Joined Apr 2011
L3: Novice
Forum Thread
Hello, My Name is Mike. I Give A Thesis As to Why Steven Hawking Could Be Wrong.
August 11, 2011 at
07:37 AM
in
Question
(10)
Now don't get me wrong, I used to think Steven Hawking was the smartest person ever. As someone else that is smart (me), I watch Discovery and TLC a lot - minus Kate Plus Eight hehe.. Anyways, let's get down to what is bothering me.
I was thinking the other day of the entire basis of why the Big Bang Theory is the top suggested theory going right now in the science realm. Let's ignore religion and let's use what we know. For those unaware, the Big Bang is basically the theory that everything originated from a single point so small and so tiny that you couldn't even see it with your own eyes. Let's put this into your mind.
Now the Big Bang is used mostly because of the Doppler Effect. No I ain't talking weather. I'm talking color shift. Basically things that move very fast away from you create a redshift (red color behind them). Those that are coming toward you fast create a blueshift (blue in front of them). So what scientist have done is examine the universe and see all this redshift everywhere. They basically have concluded that everything is moving away from us.
My problem is the following:
1) The Doppler Effect doesn't take into account the source point of view. Who is to say the Earth isn't the one moving away fast? If you want to include our solar system, let's say the Sun and the 8 planets are the ones moving away from everything else.
2) If everything is moving so far away from each other at such fast speeds, why is Steven Hawking even suggesting that we attempt to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away from us (speeds we can't even come close to). By the time we reach where they were when we left earth, they will no longer be there, right? They are moving so fast to create a redshift that we would never make the destination. The travel time would be infinite.
3) Let's say that it is just our solar system moving away from everything else. That would destroy the Big Bang theory completely and then do away with the idea that we all originated from one single point in space. It also destroys Steven Hawking's theory that before the Big Bang, there was no space.
If this is too complicated for you to understand, let me know and I can explain more.
DISCUSS
I was thinking the other day of the entire basis of why the Big Bang Theory is the top suggested theory going right now in the science realm. Let's ignore religion and let's use what we know. For those unaware, the Big Bang is basically the theory that everything originated from a single point so small and so tiny that you couldn't even see it with your own eyes. Let's put this into your mind.
Now the Big Bang is used mostly because of the Doppler Effect. No I ain't talking weather. I'm talking color shift. Basically things that move very fast away from you create a redshift (red color behind them). Those that are coming toward you fast create a blueshift (blue in front of them). So what scientist have done is examine the universe and see all this redshift everywhere. They basically have concluded that everything is moving away from us.
My problem is the following:
1) The Doppler Effect doesn't take into account the source point of view. Who is to say the Earth isn't the one moving away fast? If you want to include our solar system, let's say the Sun and the 8 planets are the ones moving away from everything else.
2) If everything is moving so far away from each other at such fast speeds, why is Steven Hawking even suggesting that we attempt to travel to other solar systems thousands of light years away from us (speeds we can't even come close to). By the time we reach where they were when we left earth, they will no longer be there, right? They are moving so fast to create a redshift that we would never make the destination. The travel time would be infinite.
3) Let's say that it is just our solar system moving away from everything else. That would destroy the Big Bang theory completely and then do away with the idea that we all originated from one single point in space. It also destroys Steven Hawking's theory that before the Big Bang, there was no space.
If this is too complicated for you to understand, let me know and I can explain more.
DISCUSS
140 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I'm glad that we can atleast agree to disagree about our beliefs.
1) You can't stick your tongue out & look up at the same time, it's a physical impossibility.
2) All idiots after reading number 1, tried it.
3) You discover number 1 is a lie.
4) You are smiling now because you are an idiot.
5) You will soon copy & paste this elsewhere to catch other idiots.
6) There is still a stupid smile on your face.
I kid!
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I call it like I see it. You told me you liked that about me!
Now you could throw in there that you can only go as fast as the mass you are shooting in the opposite direction... Then use an ion drive as propulsion as they can accelerate particles much faster than rockets can.
The physics is there, we just need to find a way to use it better in order to make space travel more likely. Oh, and the dopplar effect can be seen in small velocities as well, it's not like we can only tell when the hydrogen emission spectrum is only in the red/blue spectrums of light...
Keep watching TLC...
