# What is the evidence for the big bang. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551 "2012-01-15T00:31:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/261 "2012-01-27T16:34:25Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > The spectral lines are set when the atom is converted to energy (light) and it is shifted into the red more and more as it passes throught the intergalactic medium. The intergalactic medium IS atoms. Mostly hydrogen. Schuster is arguing that the redshifts of distant objects are caused by light interacting with that hydrogen on its way to earth. But the absorption and readmission properties of hydrogen atoms don’t support that hypothesis. Hydrogen atoms interact strongly with only a few narrow bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, so they can’t be responsible for a broad-spectrum redshift. BTW, do you agree with Schuster that the light from distant objects is redshifted? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/262 "2012-01-27T16:55:36Z")
Anyways, to sum up this thread, the evidence for the Big Bang has been studied by many scientists over many years, and the support is rather overwhelmingly strong. Does the BBT claim to have all the answers? No. But if you’re going to challenge it, you need some really wicked counterclaims that don’t ultimately rely on a weak understanding of physics from crackpot references. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/263 "2012-01-28T08:20:40Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The intergalactic medium IS atoms. Mostly hydrogen. Schuster is arguing that the redshifts of distant objects are caused by light interacting with that hydrogen on its way to earth. > > But the absorption and readmission properties of hydrogen atoms don’t support that hypothesis. Hydrogen atoms interact strongly with only a few narrow bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, so they can’t be responsible for a broad-spectrum redshift. Ok I picked a bad alternative theory consider it discarded. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > BTW, do you agree with Schuster that the light from distant objects is redshifted? Yes I am just not convinced that the mechanism is understood as well as most astrophysicists seem to think it is. That I know of we have doppler so the object could be moving away from us or we could be moving toward it or could be both. Or gravitational redshift caused by time dilation or because the photon lost energy climbing out of the gravitational well…depending on who you ask. This would be closely tied to anything that causes the photon to lose energy would cause a redshift. Metric expansion of space the photons are being stretched as a result of moving through expanding space commonly called cosmological redshift. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/264 "2012-01-28T09:14:31Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > I sure did. Did you? Because you cherry-picked a quote that outright clashes against your point: > > “No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift.” Keyword is force I should have underlined it for you. That coupled with this: “Regrettably, the two possible locations for NGC 7603B in the luminosity-dispersion diagram, corresponding to the redshift distances for it and for NGC 7603, bracket the current uncertainties in this relation, and no firm conclusion can be reached.” Means that Sharp is not forced to accept a noncosmological redshift. It is hardly a vigorous rebuttal. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Cosmological redshift = our current understanding of redshift via the expansion of space. In other words, there aren’t any strong anomalies that would seriously lead one to accept that redshift is somehow seriously impacted/caused by something else other than the expansion of space. lol. Astronomers Martin López-Corredoira and Carlos M. Gutiérrez diagree with you as does astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe and David G. Russell. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey lists the objects as an interacting pair. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Regardless, you continue to dodge the point. You’re looking at one bit of sketchy evidence at best and assuming it’s somehow conclusive support against the countless piles of evidence that support cosmological redshift. Your “evidence,” as explained by the paper, is circumstantial and isn’t consistent with what we’d expect if they really WERE connected. > > In other words, it’s a chance alignment. The objects are really quite far apart. No not one piece of evidence I have looked at ten or more of these discordant redshift objects so far and am making up my own mind as to what the chances are that they are connected or not. Here is a very good middle of the road article on this controversy. The author shows both sides of the argument and slightly favors the mainstream. [http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html](http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html) In regards to NGC 7603 and alleged companion what in your opinion would be “consistent with what we’d expect if they really WERE connected.”? