature of reality and all that which it is composed of ...by imposing an arbitrary perspective or assumption to be the ultimate needle in the haystack.
If relativity means anything, then a fundamental requirement to acknowledge the validity of an infinite number of different perspectives.
realisoph 1 year ago
Sorry - @ejasem1 - but "God did it" just wont cut it for me, ever, period.
There is no point qt all to an all-encompassing, all-knowing, almighty, conscious, or even intelligent entity that not only stretches thoughout all of existence but even extends it so that it can be its creator... I could accept the idea of there being somewhat "higher" beings ...but then, they're just not alone in their relative position, just as we're not human all on our own.
realisoph 1 year ago
1-what bang??? by logic who was there to calculate ? all these just theories ?? no facts . figures,calculations, assumptions ,etc >the earth is the central of universe &it fixed in its place not revolving nor rounding > the universe is limited & not infinite _ god create humans by his will from earth mud 7000 years ago -think logically & you will see how much deception we are living in _ thanks for this efforts
ejasem1 1 year ago
Neat video! A lot of people think the theory of a Big Bang is built on thin ice the red shift must be an expansion in time and space. Because it is spacetime that is expanding maybe our Reason and understanding expands with it. If it was just a physical expansion we would have a centre of the Universe somewhere but there is no centre. I have read that there are Galaxies that seem to be connected to objects with different red shift it is all very odd.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
I tend to agree, it's a big leap going from saying the universe is expanding due to redshift observations to saying therefore it all must have started at one point in the creation of the universe.
If it did all start at one point it seems like it would be important and easy to trace back the trajectories of things to find the focal point where it all started... I wonder how many books and shows have been sold due to big bang theory- the modern day explanation of the creation of the everything.
Jammieg001 2 years ago
Thanks for commenting.
I made this video, as - on the background of my "premises of reason" - I wanted to give people a more open minded approach to reality ...and because many who consider themselves atheists - as I do - often seem to just put out their vote for the Big Bang as opposed to Religious Creationism.
So, I found a need to express that this argument is rather founded on on very thin ice ...even if, the likelihood of some big (but local) bang may be a thousandfold higher.
realisoph 2 years ago