.jpg)
Oh, wait. I didn’t read the excerpt, as usual. We are talking about the TV show, right?
Posted on 09/17/2024 5:56:34 AM PDT by Salman
A recent study led by a Kansas State University engineer has provided evidence that supports the "Tired Light" theory, a century-old concept that challenges the widely accepted Big Bang theory.
...
Shamir's findings align with the long-standing "Tired Light" theory, originally proposed in the 1920s.
"In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble and George Lemaitre discovered that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to move away from Earth," Shamir explained. "That discovery led to the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began expanding approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Around the same time, astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed that distant galaxies are not actually moving faster but that light photons lose energy as they travel through space."
Zwicky's theory suggests that as light travels, it loses energy, which creates the illusion that distant galaxies are moving away more quickly.
"The Tired Light theory was largely neglected as the Big Bang theory gained consensus," Shamir noted. "However, confidence in the Big Bang model started to wane after the James Webb Space Telescope provided deep images of the early universe. Instead of showing an infant universe, the images revealed large and mature galaxies. If the Big Bang occurred as previously thought, these galaxies would be older than the universe itself."
...
"The results showed that galaxies rotating in the opposite direction relative to the Milky Way had lower redshifts compared to galaxies rotating in the same direction," Shamir said. "This difference reflects Earth's motion as it rotates with the Milky Way. The redshift difference increased as the distance of galaxies from Earth grew, in line with Zwicky's Tired Light theory."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
Webb Ping!....................
Good. The “Big Bang” has always been trash.
The very idea of “The Big Bang” is ridiculous. I have thought so since I heard it as a child. It is far easier to believe in creation. (Which I believe)
No, it would mean objects like distant galaxies are much closer than we think.
(because red shift is caused by light losing energy, not the fact that the universe is expanding away from itself at tremendous speeds).
It say nothing about the apparent age of the universe. That’s still a problem to explain.
But then, you have to explain something from nothing (ex Nilo) - which is a much bigger problem than age.
Consider the cosmic abundance of elements. An infinitely old universe would mean more heavy element atoms vs hydrogen and helium to say the least. Every atom would have been processed through an infinite number of stellar life cycles. Not buying it.
The theory of stellar nucleogenesis is pretty convincing explaining cosmic element frequency requiring a finite number of reprocessing through stars for the heavy elements. The feature of where the peaks and valleys are in the distribution makes it convincing, kind of like the shapes of the edges of continents made continental drift convincing.
It might mean everything everywhere being created at once but there is no such thing as all at one time in relativity different places inless those places are the same point in spacetime.
I think they also have to explain why the photons slow down. There was a Newton law that would relate to that, i think. If it slows down because it is not in a vacuum, won’t that raise another problem? Space is not a vacuum, but some kind of fluid? I think i heard that one before, too.
Oh, wait. I didn’t read the excerpt, as usual. We are talking about the TV show, right?
I suspect like most people you have been mislead by the erroneous appellation “big bang”. When Hoyle made the comment about a “big bang” in 1949 it was intended to contrast an expanding universe theory with his own steady-state theory. He did not mean for it to imply a literal explosion. The “Big Bang” theory describes the expansion of space, not an explosion occurring within preexisting space. In this model, all points in the universe are moving away from each other as space expands, meaning that there is no central point of explosion. The universe does not expand into anything; rather, space itself is expanding.
Makes as much sense as “ mud in your tires” a la My Cousin Vinny.
Stronk and factual rebuttal /s
Either way, you're obliged to believe in an uncaused cause. Which is why, I think, the atheists need to be a bit less smug.
I’ve been saying this for years — a simpler explanation than an expanding universe is that light loses energy as it crosses spacetime. All it would take is some sort of extremely weak (or rare) coupling to just about any quantum field. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was what fueled the “buzzing” in the quantum foam.
The photons wouldn’t slow down, they simply lose energy (which increases their wavelength). They would still move at the speed of light.
Apparently, you’ve never met a Mormon.
…the universe began expanding approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Around the same time, astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.