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/265 "2012-01-28T09:24:43Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Also, the author of your citation: > > [Hilton Ratcliffe - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hilton_Ratcliffe) > > Also, if you Google around, you’ll find he’s not exactly a highly-respected scientist. The fact that he claims to “base everything he does on observation rather than ‘esoteric’ theories” is enough to set off the crackpot alarms, as this is a huge misunderstanding of science. This is the same guy who advocates the “electric universe” and thinks black holes don’t exist. I have provided numerous citations for NGC 7603. Who wrote your rationalwiki cite? If he is a crackpot he can join the likes of Nikola Tesla for thinking of all things that electrical current could alternate. At his low point he was digging ditches for Edison. Daniel Shechtman was thrown out of his research group for discovering quasicrystals. Linus Pauling, on Shechtman “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.” C.J. Doppler for twenty years was riduculed for insisting there was a Doppler effect. Only after he died did W. Huggins actually observe red and blue shifts. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was chased out of England for thinking there were huge star sucking monsters (black holes) in space. And the list goes on Robert Goddard, the Wright brothers, Louis Pastuer and after a manner of speaking one could even say that the great E.A.P. was only vindicated after his death. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/266 "2012-01-28T10:03:18Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Anyways, to sum up this thread, Nah I am just getting started. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > the evidence for the Big Bang has been studied by many scientists over many years, and the support is rather overwhelmingly strong. > > Does the BBT claim to have all the answers? No. But if you’re going to challenge it, you need some really wicked counterclaims that don’t ultimately rely on a weak understanding of physics from crackpot references. Lets tackle the problem with measuring such vast distances next. Since you like Wiki so much. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic\_distance\_ladder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder) Selected quotes. "Two problems exist for any class of standard candle. The principal one is calibration, determining exactly what the absolute magnitude of the candle is. This includes defining the class well enough that members can be recognized, and finding enough members with well-known distances that their true absolute magnitude can be determined with enough accuracy. The second lies in recognizing members of the class, and not mistakenly using the standard candle calibration upon an object which does not belong to the class. At extreme distances, which is where one most wishes to use a distance indicator, this recognition problem can be quite serious. A significant issue with standard candles is the recurring question of how standard they are. For example, all observations seem to indicate that Type Ia supernovae that are of known distance have the same brightness (corrected by the shape of the light curve). The basis for this closeness in brightness is discussed below; however, the possibility exists that the distant Type Ia supernovae have different properties than nearby Type Ia supernovae. The use of Type Ia supernovae is crucial in determining the correct cosmological model. If indeed the properties of Type Ia supernovae are different at large distances, i.e. if the extrapolation of their calibration to arbitrary distances is not valid, ignoring this variation can dangerously bias the reconstruction of the cosmological parameters, in particular the reconstruction of the matter density parameter.[7] That this is not merely a philosophical issue can be seen from the history of distance measurements using Cepheid variables. In the 1950s, Walter Baade discovered that the nearby Cepheid variables used to calibrate the standard candle were of a different type than the ones used to measure distances to nearby galaxies. The nearby Cepheid variables were population I stars with much higher metal content than the distant population II stars. As a result, the population II stars were actually much brighter than believed, and this had the effect of doubling the distances to the globular clusters, the nearby galaxies, and the diameter of the Milky Way.’ If you miss the (relatively) close measurements you are really screwed on the farther away ones. Wiki continues. “Because the more distant steps of the cosmic distance ladder depend upon the nearer ones, the more distant steps include the effects of errors in the nearer steps, both systematic and statistical ones. The result of these propagating errors means that distances in astronomy are rarely known to the same level of precision as measurements in the other sciences, and that the precision necessarily is poorer for more distant types of object.” And when we get way way out there we just use whatever we can see. “Another concern, especially for the very brightest standard candles, is their “standardness”: how homogeneous the objects are in their true absolute magnitude. For some of these different standard candles, the homogeneity is based on theories about the formation and evolution of stars and galaxies, and is thus also subject to uncertainties in those aspects. For the most luminous of distance indicators, the Type Ia supernovae, this homogeneity is known to be poor[citation needed]; however, no other class of object is bright enough to be detected at such large distances, so the class is useful simply because there is no real alternative.