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 didn't get any of that out of your post...
You said "you won't be here, you'll be dead" to which I replied "you don't know that" and gave my reasoning, and then you replied "sure do, it's called a life cycle."
Can you see how I inferred that you meant my life stops when I die?
That's not true. I dig up bodies on the weekend and ask them. Their stubborn asses won't talk to me, but I know they know. How could they not?
However, I think science is an assistant to religion.....at least mine. The church has taken a lot of controversial and wrong stands in the past (see Galileo, the crusades, etc.) which have been refuted by science. But why is it that if something is unknown or proven incorrect about a religion (Christianity in my case) while not disproving the tenants of the faith, the majority of people dismiss the religion altogether, but if something is unknown or proven incorrect about a current scientific belief, it is considered progress? Aren't we all just searching for the same thing -- TRUTH?
The difference is that christianity tries to dictate morals, while science only dictates facts. Science doesn't tell us how to act, or why. Science says things like "the current evidence suggests X". Whereas christianity says "You must do X because God says so". When science changes because we receive new evidence, it IS progress. It expands our understanding of the world and the universe.
However, when a religion changes due to social pressures (churches accepting gay preachers, or performing gay marriages, or the catholic church saying it's ok to believe that the earth isn't the center of the universe anymore) that comes off as backpedaling. That tends to happen when you make absolutist claims in the name of God, then reverse your stance.
Personally, I rejected religion because, after realizing that science contradicts the claims of the bible (and also that much of the bible is clearly manufactured by man and not god inspired), it seemed silly to backpedal and try to alter my beliefs to fit the new facts. It was far simpler for me, and felt more logical, to simply say that christianity was man made. And let it go.