Cosmological Red Shift

Sorry, expletives deleted, no linkies.

You claimed "great margins of error." Prove it.

I'm going with "great margins of error" of the gaps.

On edit: your only link was to an article on a cosmology that is definitely not in the mainstream nor anywhere near it, as anyone who knows anything about Penrose would expect. All you've done is shown problems with data analysis trying to support a non-mainstream theory.

No gap there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Schneibster:

Did you read my last post above? The link was in the second quote box, to a wikipedia article which includes the issue of problems with analysis and artifacts in WMAP and in CMB interpretations and confidence levels attached to any such work.


I just saw your posts in the "is-there-anything-faster-than-light" topic. You appear to agree that no actual "motion" is involved in cosmological expansion context; yet you assert that whatever the redshift component due to that Cosmological non-motional context is also in Doppler-type motional context when photons being absorbed? How do you reconcile that admission over there, with the latter assertion you make here?

On edit: You edited your post while I was submitting. I will answer your edit below:

Please do not pursue your "gap" characterization. Thank you. I did not link that as a cosmology type comment. The linked wikipedia comments, irrespective of what cosmology type involved, goes only to the specific points re analytical artifacts in CMB MAPS as such, which can arise no matter what the theory involved. Please do not distract from the essential point at issue by widening this issue to cosmological theory alternatives. It is the potential for analytical artifacts at issue on this specific point, not the variety of cosmologies. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not much, no. I looked to see if you'd provided evidence to support your claims, you didn't, and I'm about to move on. I'm not interested in arguing with people who make stuff up about "great margins of error." It's a "god of the gaps" argument and as such null and void.

At this point you've got three choices: prove your argument, abandon your argument, or end this conversation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Schneibster:

You attack the semantics but do not address the substantive issue raised, as supported by that link.

You keep on with that tactic of characterizing my reasonable skeptical points as "god of the gaps" arguments, in a dishonorable attempt to taint the contention unfairly as being worthy only of your disdain and not your proper response.

You also appear to assert different things in different threads which actually make your overall position contradictory and arbitrary. You admit no-motional in cosmological context but still assert motional Doppler mechanism as the total effective factor in perceived redshift between distant galaxies.

You did not address and understand the implications of the illustrative scenario which I provided for your examination and considered response. Now you want to beg off while making disparaging assertions that it is me that is not conversant with the theory and not discussing fairly and intelligently?

How is what you have just done considered to be in any way either scholarly or gentlemanly, sir? Please, either address the issues and examples properly and fairly, or admit you are not conversant enough with the theory or its implications to be in any position to conclude anything useful in scientific terms regarding this issue.

In reply to the Edit in your above post:

Schneibster, you also admitted you had to catch up to reading which you had not done before (as per your link in an earlier post), which indicated you were not knowledgeable enough on these issues from the first moment you started to make assertions based on your patently limited knowledge of all the factors and theory involved. Your various assertions along the way in various threads made it clear you were "learning on the job" during our exchange. So your attempt to create the impression that your were being correct all along and I not, is pure fabrication on the fly, and not what I would expect of a learned member here who should be both scholarly and gentlemanly enough to admit when he is not the one to judge others' arguments as "god of the gaps". That tactic immediately identified you as another uninformed layperson pretending to be an authority while others are pointing out where you are actually inconsistent and in error.

This interaction with you has been interesting and eye-opening in more ways than one. If you are more interested in using underhanded tactics in order to pretend to yourself and your equally un-knowledgeable and un-critical 'likers' that you 'winning' when you are actually losing a scientific argument, then why bother engaging in scientific discussion which will expose your "layperson learning on the job" status here in the end?

Better to say nothing; than say anything that comes into your head which is inconsistent and wrong on the science, and so prove you are neither the scholar nor the gentleman I first took you for. Thanks anyway.

 

The only mutual understanding of any value is that of the mainstream professionals, not the musings on a science forum which you seem totally unaware of.

 

And you are a professional???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dont you see the outright irony and hypocrisy in your posts?

 

Expletive Deleted;

As i said earlier this guy Schneibster stormed this thread with his 'alternative mainstream' calling cosmological redshift as doppler shift. I gave a link in which many mainstream guys object to this, his take on z = 4 being 0.92c was also not appreciated in that link, but this guy either has me on ignore or did not bother to respond...that tantamounts to dishonesty. Irony is he is responding in a thread started by me.

Somewhere else he is pushing that spacetime is a thing, again when the link was posted which had reference to a paper by Prof Geraint F Lewis clearly stating that spacetime is not a thing, it is a mathematical tool, he again kept mum. His liker Paddoboy, declared Prof Geraint wrong, without specifying how. This is how the discussion proceeds here, guys take the authoritative position without even understanding the correct interpretation of mainstream...well IT hackers have to act fast and aggressively.. Mainstream scientists do not act that way.

 

He seems to be your buddy !!

Come on Paddoboy, he is a prof. Atleast show some courtesy to him and give evidence why he is wrong...You push popscience articles as truth and evidenced, but you dismiss professor Lewis as if he is some amateur kid.

 

Then the proper place for such a discussion is in that thread.