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/267 "2012-01-28T15:30:15Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Ok I picked a bad alternative theory consider it discarded. The larger point is that you simply don’t know enough about physics to distinguish good arguments about the big bang theory from bad ones. Now, it’s not like you need to be a super-genius to understand this stuff. It’s the sort of thing you could learn as an undergrad in a good science or engineering program. But it’s a body of knowledge you need to have if you’re going to understand the theory well enough to even begin to critique it. > [@](#): > > Yes I am just not convinced that the mechanism is understood as well as most astrophysicists seem to think it is. > > That I know of we have doppler so the object could be moving away from us or we could be moving toward it or could be both. > Or gravitational redshift caused by time dilation or because the photon lost energy climbing out of the gravitational well…depending on who you ask. > This would be closely tied to anything that causes the photon to lose energy would cause a redshift. > > Metric expansion of space the photons are being stretched as a result of moving through expanding space commonly called cosmological redshift. Yes, there are several different ways that photons can lose energy. The question is, which of these mechanisms describe the red shifts we observe? The light could be attenuated by an intervening medium, for example, the way the light from the sun is at sunset. However this would also cause diffusion, **so it can’t be that.** The effect could be caused by the light leaving a high gravity field. Except we don’t see any other effects that suggest that the gravity of distant objects is higher than the gravity of nearer objects. Spiral galaxies far away seem to be following the same laws of physics as those nearby. **So it can’t be that.** That leaves Doppler effects and the metric expansion of space. The problem with the Doppler hypothesis is that it still doesn’t explain why objects farther away are redshifted more. If we just happened to be at the center of an expanding explosion we’d see everything redshifted, but it would all have the same redshift. **So it can’t be that.** The only mechanism for redshifting light that explains why distant objects would be more redshifted than close ones is the metric expansion of space. Space stretches as the light travels through it, so the longer light travels, the lower its frequency drops. Therefore space is expanding, and has been for more than 13 billion years. ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/268 "2012-01-28T15:45:14Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Nah I am just getting started. > > Lets tackle the problem with measuring such vast distances next. > Since you like Wiki so much. I fail to see how distance measurement is anything to do with BBT Yes the measurement are shit from scientific point of view thats why the ladder use several methods of measurement at base of ladder and chuck in as many independent measurement and blend all together what I assume some type of extended kalman filter and out come a measurement that more reliable then the components. Or in short making the best out of shit. I looked at the wiki you linked and under extragalactic distance measurement there was a table outlining the error. They are not as bad as you think: “The current uncertainty approaches a mere 5%, corresponding to an uncertainty of just 0.1 magnitudes.” -Type Ia light curves The other major thing you missed these measurement are not based on Hubble constant instead Hubble constant is based on them. As shown in the picture at beginning of article and and end. The fact still remains light coming from source further away are more red shifted the ones closer. Its like saying because I can only quote Earth’s gravity to 9.8 something m/s^2 therefore incorrect so gravity don’t exist. Redshift exist, how one choose to interpret that piece of data is up to them. End of day all models of cosmology is probably going to require distance in their equation somewhere, and by your logic ALL theory are crap. That just leave us no where. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/269 "2012-01-28T16:48:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The larger point is that you simply don’t know enough about physics to distinguish good arguments about the big bang theory from bad ones. Now, it’s not like you need to be a super-genius to understand this stuff. It’s the sort of thing you could learn as an undergrad in a good science or engineering program. But it’s a body of knowledge you need to have if you’re going to understand the theory well enough to even begin to critique it. > > Yes, there are several different ways that photons can lose energy. The question is, which of these mechanisms describe the red shifts we observe? > > The light could be attenuated by an intervening medium, for example, the way the light from the sun is at sunset. However this would also cause diffusion, **so it can’t be that.** > > The effect could be caused by the light leaving a high gravity field. Except we don’t see any other effects that suggest that the gravity of distant objects is higher than the gravity of nearer objects. Spiral galaxies far away seem to be following the same laws of physics as those nearby. **So it can’t be that.