RE: How many of you atheists believe in the Big Bang Theory?
January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2024 at 10:02 am by arewethereyet.)
I'm new to this forum, and this is my first post - I don't identify as "atheist", but rather as non-religious (I have my reasons).
To me, there seems to be a rather glaring problem with this so-called theory.
Since this is a forum about atheism, let me begin by pointing out the fact that the concept of the Big Bang originated from someone who was not only religious, but was also a Roman Catholic priest & this in itself ought to be considered for making an assessment on religious bias, since the idea that there's some sort of beginning to the universe involved in that.
Aside from that, there are plenty of (other) problems with this so-called theory:
What if instead of a DE, there's another possibility? Here's what I have been wondering about: the redshift in question stems from the cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR), which is essentially photons, so let's consider Planck's equation (or "relation") for photon energy (E=hf, where E is the energy, f is frequency, and h is Planck's constant); basically, when there's less energy, there's a redshift, and we can see that from this formula since red is a lower frequency than blue; what if this is the real reason for that redshift we observe from CBMR?
After pondering this, I decided to try to do some cyber-exploring to see if I could find something that might corroborate this; I did find something interesting & it seems to support what I'm wondering about:
To me, there seems to be a rather glaring problem with this so-called theory.
Since this is a forum about atheism, let me begin by pointing out the fact that the concept of the Big Bang originated from someone who was not only religious, but was also a Roman Catholic priest & this in itself ought to be considered for making an assessment on religious bias, since the idea that there's some sort of beginning to the universe involved in that.
Aside from that, there are plenty of (other) problems with this so-called theory:
Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule.
Personally, what I have an issue with is the use of the Doppler effect (DE) to explain the redshift; in other words, I don't get why the redshift necessarily implies that there's a DE involved.Link removed per 30/30 rule.
What if instead of a DE, there's another possibility? Here's what I have been wondering about: the redshift in question stems from the cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR), which is essentially photons, so let's consider Planck's equation (or "relation") for photon energy (E=hf, where E is the energy, f is frequency, and h is Planck's constant); basically, when there's less energy, there's a redshift, and we can see that from this formula since red is a lower frequency than blue; what if this is the real reason for that redshift we observe from CBMR?
After pondering this, I decided to try to do some cyber-exploring to see if I could find something that might corroborate this; I did find something interesting & it seems to support what I'm wondering about:
Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule against posting outside links till you have been a member for 30 days and have made 30 posts.
Link removed per 30/30 rule against posting outside links till you have been a member for 30 days and have made 30 posts.
