Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

zynner · Oct 23, 2005, 06:42 pm

I ran across some information about a book called Seeing Red by Halton Arp. Arp has put forth an idea that, if true, would prove the Big Bang Theory is false. It would mean the universe is infinite and stable, not finite and expanding.

The whole premise of the Big Bang Theory is that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else at high velocity, so there must have been a time in the past when all that velocity got started. The theory is based on the concept that redshift is due to velocity of objects moving away from us (redishift being that light from distant objects tends to be shifted toward the longer, redder wavelengths in the light spectrum).

But this idea that redshift is due to velocity is not proven. It is assumed. What if redshift is only partly due to velocity or not at all due to velocity? What if redshift is due mostly to age of the objects being viewed? It would completely change our understanding of the universe.

I have to say that this idea makes more sense than the big bang of infinite expansion from essentially nothing. I have always thought that "infinity" means infinity and not boundries. If the redshift as a measure of velocity is the cornerstone of the big bang, and it turns out that redshift is actually something else, then it makes for a much more understandable universe (infinite, stable). It is surprising that mainstream scientists are actively trying to ignore these ideas.

Is Arp the Galileo of our time?

Here’s a pretty good summary of the idea:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

~ zynner

Oct 23, 2005, 06:42 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
zynner Hot Lava Posts: 817	Is Big Bang Theory False? I ran across some information about a book called Seeing Red by Halton Arp. Arp has put forth an idea that, if true, would prove the Big Bang Theory is false. It would mean the universe is infinite and stable, not finite and expanding. The whole premise of the Big Bang Theory is that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else at high velocity, so there must have been a time in the past when all that velocity got started. The theory is based on the concept that redshift is due to velocity of objects moving away from us (redishift being that light from distant objects tends to be shifted toward the longer, redder wavelengths in the light spectrum). But this idea that redshift is due to velocity is not proven. It is assumed. What if redshift is only partly due to velocity or not at all due to velocity? What if redshift is due mostly to age of the objects being viewed? It would completely change our understanding of the universe. I have to say that this idea makes more sense than the big bang of infinite expansion from essentially nothing. I have always thought that "infinity" means infinity and not boundries. If the redshift as a measure of velocity is the cornerstone of the big bang, and it turns out that redshift is actually something else, then it makes for a much more understandable universe (infinite, stable). It is surprising that mainstream scientists are actively trying to ignore these ideas. Is Arp the Galileo of our time? Here’s a pretty good summary of the idea: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ~ zynner Last edited by zynner; Oct 23, 2005 at 06:44 pm.