** Quasars are thought to be huge black holes and these objects show the most extreme redshifts. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > That leaves Doppler effects and the metric expansion of space. The problem with the Doppler hypothesis is that it still doesn’t explain why objects farther away are redshifted more. If we just happened to be at the center of an expanding explosion we’d see everything redshifted, but it would all have the same redshift. **So it can’t be that.** Could be that space is not expanding but theoretical dark energy is pushing everything apart. The farther away we look the more energy between us and the object and the more the photon looses its wiggle due to pushing through it. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The only mechanism for redshifting light that explains why distant objects would be more redshifted than close ones is the metric expansion of space. Space stretches as the light travels through it, so the longer light travels, the lower its frequency drops. Therefore space is expanding, and has been for more than 13 billion years. So why am I not expanding? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/270 "2012-01-28T17:01:48Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > I fail to see how distance measurement is anything to do with BBT Yes the measurement are shit from scientific point of view thats why the ladder use several methods of measurement at base of ladder and chuck in as many independent measurement and blend all together what I assume some type of extended kalman filter and out come a measurement that more reliable then the components. Or in short making the best out of shit. > > I looked at the wiki you linked and under extragalactic distance measurement there was a table outlining the error. They are not as bad as you think: > “The current uncertainty approaches a mere 5%, corresponding to an uncertainty of just 0.1 magnitudes.” -Type Ia light curves > > The other major thing you missed these measurement are not based on Hubble constant instead Hubble constant is based on them. As shown in the picture at beginning of article and and end. The fact still remains light coming from source further away are more red shifted the ones closer. Its like saying because I can only quote Earth’s gravity to 9.8 something m/s^2 therefore incorrect so gravity don’t exist. Redshift exist, how one choose to interpret that piece of data is up to them. End of day all models of cosmology is probably going to require distance in their equation somewhere, and by your logic ALL theory are crap. That just leave us no where. Exactly and if you think of our current cosmological models in that way then we are in agreement but it is when people say things like this “the support is rather overwhelmingly strong.” that I disagree. BBT is the best of a bad lot and we do have to have some kind of framework from which to work out of. As I have stated before in this thread I have no problem with most of the people that work on these problems but I do have a problem with laypersons and a few outspoken scientists using science to come to philosophical conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/271 "2012-01-28T17:33:29Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > I have provided numerous citations for NGC 7603. I could provide numerous citations for Creationism, too. Doesn’t mean they’re going to be credible. You keep providing citations from the likes of Arp and Ratcliffe. Your sources are always from crackpots/amateurs who aren’t taken seriously in the scientific community. You can Google around yourself if you need more convincing. Besides, you’re commiting the obvious fallacy of confirmation bias. "_But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown._ -Carl Sagan Anyways, the point is that you don’t know enough about physics to understand exactly what it is you’re criticizing. If you’re going to refute the points the Hamster King brought up, for instance, you need to be able to show reliable, testable, compelling evidence. It’s fine to ask “Well what if–” to everything, but you need to be able to _show_ why your ideas are on the right track. If all you’re going to do is ignore counter-evidence and misconstrue the current understanding of physics, then you’re digging your own grave by revealing yourself as a crackpot. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/272 "2012-01-28T18:14:35Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > I could provide numerous citations for Creationism, too. Doesn’t mean they’re going to be credible. > > You keep providing citations from the likes of Arp and Ratcliffe. Your sources are always from crackpots/amateurs who aren’t taken seriously in the scientific community. You can Google around yourself if you need more convincing. > > Besides, you’re commiting the obvious fallacy of confirmation bias. > > "_But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown._ -Carl Sagan > > Anyways, the point is that you don’t know enough about physics to understand exactly what it is you’re criticizing. If you’re going to refute the points the Hamster King brought up, for instance, you need to be able to show reliable, testable, compelling evidence. It’s fine to ask “Well what if–” to everything, but you need to be able to _show_ why your ideas are on the right track. > > If all you’re going to do is ignore counter-evidence and misconstrue the current understanding of physics, then you’re digging your own grave by revealing