Well, an object heading towards me does not disprove the tendancy of objects away from me to move faster away from me proportional to their distance. An outlier does not disprove the theory, nor even present evidence to the contrary.
A fundamental understanding of gas behavior can show that it is possible that with increased temperature and energy, the tendancy of objects to push on the walls of the container do not preclude that all objects must then do so. This is a rough example, but I think you can see the point.
It'll be useful to understand the -why- the Big Bang occurred, but before you set out to examine the -reasons- for an event, sometimes it's helpful to examine and prove that the event actually occurred in the first place.
And the event hasn't been proven, we have some observational data that indicates the universe is expanding but past that we have very little. We have observed what is happening now and assumed it is what has always happened. We might be right, we might not be right, but again I come back to the fact we need more information. We don't know a fraction of our universe, hell even our galaxy holds large mysteries that we need to explore. I say we need more data.
We -do- need more data. I don't dispute that.
There is, however, a burning question which the Big Bang provides an excellent answer for. If not the big bang, then why is the observable edge of the universe retreating near the speed of light at an exact distance as measured by observation, and why do all these objects at the universes edge converge on a single point in space/time when extrapolated back in time?
The question exists, yes, it has always existed and what we have observed is what we have observed. I just don't think we have observed enough. Hey, I just had a thought... what if we are moving towards a single point and not away from it? If this point has a form of gravity then things that get closer to it would move at an accelerating rate then things further away. As we are one of the further away points this would mean anything closer we observe would be moving away from us, at the same rates of acceleration we would get if we assumed we where pushed away from a center point.
That would mean space-time is inverted, and that all objects are at the edge of the universe by their own space-time perspectives.
Now -that- is some non-euclidian geometry.
Now start your experiments and observations.
There, using the basic of Hubble I have put forth a theory that also fits the observational data. Things are accelerating away from us cause they are closer to a single point in space that is pulling them towards it with a force that gets greater as they get closer. We don't have to worry about beign sucked in though, a blue shift galaxy will crash into ours before that happens... yay for end of the worlds!
Well, think it through and apply to observed phenomenon. If space-time is inverted, then how would black holes work?
Again I state it: We just don't have the means to make the sort of observations needed to prove/disprove the big bang! Hubble just observed that the galaxies we can see are moving at a set rate... that is as far as I am willing to take his observations, cause those are what where observed. To plot it back to a single point seems logical but it is billions of years of history that could of done who knows what to the shaping of the galaxy.
Perhaps. But if they can observe the edge of creation, according to the BBT, then they can observe the Big Bang in action due to the theory of relativity stating that the edge's time at the speed of light would be slowed to almost an infintessimal crawl.
Good luck with that mind. But the method exists to prove the BBT in theory.
Like wise the existence of blue shift universes are a fluctuation that needs to be explained. If something in the universe, present or in the past, could change the movement of a galaxy then it has the power to shape the universe in a way we havn't fathomed. If they exist, and blue shifts suggests something does, then who knows what changes to the model we ahve to make to account for this strange movement pattern.
Blue-shift universes have to be explained? Or do you mean galaxies?
I'm curious as to which blue-shift galaxies have been found, but yes, they -do- need some explanation, even if it's as simple as 'Bounced off another galaxy.'
The simplest conclusion is that 'Well, they were all there.' Hense why that's the one getting the most examination. Occam's Razor and all.
Occam's razor assumes we have all the knowledge at our grasp. Very likely the most obvious explanation isn't the most correct if we are missing large chunks of data. Earth being the center of the universe fir Occam's razor so well only a couple of hundred years ago too. Who knows how much ridicule we will get a few hundred years from now....
Actually, that was my observations on some 'scientists' who have PHDs and everything but are always willing to say whatever the company wants them to say. Others who take money from focus groups to give a 'scientific' opinion to support a political stance regardless of the reality we are facing. Even more that are just as human as the rest of us, taking a view and refusing to budge from it.
And the people without the PHDs tend to be worse....
Tis my opinion proper science should not be bribed.
Heh.
