Quote:
Originally Posted by higginsdj
Anything to do with light - it's speed, it's spectrum (redshift/blueshift) etc.
We have interpreted what we observe to fit a theory for something else ie in order for the BB to be true, the universe must expand, if it is to expand then more distant objects must be accelerating faster the nearer ones etc etc etc. So we have meagre observations supporting a single theory because assumptions are made about light. Yes we can prove certain things about light over small distances but what about cosmological distances?
Lets face it pre Relativity, Newtonian physics was the be all and end all and matched all out observations. Turns out that it does - on the small scale (solar System) but fails on the large scale - but does it? Maybe our assumptions about how light behaves is wrong. Perhaps the speed of light is not fixed. Perhaps red and blue shift are the results of dark matter impacting on the light and so on and so forth.
At this stage nothing can be proven so the arguments surrounding anything on the cosmological scale are simply philosophical.....
Cheers
|
The Scientific Method initially involves the development of a theory based on available data, not around the other way. If new data is not supportive the theory is either modified or scrapped. Newtonian physics is a good example.
To say that there is only meagre evidence to support the BB is simply not true. The cosmic microwave background is a case in point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE
Photons are the fundamental particles of interaction for the electromagnetic force. They don't change for subatomic distances let alone any other distance.
Regards
Steven