yourself as a crackpot. My point was that many times the persons who make the most profound discoveries are often ignored at the time. You are correct it does not necessarily prove anything it is just a reminder to keep an open mind. BTW Bozo did not have a PHD AFAIK. All of the cites I used were from scientists who are well published in peer reviewed journals. You used a cite to promote your opinion that one of them is a crackpot and I asked you before and I am asking you again. Who is the author of your cite? You often dodge my questions and then accuse me of the same. I have asked you before and I am asking you again please point out where I have missed one of your querys and I will be glad to fix that. NGC 7603 and its alleged companion. I have offered several views of the people who work in this field of inquiry but we have the picture and brains of our own. I have asked you before and I am asking you again. In regards to NGC 7603 and alleged companion what in your opinion would be “consistent with what we’d expect if they really WERE connected.”? There are several more questions you have dodged would you like me to go back and pick them up for you? ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/273 "2012-01-28T23:44:59Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > My point was that many times the persons who make the most profound discoveries are often ignored at the time. > You are correct it does not necessarily prove anything it is just a reminder to keep an open mind. BTW Bozo did not have a PHD AFAIK. “Many times”? You cherry picked 5 or 6 people out of a century if hundreds of thousands of scientists who did solid research and were credited for it at the time. If one were to compile the list of successful scientists who don’t meet your criteria, it’d be a novel length document. Can we just agree that your list is statistically insignificant without anyone going to the bother of providing such an epic and contrary list? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/274 "2012-01-29T01:11:52Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Quasars are thought to be huge black holes and these objects show the most extreme redshifts. No. Quasars are thought to be material orbiting huge black holes, not black holes themselves. (Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see them.) There are huge black holes at the center of every galaxy, even our own. The presence of black holes doesn’t explain why more distant objects are redshifted. > [@](#): > > Could be that space is not expanding but theoretical dark energy is pushing everything apart. The farther away we look the more energy between us and the object and the more the photon looses its wiggle due to pushing through it. The reason dark energy is called “dark” is because (whatever it is) it doesn’t interact with electromagnetic radiation. > [@](#): > > So why am I not expanding? The electromagnetic forces between the atoms of your body resist the tug. It’s the same reason the local group of galaxies isn’t expanding. They’re close enough together that the gravitational attraction between them overcomes it. The metric expansion of space only becomes apparent when we start looking at objects well outside our galaxy. The only mechanism for redshifting light that explains why distant objects would be more redshifted than close ones is the metric expansion of space. Space stretches as the light travels through it, so the longer light travels, the lower its frequency drops. Therefore space is expanding, and has been for more than 13 billion years. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/275 "2012-01-29T16:16:24Z")
Yup, Hamster King is correct. Not much more I can add to that. > [@Jon55](#): > > My point was that many times the persons who make the most profound discoveries are often ignored at the time. > You are correct it does not necessarily prove anything it is just a reminder to keep an open mind. BTW Bozo did not have a PHD AFAIK. And plenty of people who made profound discoveries weren’t ignored. I can also point out plenty of Bozos with PhDs. Either way, it doesn’t strengthen your point. Having overly speculative and ignorant arguments does not give you an automatic shield from criticism. > [@Jon55](#): > > All of the cites I used were from scientists who are well published in peer reviewed journals. > You used a cite to promote your opinion that one of them is a crackpot and I asked you before and I am asking you again. Who is the author of your cite? The onus is on you to support why your references are credible and why those scientists are _not_ being ignored by otherwise reputable scientists. Guys like Arp have made decent contributions to science in other areas, but more specifically, Arp has become a crackpot over time and many of his ideas are largely ignored by credible scientists. Arp continues to advocate areas of fringe pseudoscience that aren’t supported by the evidence (and in many cases have been outright falsified). And yet Arp holds onto these views even in the face of better explanation, claiming that the mainstream is simply trying to keep him quiet. That’s a sign of dogmatic crackpottery, and it’s why the mainstream science community has good reason to ignore him. Here’s a good article providing direct evidence against some of Arp’s more outrageous claims (easy to find with a simple Google search): [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/](http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/) > [@Jon55](#): > > In regards to NGC 7603 and alleged companion what in your opinion would be “consistent with what we’d expect if they really WERE connected.”