(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: To me, there seems to be a rather glaring problem with this so-called theory.Theory, not "so-called theory"
(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: Aside from that, there are plenty of (other) problems with this so-called theory:Theory, not "so-called theory"
(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: 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.I bet you have been told this at school very often (at least i must admit that i have!): You not being able to understand stuff, does not necessarily mean stuff is wrong, it usually means you are too stupid to understand. You got "issues" with redshift and DE? Why go to an atheist forum, and not an (astro) physicist forum?
(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: 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?Can you rephrase this so-called possibility/idea in a way that someone outside your mind can understand what you mean? What exactly do you think is the so-called" real reason?
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
