I can't believe I actually have to show why evolution is true. It feels like somebody who is trying to prove gravity exists.
For example the galaxy Andromeda (according to a claimed value it should approach us 300 kilometres a second!) and certain other galaxies would seem to approach us instead of moving away. This shouldn't be in any way possible if the cosmos really do expand.
Look at the lack of a reference. This would be a major scientific discovery. Without a source, this argument is useless.
The red shift changes periodically. One peculiarity in some quasars is that their red shift changes periodically - often during one day, and sometimes it is larger, sometimes smaller.
Amazing how they answer this later:
It is more probable, therefore, that the changing red shift values come from internal reactions and not from any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned.
Yes quasars are the exception, not the rule. We can, however, measure galaxies, and we can tell they are redshifted.
Not detectable with the naked eye. Another evidence against the expansion is that we can't detect it with the naked eye or even with a telescope.
Why in the world should we be able to detect it with the naked eye? The galaxies themselves are many light years across, so, if they are moving at the speed of light, it would be like trying to look at somebody a mile away and see if they moved an inch in the last year. [Note: This isn't exact, but it gives you an idea].
One important question in the big bang is what caused it, in other words, what "started" it?
As far as I know, the universe has always been expanding. It wasn't just sitting there twiddling it's thumbs and then suddenly expand. This question can Go back to God. What caused God to create the universe? Was he just sitting in a state of equilibrium and then just decide to create everything?
One problem is related to gravity, i.e. what removed it.
I'm not completely sure, but there are a couple posibilities. One is Hawking Radiation. Another would be that the universe itself pulled them apart in it's expansion. The point is that God is not necessary.
But, if such an explosion can even take place, shouldn't it always require two kinds of states: a state of pressure, one that explodes, and a sparser state where the explosion would happen?
But the Big Bang isn't an explosiion, it's an expansion. You can think of it like an increase in the area of the universe.
Doesn't it, however, require quite a lot of faith to believe that from this small point, the size of a pin, all life, the diversity of nature and the whole current universe was born? Doesn't it require more faith than believing that God created everything?
No, because we can actually say how things happened this way. God, however, requires that you don't know how he did it, just that he did.
We can imagine that by taking a small stone (or perhaps a small pin) into our hands, and by believing hard, that from it a hundred billion galaxies and in each a hundred billion stars will be born, it will happen.
Except the stone has far less atoms than the universe. And it is not spacetime. This is a logical fallacy called false analogy or strawman, depending how you look at it.
In the same way we can expect oceans, people, animals, flowers, mountains and all that can be seen around us, to be born from this certain point. (This is actually the whole Darwinism and the whole current scientific theory in brief.)
This one made me laugh. Darwinism says that changes in the percentiges of the alleles will be governed by Natural Selection. I don't know how Cosmology has anything to do with that.
In any case, assuming that everything was really born from this state, the size of a needle, the following things should have happened. Have they really been from such a small state?
This makes no sense. Why is it such a big deal that they should have once, billions of years ago, been in such a small state?
"The first problem is that if gas has spread into space as a consequence of the big bang, it is unlikely that it would suddenly start to condense into galaxies and stars."- One word and one word only:
gravity.
One question is concerned with the fact that can the birth of galaxies and stars simply take place after enough gas has collected together for them to be born by themselves. In other words, can the mere collecting together of hydrogen into one place bring about such orbs?
I'll spell this out. When they form together, the gravity ulling them together becomes stronger. When they eventually get large enough, the gravity will be pulling them together so strongly that there will be pressure exerted on them. When there's more pressure in an area, the heat increases. Eventually, it will get so hot that nuclear fussion will take place, which creates energy and heavier elements.
Another problem in the supposed birth of stars from fog clouds (for example in the constellation Orion) is that we generally aren't sure if some fog clouds are accumulating or scattering.
This is fine. I don't see why this is a problem though.
On the other hand, if the birth of galaxies and stars is so simple where is the proof? If the sky supposedly has a hundred billion galaxies, and in each a hundred billion stars, and if we divide this by 10 billion (The supposed age of the universe has been 10-15 billion years), it would mean that every year 10 new galaxies and 1000 billions new stars are born! This amount of new stars and galaxies should be detectable somehow, but why do we not detect it?
This process is slow. The stars will look the same for millions of years.
