>>14242281>There are lots of measurements which could disprove a big bangName a few.
> I explained how and gave you a reference, you completely ignored it.It that picrelated was supposed to explained it, I think you're using an intimidation technique, because I told you twice that cosmology is just a hobby for me, but the questions I ask are supported by some academic work. So explain it in english or don't spread something you don't understand, but believe in.
> People made successful predictions so it's an elaborate conspiracyYou yet have to demonstrate how you know they did. I suspect you to believe the hype, because you still cannot demonstrate why I should also believe it.
> The predictions precede measurements by decades. Those were measurements were the best equipment in the 90's.Considering what they hide in their archive, I can expect anything from those popes.
>There is no reference given for any of these numbers, other than a scifi writer.Very true, thank you, protestants are controlled opposition to the vatican. beLIEvers.
So I believe that you're competent enough to describe how a researcher with all the equipment he needs come to the conclusions that universe is expanding at all.
First we have the red shift (the stars further from us (how do we measure the distance to the stars you said? By the red shift? Isn't it some circular logic?) the stars further from us tend to light with lower frequency.
Second we guess that it is due to Doppler Effect (objects that move from you sound lower (due to the change in the speed of wave due to that movement) even though there could be plenty other explanations (interaction with the vacuume, which then was considered empty, now it's considered more like aether again)
Third.. what?