It's too bad when people need to make something sound ridiculous just to get the attention off the equal amount of ridiculousness that they believe in.
Doing this seems to be what many atheists focus on. Making believers look ridiculous because they have no other way of backing up their own (dis)belief.
I have no problem with people who don't believe in god. That is their personal choice and I respect it. An idea is presented and you don't buy in and that is that. But when that group bands together to form a group to actively disbelieve in something they are in fact giving credibility to what they don't believe in. When that group then starts proselytizing their beliefs and attempting to convince others of what they
don'tbelieve in then they are nothing more than one more religion trying to get a piece of the pie.More power to anyone who wants to be an atheist. But in doing so don't delude yourself that you are any different than any other man-constructed religion because you aren't.
Doing this seems to be what many atheists focus on. Making believers look ridiculous because they have no other way of backing up their own (dis)belief.
I have no problem with people who don't believe in god. That is their personal choice and I respect it. An idea is presented and you don't buy in and that is that. But when that group bands together to form a group to actively disbelieve in something they are in fact giving credibility to what they don't believe in. When that group then starts proselytizing their beliefs and attempting to convince others of what they
don'tbelieve in then they are nothing more than one more religion trying to get a piece of the pie.More power to anyone who wants to be an atheist. But in doing so don't delude yourself that you are any different than any other man-constructed religion because you aren't.
However this doesn't take into account the fact that many religions have been nothing more than a system of control over the people that follow them.
If you saw someone in a cult and knew that it was all based on falsehoods and lies, you just might try to convince them to get out of that cult - NOT because you want them to believe what you believe, but because you see the cult for what it is and you want to help them.
I generally respect your opinions and what you say, but to say that atheism is nothing more than a man made construct seems silly to me. Rejecting what it seems man has made up over thousands of years isn't buying into something, it's buying out. And until you've reflected long and hard on why religion has existed, how it formed and reformed, and how it's had to constantly change in order to keep up with science, then you can't really get inside the head of an atheist and say that they are just following some new trend.
The example that I like best is the idea that once upon a time there would have been a group of people just like us where a good percentage of the people would be arguing that all of the Greek gods are absolutely real and no amount of science or reason could prove otherwise. Today, there's not a person in the civilized world that would not mock that stance, and yet people believed in those gods with all of their hearts at one point, just like people today believe in Jesus. How can anyone justify that it's any different?
If you saw someone in a cult and knew that it was all based on falsehoods and lies, you just might try to convince them to get out of that cult - NOT because you want them to believe what you believe, but because you see the cult for what it is and you want to help them.
I generally respect your opinions and what you say, but to say that atheism is nothing more than a man made construct seems silly to me. Rejecting what it seems man has made up over thousands of years isn't buying into something, it's buying out. And until you've reflected long and hard on why religion has existed, how it formed and reformed, and how it's had to constantly change in order to keep up with science, then you can't really get inside the head of an atheist and say that they are just following some new trend.
The example that I like best is the idea that once upon a time there would have been a group of people just like us where a good percentage of the people would be arguing that all of the Greek gods are absolutely real and no amount of science or reason could prove otherwise. Today, there's not a person in the civilized world that would not mock that stance, and yet people believed in those gods with all of their hearts at one point, just like people today believe in Jesus. How can anyone justify that it's any different?
I wonder if that means we'll be studying Christian Mythology in a couple thousand more years the way we study Greek Mythology today.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
If you saw someone in a cult and knew that it was all based on falsehoods and lies, you just might try to convince them to get out of that cult - NOT because you want them to believe what you believe, but because you see the cult for what it is and you want to help them.
I generally respect your opinions and what you say, but to say that atheism is nothing more than a man made construct seems silly to me. Rejecting what it seems man has made up over thousands of years isn't buying into something, it's buying out. And until you've reflected long and hard on why religion has existed, how it formed and reformed, and how it's had to constantly change in order to keep up with science, then you can't really get inside the head of an atheist and say that they are just following some new trend.
The example that I like best is the idea that once upon a time there would have been a group of people just like us where a good percentage of the people would be arguing that all of the Greek gods are absolutely real and no amount of science or reason could prove otherwise. Today, there's not a person in the civilized world that would not mock that stance, and yet people believed in those gods with all of their hearts at one point, just like people today believe in Jesus. How can anyone justify that it's any different?