On the other hand, if the birth of galaxies and stars is so simple where is the proof? If the sky supposedly has a hundred billion galaxies, and in each a hundred billion stars, and if we divide this by 10 billion (The supposed age of the universe has been 10-15 billion years), it would mean that every year 10 new galaxies and 1000 billions new stars are born! This amount of new stars and galaxies should be detectable somehow, but why do we not detect it?
This is simple. Atoms that don't have the right trajectory will either go away or fall into the center of the galaxy or star. If it does have the right trajectory, it will revolve around it. Besides, not all trajectories are straight lines. Combine the way individual atoms move (described by wave functions, not straight lines) and the butterfly effect and the straight trajectory problem is solved.
The first problem is that if the sun and the planets were born in the said way the original gas cloud's speed of rotation should have been a lot greater than the sun's current speed of rotation. In other words, as the speed of rotation now is about 2 km/s, the original speed of rotation should have been about 1000 km/s.
Without even the formulas, I cannot comment, since I have no idea where they got the numbers they did.
Another problem concerning the speed of rotation is that if the rotation thrust the planets away from the sun, why does the sun revolve slower than the planets (for example the Earth revolves around its axis over 25 times faster than the sun)? Why does it revolve slower than the planets, even though it should revolve much faster?
Spinning-top tests indicate that the small objects that are thrust away lose their velocity much faster than the spinning-top itself. In other words, the spinning-top, which still rotates, keeps its velocity greater than the objects that have been thrust away. A good question is, therefore, why the rotation speeds between the sun and the planets are quite the opposite to what we should expect? What has slowed down the sun's speed of rotation so considerably?
Because, in a spinning-top test, there's something called air resistance.
As the diameter of the sun is now about 1,4 million kilometres and the initial cloud was only 2-3 times larger, we can pose the question of how, with regard to these figures, the planets can be so far away from the sun?
Again, they have no references. I guess we're just suppose to blindly accept that they're telling the truth.
[Why are different planets made of different elements?]The sun is 99 percent light elements, i.e. hydrogen and helium, but for example the Earth has about 1 percent of these elements, whilst it is composed of 99 percent heavy elements. The composition of the other inner planets is also totally different from that of the sun.
Let's see... The sun's outer atmosphere is made of light particles since lighter elements will 'float' to the top.
Between the Earth and its moon and the other inner planets there are such large differences in composition that it is difficult to think that they have the similar origin and were born from the same initial cloud.
They are almost certainly lying here. The Earth and moon are so similar scientists believe that the latter came from the former.
Between the Earth and the large outer planets and their moons there are also enormous differences. The composition of the Earth differs completely from these outer planets which are composed of light elements.
Asuming the Earth's atmosphere has no light elements (which I doubt), it would be because the Earth's gravity is weaker than the larger planets.
Between the Earth and the large outer planets and their moons there are also enormous differences. The composition of the Earth differs completely from these outer planets which are composed of light elements.
Because they are either too hot or too cool. Mars used to have water. The gas giants can't have water for obviouse reasons, but one moon might have water under it's surface.
The atmospheres differ notably from one another. There are at least the following differences:
- Earth: 78 % nitrogen, about 21 % oxygen, also argon and other gases.
- Venus: 97 % carbon dioxide, 2 % nitrogen and under 1 % water vapour
- Mars: 95 % carbon dioxide and the rest nitrogen and argon.
- Jupiter: About 82 % hydrogen and 17 % helium.
I have no reason to doubt this. Venus and Mars are similar, the differences are probably mainly due to gravity. Earth is different because of life, and Jupiter is different because it can keep lighter elements.
One point that seems to prove against the fact that the Earth had a burning hot surface, and then gradually solidified, is the radio halos of polonium, also detected in the bedrock. As for these halos, they shouldn't even have existed had the stone formations slowly solidified during the millenniums (slow solidification is the most common theory).
This is a whole article upon itself, so I will refer you to the talk.origins page on it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Imagining that the planets and moons have the same beginning, their movements should also be similar. All of them should rotate approximately to the same direction as they all came into existence from the same rotation.
However, here we come across problems again because if we look at their movements, we realise that many of them are rotating in the opposite direction to what we would expect. These different movements could certainly not be possible if they really had the same origin.
Unless they got hit by a giant astroid or something.
I think this is enough for now.