The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]

B. Dean:



B. Dean wrote on the Usenet Newsgroup, alt.astronomy, on 4/27/05:

If there was no big bang, then what is the driving force that is causing
the universe to expand?





You ask the perfect question of the minute.

The question you are making is, however, based upon the same assumption
that the BB theorists make. That is, that the supposed cause of the BB and
the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same.

Both those theoretical viewpoints have, as their common basis, the same
true and empirically verifiable argument: that the Apparent Red Shift of
the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements
have been observed on spectrographs.

Hubble observed that light from what appeared to be more distant sources
also appeared to be more Red Shifted in their frequencies as displayed on
the spectrographs. He was dealing with frequencies, and he applied the
concept of the Doppler Effect to explain the RS effect.

In science the principle of application has always been considered to be a
lesser form of explanation and verification. Because something fits or is
similar does not mean that the causes have been explained or proved, or
that the demonstration in logic or actuality is necessarily logically true
and factual.

Hubble also applied the principle of Euclid's that given a straight line,
that in geometry one could extend the straight line in either direction.
Hubble, observing that most celestial objects were to some extent Red
Shifted in their frequencies of emitted light, also hypothesized that all
things could be moving away from one another. He concluded that the
aforementioned straight lines if continued in the direction of the presumed
origin of travel could cut one another at a common point. He further
hypothesized that all things could have traveled from a common point of
origin.

Creationists lept on that idea, and by the same application of thee
association of Doppler's, Euclid's, and Hubble's ideas the beginning of the
universe could be claimed to have been discovered by science. After all,
they said, is not a point that which has no part, or substance, or reality?
There is a tad of the fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum in their
argument. Of the argument that leads to an impossibility in order to prove
the opposite. To expansion. Hence another fallacy, post hoc ergo propter
hoc, or using the conclusion in the argument to support the conclusion.
They said that science supported the Bible. More fallacies of logic, the
appeal to authority and the appeal to humor to support a claim. That
combination of associations is the main support for the BB - creationist
theory.

Hubble's hypothesis was brilliant and intriguing. inductively, was thinking
correctly and drawing a proper conclusion from the facts available. What he
didn't suspect was that there was another brilliant and incredibly
plausible and more verifiable explanation for the Apparent Red Shift of
light frequencies.

There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.

Lord Rayleigh discovered that hydrogen atoms change the frequencies of
light photons that strike the atoms and that continue on. He said that the
collisions were inelastic, and that he measured the lowered frequencies of
the transmitted photons. He really had discovered the Red Shift, only in a
more fundamental way. Rayleigh's explanation did not rely upon the
application on other theories, e.g., Doppler and Euclid, and, rather, he
found direct repeatable empirical results from laboratory experiments.

Recently, the Cassini space vehicle returned powerful evidence that
hydrogen gas, indeed, does lower the energy level of photons traveling in
space.

Hydrogen gas, and the electrons in the plurality of that gas, as I
understand the matter from a scientist acquaintance, can indeed, lower the
energy level of the photons. A quotient of energy remains, and the identity
of that quotient may be explained further to the scientific public in due
time. I gather that scientist have prior identified these relationships,
and that they are well known.

The upshot of all this, leading to the idea that the hydrogen-photon RS
theory is true, is that the RS has been explained by verifiable scientific
experiments under at least three types of experimental conditions, and that
the factual basis is far more scientific and demonstrable than the previous
explanation. Numerous supporting evidence, being accurate identifications
of facts found when trying to examine the universe from the
Doppler-Euclid-Hubble point of view, also supports the hydrogen-photon
theory of the Red Shift.

Science must now compare the two theories. Many pieces to a complex puzzle
appear to fit together by merit of the RS being logically rather than
associatively explained by the theory of the reduction of photon energy levels.

This is a simplified overview, and real scientists have been weighing in
support of the hydrogen-photon theory of the Apparent Red Shift of the
frequencies of light.

That does not deny the possibility of local expansions, of Hubble's
hypothesis under specific conditions, or of the Doppler Effect concerning
frequencies, as some recent scientists have carefully observed.

The hydrogen-photon RS theory would also mean that the universe is not
expanding as the expansionists have stated. It would also mean that there
is no cause for thinking that there was a geometric origin point or
creation point for the universe. The universe would be found to be
generally not expanding due to the aforementioned theories, and that the
universe would likely be more dense than than presupposed.

Metaphysically and epistemologically speaking, the creationists logical
horror that nothing was the cause of something would at last be dispelled.

Science may once again be based solidly upon the facts of existence, and
that the universe is a continuing plurality of existents that all have
properties that are knowable to scientists. The cause of the continuation
of the universe of everything is the existence and interacting properties
of everything that exists.

Is the everything expanding? No. The universe of everything continues to
exist. Continuity is the primary concept. Continuity of existence has been
explicitly and implicitly verified by every scientific experiment ever
conducted and human identification of the facts of existence. Continuity is
a demonstrable fact of reality.

Was there a Big Bang? No. Is the universe made of and is caused by
everything that exists, and exists continually? Yes.


Ralph Hertle