. Let me be very clear. Just because you choose not to read the papers I have already supplied you does not mean I have dodged anything. It means you are choosing not to look at the evidence, and that is entirely your problem. “No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift,” for one thing, means that your anomalous quasar example is not strong evidence for your claim that intrinsic redshift exists. If you had bothered to read the article, there is plenty of evidence in there to answer your question. I’m not going to waste my time outlining them for you when they’re all right there in the article, already clearly written out. Come back with questions or concerns you have over the findings and I’ll address them – you have to show me that you’re willing to actually acknowledge the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/276 "2012-01-29T16:51:09Z")
I was listening to the latest ep. of Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe last night, and one guy they interviewed touched on the subject of crackpot emails every scientist who is even vaguely well-known is deluged with - emails from people who claim to disprove established theory, and what-not. One thing he said was good [paraphrased]: “If you want me to understand your arguments against established theory, you first must do the courtesy of understanding at least a solid grounding of that theory; that means reading the published papers, understanding them, and having a solid base in quantum physics, advanced mathematics, relativity, and other post-grad levels of competence. At \*that \*point, you’re in a position to at least begin a sensible discussion; without doing me that courtesy of understanding what _I’m_ saying, I’m not inclined to do you - and the other thousand crackpots who emailed me today - the courtesy of trying to understand what _you’re_ saying. I’m too busy; I have science to do. And if your theory doesn’t have some pretty advanced mathematics in it, then you didn’t understand the original theory.” ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/277 "2012-01-30T04:46:49Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Yup, Hamster King is correct. Not much more I can add to that. > > And plenty of people who made profound discoveries weren’t ignored. I can also point out plenty of Bozos with PhDs. Either way, it doesn’t strengthen your point. Having overly speculative and ignorant arguments does not give you an automatic shield from criticism. I simply provided the point as a reminder to keep an open mind and I certainly have not asked and neither do I desire a shield from criticism. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > The onus is on you to support why your references are credible and why those scientists are _not_ being ignored by otherwise reputable scientists. Guys like Arp have made decent contributions to science in other areas, but more specifically, Arp has become a crackpot over time and many of his ideas are largely ignored by credible scientists. Arp continues to advocate areas of fringe pseudoscience that aren’t supported by the evidence (and in many cases have been outright falsified). And yet Arp holds onto these views even in the face of better explanation, claiming that the mainstream is simply trying to keep him quiet. That’s a sign of dogmatic crackpottery, and it’s why the mainstream science community has good reason to ignore him. > > Here’s a good article providing direct evidence against some of Arp’s more outrageous claims (easy to find with a simple Google search): > > [http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/](http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/) You linked me to a blog. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Let me be very clear. Just because you choose not to read the papers I have already supplied you does not mean I have dodged anything. It means you are choosing not to look at the evidence, and that is entirely your problem. > > “No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift,” for one thing, means that your anomalous quasar example is not strong evidence for your claim that intrinsic redshift exists. You linked me to an abstract which I did read and then I read parts of the 255 page paper. Sharp starts out with this. “This is an interesting problem, which deserves further study; regrettably, unconventional claims are most often dismissed out-of-hand.” Perhaps it was a reminder to keep an open mind. Sharp found among other things evidence that NGC 7603 had been interacting with another galaxy in the past and that there was no other culprit close enough except for 7603B. He put forth the hypothosis that 7603 had cannibalized its companion. Sharp went on to say that 7603B had a lot less evidence of interaction. Sharp concludes that there is not enough evidence to overturn well established theory. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > If you had bothered to read the article, there is plenty of evidence in there to answer your question. I’m not going to waste my time outlining them for you when they’re all right there in the article, already clearly written out. Come back with questions or concerns you have over the findings and I’ll address them – you have to show me that you’re willing to actually acknowledge the evidence. Astronomers Martin López-Corredoira and Carlos M. Gutiérrez diagree and so do Hilton Ratcliffe and David G. Russell. And as you have pointed so does Arp. I never linked to him in particular. We can play my scientist is better than your scientist until doomsday but its not gonna prove a thing. Will you just please look at the picture and make up your own mind? