big bang!!!!

[curlyfilm]

probably been said before but, i'm not a highly educated man, though i just can't believe that the universe expands and contracts, why can't we beleive in the constant state universe, makes more sense too me

ps keep it simple!!!!!!!

pps don't bore me with red shift, i still don't beleiveit

[nucleardream]

Because of something called "Olber's Paradox." It begins with a question and goes something like this:

Why isn't the night sky completely bright?" If the universe is as big as some claim it to be, consisting of an indefiinite amount of galaxies (i.e. billions), each relatively similar to our Milke Way, which can be easily inferred to consist of billions of stars itself, you end up with an amount of stars (billions x billions = universe) that should be giving off light, much like our (relatively small) yellow star - the sun.

Concievably then, every point in the night sky should contain light that comes from one of these infinite amount of stars. Therefore, the night sky should be completely bright. Why isn't it?

Because our universe is still compartively young. It is still expanding. Light is still approaching the Earth (at light speed) and will arrive at some point in the future. That also implies that the universe is still growing.

Where am I wrong?

Cheers on the late night (early morning) entry ;-)

[Clanad]

Part of your question concludes that "the universe expands and contracts", which is a fallacy in itself. It has been shown through numerous measurements that the universe is expanding, not contracting and that the rate of expansion is increasing. One of the measurement tools is your forbidden redshift... still valid, nonetheless.
Olber's Paradox is theoretical and does touch on the expanding universe. However, the density of the star population isn't that great... on the order of 1 star per cubic parsec. However, the cubic parsec density is measured in shells of 1 parsec separation surrounding the earth (as viewer) and the amount of light from each shell does not depend on its distance from our position.
Ironically, Edgar Allen Poe was one of the first to describe a solution to Mr. Olber's Problem in 1848. Simply stated and touched upon by nucleardream is the fact that the universe is only about 12.7 to 15.4 billions of years which old means we can only see thelight from the part of it that lies within 12 to 15 billion light-years from us. Light beyod that time/distance has reached us since the universe continues to expand. Additional proofs of an expanding universe include life expectancy of stars, but you requested "keep it simple"...

[jake-the-peg]

OK you've ignored the main plank of "big bang" evidence namely the red shift how about the second plank - the microwave background?

I'm sure you've heard of this - A couple a researcers Penzias and Wilson accidently found a radio signal that was the same in every direction of the sky which was almost precisely the same that had been predicted by astromomers from the big bang.

if not it's here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Or is it a case that you simply don't believe any evidence for universe expansion?

What would I need to show you to make you believe in it?

[Fat Boy]

On the one hand you say you simply don't believe the evidence of red shift, yet on the other you need any answers to be kept simple for you. No offence mate, but if you don't understand the theory how are you ever going to believe it?

Some other interesting theories you might be happy with here

[rojash]

nicely put, Fat Boy :-)

[nucleardream]

Because there are some people, who although have not received formal training in scientific constructs or the like, are still very interested in these types of matters, and the want "to believe." Just as any newfound theory goes through a farily continuouse path of evolution - beginnning with denial, then testing of sorts, then persuading others, and finally majority acceptance, many of today's ideas are still relatively young. Can you imagine our current position on an x-y graph - one that graphs the amount of progress (or knowledge gained) throughout the 10-100 M years of our species' existence? It would be so exponentially defined as to situate our current state of knowledge gain as virtually vertical (what can I say? - I'm a positivist).

Traditional ideas can be so ingrained into the minds of those subjected to it, to render acquistion of new ideas (that may majorly conflict) as very difficult. Now, I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is of that caliber, nor am I saying that I have the answers to all of life's mysteries, but the fact is is that there will always be detractors (or barriers, or simply those you lack access - therefore the knowledge - of information). It's up to a fraction of the population that may feel predestined to disseminate evidence-based practices and knowledge to others.

Does that make sense?

P.S. It was my intention in the opening post to try and K.I.S.S. - i.e. "keep it simple, stupid"

[curlyfilm]

sorry i should have re-worded my question better, i understand the big bang theory, and red shift, my father is an astronomer, who believes, like i that they may have got it wrong, its not the first time, we are still not 100% sure how the pyramids were built, come too think of it, there are some forts in the solent near me, that were built in the 1800's and we don't know how they knew there was fresh water under the sea bead, for the wells, thanks all for your time,

ps fatboy i never said i did not "understand" i just said i don't believe, so next time don't waste you time, answering my simple questions

[CT]

The 'Big Bang' and expanding universe theory are the closest fit to the evidence we have at present. This doesn't mean that there may not be a change at some time in the future.

[curlyfilm]

thanks, ct and nuclear dream for your answers amongst others, well put,

just too say, fat boy and rojash, yes you may be more intelligent, but you are still [edited by AB]