big bang theory???

Thanks again, 87654321. To correct myself alittle, you can look at the redshift we see as; 1) the movement of mass away from us, 2) the distance that mass is from us, 3) the time a photon takes to get to us.  All three velocity, distance and time are linearly related and give the exact same answer.  The first two require expansion, the aging does not. Of course there still is red and blue shifting because of the velocity of the electron at the time the photon is emitted or absorbed.  But that change in energy is pretty constant.   A third redshift is dew to the motion of the star in the arm and would give you more information of the minor motion of the galaxy in general.  As for helping; the concept of aging would improve the accuracy of all the current work by one significant figure today.  That's because the aging results would yield a rate of energy loss by photons that would be very accurate.  Probility the most significant single event in astronomy ever.

cant believe evolution or big bang. Some scientists discovere some new facts, who then think that entitles them to phantasise and compose fairy tales.... no none of that is true.

May I suggest you visit groups like Atheists & Theists, you might enjoy their forums.  Here, most of us believe in gravity. True, some of us do try to tell you how strong it is. If I have  misstakes somewhere, I would be happy if you or anyone else, would point them out.  Should gravity stop, be not true as you implied, you will know as you will be flying.  Nice fairy tale, right !

I think the Cambrian Explosion makes evolution questionable.  That is a different forum though.

The Big Bang is something else.  There is little question it happened 13.7 billion years ago.  It is, however, extremely fine tuned for human life. This isn't the place for religious discussions, but check out my web site www.skepticbusters.com if you like. 

Did visit your site. Is there any place where your Prophecies state that a photon will age ?  It would be nice to prove that theory ! 

Thanks for visiting the site.  Sorry, I don't know of any prophecy about photons.

The whole idea of photons ageing is illusory, and it does not occur in the real world.

The proper time of a photon path is zero, so it has no time to age!

If you think the time it takes to travel from some arbitrary Lorentz frame is what matters, move to a different one, and the time will be completely different. For example, if you accelerate to very close to the speed of light, the distance to a distant quasar will become a lot shorter (this fact is a simple matter of the relationship between measurements).

Note that this applies both to photons which move in the same direction as the acceleration and in the opposite direction, so both massively blue-shifted and massively red-shifted photons have acquired a much shorter path from some point near the Big Bang. No sort of ageing makes any sense, because it cannot work in different frames.

Conclusion: photons don't age.

Hi Elroch again.  You are using Special Relativity to find that photons don't age.  Special Relativity assumes time and space are continuous.  Both are discrete !  So you need to   show that is not true, that the two are continuous.  Now you can't use the guy that developed SR, cause he is the one that developed General Relativity too.  (which uses continuous time and space also)  AND you still have not stated which of the 12 theories of gravity is correct.  Should you say GR you are going to get a lot of argument, not from me, but the other people  who developed those other theories.  Conclusion : You are going to have a problem defending todays physics because it has so many problems each with so many theories.

No, RPaulB, special relativity assumes the empirical evidence is as it is. I can assure you that if you accelerate to near the speed of light, all distances along your direction of travel will appear shorter, light heading in the same direction as you will be red-shifted and light heading the other way will be blue shifted. This has to be so, to be compatible with over a century of experiments.

Your problem is that the laws of physics have to respect the observed symmetries. Your hypothesis doesn't.

I don't use any "guy". It just so happens that Einstein discovered crucial ways in which the Universe was fundamentally very different to the way it had been previously believed.

The first way is that locally, the laws of physics respect Lorentz symmetries. The second is that large scale space time is a locally Lorentz manifold, with curvature arising from energy. It is because of the nature of manifolds that one can infer the way in which local special relativity affects the way the Universe looks on a large scale. It's really just as simple as imaging how the appearance of the Universe will change if you rotate (Lorentz transformations are the analog of rotations in hyperbolic space. The most striking difference is that lengths and times are not preserved because of the component that transforms one into the other. A rotation merely changes distances and angles to other distances and angles in a way that preserves them).

The only significant change in this viewpoint that has occurred since the 20s is that we now know the cosmological constant is a tiny positive number.

It appears that this picture is only an approximation under very extreme circumstances but that is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Note very carefully indeed. Einstein's theories (like all physical theories) don't say how the Universe IS at all. They say how it BEHAVES. Few people believe space is smooth at very small scales: it is probably more like a chaotic froth. But at larger scales the approximation to smoothness is too perfect to detect any discrepancy. You won't find many professional physicists who don't believe GR has proven an excellent model in its domain: it fits the facts, and that's what matters (for example the way in which gravitational radiation slows neutron stars is a superb successful prediction).