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/278 "2012-01-30T04:51:32Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > “Many times”? You cherry picked 5 or 6 people out of a century if hundreds of thousands of scientists who did solid research and were credited for it at the time. > > If one were to compile the list of successful scientists who don’t meet your criteria, it’d be a novel length document. Can we just agree that your list is statistically insignificant without anyone going to the bother of providing such an epic and contrary list? Not cherry picked. Everyone of my examples were responsible for big paradigm shifts. But yes we can agree on the statistics part. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/279 "2012-01-30T05:56:00Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > I was listening to the latest ep. of Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe last night, and one guy they interviewed touched on the subject of crackpot emails every scientist who is even vaguely well-known is deluged with - emails from people who claim to disprove established theory, and what-not. > > One thing he said was good [paraphrased]: “If you want me to understand your arguments against established theory, you first must do the courtesy of understanding at least a solid grounding of that theory; that means reading the published papers, understanding them, and having a solid base in quantum physics, advanced mathematics, relativity, and other post-grad levels of competence. At \*that \*point, you’re in a position to at least begin a sensible discussion; without doing me that courtesy of understanding what _I’m_ saying, I’m not inclined to do you - and the other thousand crackpots who emailed me today - the courtesy of trying to understand what _you’re_ saying. I’m too busy; I have science to do. And if your theory doesn’t have some pretty advanced mathematics in it, then you didn’t understand the original theory.” Its a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/280 "2012-01-30T05:58:00Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > No. Quasars are thought to be material orbiting huge black holes, not black holes themselves. (Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see them.) > > There are huge black holes at the center of every galaxy, even our own. The presence of black holes doesn’t explain why more distant objects are redshifted. Bad terminology on my part I meant the accretion disk of a black hole. But you would agree that the light is climbing out of an immense gravity well? > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The reason dark energy is called “dark” is because (whatever it is) it doesn’t interact with electromagnetic radiation. Does it have mass? > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The electromagnetic forces between the atoms of your body resist the tug. It’s the same reason the local group of galaxies isn’t expanding. They’re close enough together that the gravitational attraction between them overcomes it. The metric expansion of space only becomes apparent when we start looking at objects well outside our galaxy. We agree that gravity is not really a force but more of an aftereffect? Which is kinda funny because most of the models that have been linked to on this thread show gravity decoupling from the other forces before the one second mark. Would we also agree that gravity (force or not) is very weak? So the standard model is saying that dark energy is strong enough to push super clusters at above c speeds and yet to weak to overcome gravity at the distance of Andromeda? > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The only mechanism for redshifting light that explains why distant objects would be more redshifted than close ones is the metric expansion of space. Space stretches as the light travels through it, so the longer light travels, the lower its frequency drops. Therefore space is expanding, and has been for more than 13 billion years. Velocity = distance\*hubble constant? To find the hubble constant we find the redshift and the distance of a number of galaxies. On the x axis we put the redshift and on the y axis we put the distance and then we plot it out and get…Well it used to be anywhere from 50 to 100 MPC. The data on type 1a supernovas has been refined and now the hubble constant is accepted to be between 70 and 75 MPC. But type 1a’s are rare and so are all the other “standard candles” at that distance which leads to small sample sizes and we are back to (IMO) theory proving theory. Besides you have a bigger problem, a three and a half billion light year problem. A few years ago the “Six Degree Field Galaxy Survey” found a 3.5 billion light year expanse with virtually nothing in it. Later WMAP confirmed this. That is about 25% of the observable universe. In the center of this 3.5 billion light year void is a billion light year cold spot in the CMB where temperatures dip between 20 and 45 percent below the average. How does this fit in with a homogeneous beginning? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551.md?page=15)