I believe you mean this one (linked from here) where Prof. Lewis and 3 other authors attempt to inject rigor into the common cosmological pop-science phrase "space is expanding."

It seems like paddoboy and Prof. Lewis are on the same side of this topic. "Space is expanding" is a simplification of General Relativity for the masses who need years of fundamental physics explained quickly by analogy which necessarily has a limited domain of applicability. Within that domain, this analogy gives perfect cromulent results.

Actually, paddoboy seems to be saying Prof. Lewis's opinion on a matter of interpretation, as stated by you, without citation, is something he disagrees with. Given that you seem to have based such an opinion on no more than tashja's hastily typed paper title which omits the crucial question mark, it appears that you are making a tempest in the wrong teacup.

 

rpenner, I found this paper to say about the same thing, and more intuitive, but that's a matter of personal taste. sweetpea provided the link to it and I'm too lazy to link where. Do you agree they present approximately the same view?

 

Paper link and the clear assertion of Prof, which Paddo resisted, is in my post #255....

 

I happen to have read one of The God's posts in order to understand rpenner's post #269, and it needs a reply IMO, so I'm taking The God off ignore for one response, after which (unless The God elects to stop making up accusations and using arguments from irrelevance, among other bad habits) I will place this individual back on ignore, since I don't care to read personal insults and logical fallacies given in lieu of legitimate argument.

It is Doppler shift; Doppler shift is the change in wavelength/frequency/energy observed when the distance between the emitter and the absorber, in the frame of the absorber, is increasing. How or why that distance is increasing is immaterial. Despite the fact that the exact formula for calculating redshift is different under GRT and SRT, it is still Doppler shift. Remembering that the original Doppler shift was proposed under classical Newtonian physics to account for the change in sound from approaching or receding sources, it is inconsistent to claim that it is somehow valid under SRT but invalid under GRT; it was proposed in 1842, well before either SRT or GRT (or even the Michelson-Morley experiment that led Einstein to propose SRT) existed. It is either valid in both or invalid in both. I choose to say it is valid in both. I say "poe-tay-toe," you say "poe-tah-toe." And this is, in fact, the mainstream view.

On edit: it should be noted that the first paper, very near its end, implies the interpretation that Doppler shift is somehow an exclusively SRT concept, here:

and the second implies but does not state that they are different, in multiple locations, by using the phrase "special relativistic Doppler shift" and avoiding the use of "Doppler shift" when discussing the GRT equation. However, both are matters of interpretation rather than of fact, and are inconsistent with the historical facts, as demonstrated by Doppler having developed his theory long before either SRT or GRT were formulated. /edit

As for the contention that my views are "alternative mainstream" (whatever that is supposed to mean), not only is the phrase "alternative mainstream" a contradiction in terms, but it ignores the fact that nothing I say is in tension with the facts presented in either of two papers linked here regarding this same subject, viz., this one, linked above by rpenner, and this one, linked by sweetpea (though I don't recall if it was on this thread or another one and am too lazy to go find it), nor is it in tension with GRT.

One shot, The God. Make it good. If you cease making up accusations in order to try to draw attention away from the paucity and irrelevance of your arguments, I may consider leaving you off ignore.

 

No, I do not dismiss Professor Lewis like he was a kid: I reserve such dismissal for cranks and God botherers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Most of the time (when I am not correcting people on their incorrect mainstream interpretation), I take critical views on the mainstream burning issues. So for me to 'make it good' is tough, odds are against me........But what are you doing ? You are just attempting to put forth what the mainstream view is, sorry Schneibster you are not able to 'keep it good'........Loud writings, ignoring objections and objectors, threatening to ignore the objectors, won't lead you anywhere. Back to drawing board, my boy.

 

And yet cosmological redshift is observed, evidence for an expanding universe, along with GR.
In other words standard 21st cosmology stands as is, despite your continued "god of the gaps" argument and the usual ranting nonsense.

 

have you understood the point of this thread ? Ok try following

This thread is about
a. Whether cosmological redshift exists or not ?
b. Explanantion given for cosmological redshift ?

 

All have been answered and explained and as soon as they were you and expletive deleted did the usual and started your "god of the gaps"argument over lack of knowledge as to the exact mechanism.
This is done and dusted.
Cosmological redshift is observed: Spacetime expansion is evidenced overwhelmingly: And it all aligns with GR and general mainstream accepted cosmology.

 

Yes but can you pad be critical of mainstream thinking ?

 

Whatever my opinion is, it is certainly like your's the god's and expletive deleted, the opinions of lay people and conducted on a science forum open to any one at all.
Science and the scientific method are self correcting as has been shown over the last 300 years or so.

 

Professor Lewis, Schneibs, myself, the mainstream academia in general, and most interested parties on this forum, all agree that the evidence points to the recession of distant galaxies, interpreted as the universe expanding over large scales.
Professor Lewis described spacetime as not a "material substance" and I agree: Neither is time, nor space...but something does not need to be material substance or physical to be real.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Material Substance
Material Substance
a kind of matter which, in contrast to a physical force field, possesses a rest mass.

Having extensively interacted with Professor Lewis on a now defunct forum, and one in which James participated in, I can assure you that if he was a regular here, he would undoubtedly be rejecting most of what you are claiming.