In the next few years, we will very likely detect gravitational waves directly for the first time. Few now doubt that we will, because general relativity is so well-tested using more indirect means.

Boy are we not on the same page, we are in different books.  Both SR and GR require continuous space.  Yes or no please. So far here are your answers; few people believe space is smooth, it's probably a chaotic froth, you can't detect discrepancies.  Sure sounds like you are not sure !  And then if I ask what is space, where did it come from, what was here first before space,  no answers again.  

Space is a particle (spock) built from 3 preons (tidoms) as all particles are. Space came from the decay of the unit mass (Mu) which came from the decay of supermass (Sm) which came from the decay the first particle (Eu) in the BB.  And all that occured in the zero degree freedom universe (Zu) here before the start of the BB.  

I can see why you can tell me I am all wrong because I at least stated something.  You don't even say what chaotic froth is.

As to Einstein;  I think enough of him to know he would be the very first to admit his theories are wrong.  I am sure he was every bit that smart.  

Special Relativity. You said, "light heading in the same direction as you will be red-shifted .....(or) blue-shifted. Change the you to us and you are right next to me but each going in the opposite direction.  If the photon doesn't know which of us it will interact with, is it red or blue shifted as it comes towards us ?   That states one doesn't know until it interacts with either you or me.

Here is how that works.  The photon is shifted at the time it is emitted and the reference frames are the particle emitting the photon and the space particle it is in.  It is a function of the mass movement in the spock.  Nothing else, it has nothing to do with what particle it will later interact with. Next the photon is red-shifted as it moves because it ages,  and last it is shifted again at the time it interacts which is only a function of the mass in that spock. The two frames are the mass in the particle and the spock, just as the first case.

Again you may tear me apart with what I said.  But again at least I told you how it works.  Try reading what you said.

And last "GR has proven a excellent model".  Do you mean it is wrong ?   It's only a "model" ?         Again any theory that uses (1/r*r) is wrong,  And as of now that is all theories.

Here are 9 reasons General Relativity is wrong.  I. Singularity at T = 0. (infinite energy density).  II. Singularities at every Black Hole. (same reason).  III. Needs dark matter. (particle with mass only already exist, neutrino).  IV. Written 90 years ago. (before knowledge of color force, quarks, string theory, preons, etc.).  V. Replaced by theories like MOG, TeVeS, MOND. (which were developed to fit observed data better).  VI. Space is curved.  (space is flat,3D, no matter where one looks).  VII. Contains Cosmological Constant. (Einstein stated "because that is how GOD would have build the universe", and later stated that was his "biggest blunder").  With that General Relativity is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY.   Makes your proofs I am wrong alittle weak !  But if you insist GR is absolutely correct, please don't change because of me, but  expect me to ignore your proofs when they are based on GR or SR which both also assume (VIII. IX.) space is continuous and was here forever.    

Hi opiejames.  Decent response.  but "main objective is to play chess" I am afraid not in this group.  Your second objective seems to be to understand evolution better.  My I help by pointing out that to  understand evolution in this universe,  we need to understand evolution between Big Bangs.  It took many (maybe 8000) BBs to get around to this one before evolution in this universe could happen.  And from the looks of our intelligence about 8000 more to learn enough to get beyond where we are now. Hope that helped.

Where do you get 8000 BB's?  To get conditions right for life, it would take more like 10 to the 800 power BB's.  For example, Plank's constant would have to be exact, and it would be a random number on each BB - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant.  There are many other constans that would have to come out exact too.  

I used an 8 and three 0s, so did you, but you got alot for your dollar.  I initial used 8, meaning between 7 and 16.  I used 8000  as a bit of a joke.   You used randomly.  The constants of physics between BBs do not change randomly.  They are driven to be maximised so that time is COMPLETELY used up.  That's a long story, but the results will be that the next BB will have more isotopes, more elements, more molecules, more live forums, and therefore more evolution.  All to accomplish using time completely up in one BB.   If not we try again by changing R, the ratio between frequences of the three preons, until it does work.  And evolution gets better and better.  This is how GOD, who needs help from the book of EMIT, finially gets it.  Try not to pay too much attention to current physics, it uses continuous time. 

This is cool.  I might learn that something I thought to be science bedrock, namely, that the laws of physics are set randomly at the beginning of the BB.  If this is not your understanding, I would love to see where you get your information.