HYPOTHESIS: 'Recession' & 'Redshift' & Dark Matter Variations Over Time

You're "an engineer", you say? Nothing wrong with that in my book. Good on you.

However, the 'mainstreamer' trolls (you know the 'usual suspects', I'm sure) reaction to such 'admissions' by other engineers whom the trolls have a personal prejudice against, is to insult that "an engineer" person's intelligence; by posting nasty comments along the lines of: "Oh, you're an engineer? That explains why you're such a crank and know-nothing about real Relativity/Quantum physics!" etc etc. You get the picture.

So my advice to you, origin, is NOT to admit to being "an engineer" within their trollish hearing; unless you want to have your intelligence insulted by those same pretender-trolls who seem to think that they have a trolling license to dismiss the content because of the source; just because they think (many times disastrously erroneously) they are 'speaking for mainstream' (when often they are not, and merely using that excuse to troll and insult "an engineer" or others whom they conveniently label 'crank' just because they don't like to admit they/orthodoxy could be wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Has your engineering training gone awry where connecting the dots and logical deductions are involved, origin? Where on earth did you get the impression that that (my bolding above) was what I "am saying"? Not at all!

The redshift is a function of absolute TOTAL quantity Dark+Ordinary matter-energy/mass.

The relative quantities of Dark-to-Ordinary in Dwarf Galaxies may be higher, but the total absolute quantity is SMALL compared to equivalent relative quantities in LARGE SPIRAL Galaxies in earlier epoch. So NO, I am NOT "saying dwarf galaxies should have a huge redshift" as you erroneously suggest. Clear?

So your 'innocent' but misguided attempt at making a strawman there doesn't fly, origin. Do you correctly understand the actual indicated logics and connections now? I never claimed what you just erroneously 'concluded' above. Yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're the 'mainstream defender' against new 'mainstream evidence', not me. I have nothing to contend except that any change in mass results in change of redshift as a function of gravitational redshift. No more; no less.

If you are really au fait with 'mainstream' theory and methods regarding redshift calculations and causes, it should be easy for you to find/make that calculation from the 'mainstream' information/assumptions and equations already in your "knowledge base" of mainstream Big Bang and expansion/recession Redshift values attributed to gravitational mass/field effects. So, you tell me what you and mainstream have to say about what total mass required to give a "redshift corresponding to z=6". BUT remember, the galaxies we are speaking of here is the galaxies AS THEY WERE EARLIER, and NOT as Andromeda or any of the 'local group' NOW close by in both time and space. Have you got that straight as well now?

Considering your above illogical 'connections' and 'strawman version' of what I actually point out, and which I have had to correct you on above, it is a long stretch of the imagination for you to think you have been "clear" about anything let alone anything which required your connecting the dots as presented, rather than as your now-above-proven "kneejerking" have misinterpreted/misunderstood them so far. Yes?

So your opinion regarding 'lack of merit' of what I have presented for your information/cogitation is already proven too unreliable for anyone to take you seriously therefore. And your opinion regarding 'soundness of current theory' is equally shaky in light of your obvious faulty logics and connections when you were reading and supposedly 'considering' fairly and without bias (ahem) the new info/links provided.

Meanwhile, all your so far erroneous comments/logics and conclusions based on your own failure to read and understand the new info without reading bias; and above-proven disastrous application of your predilection for 'preconclusionary certainty' in trumpeting that current theory 'cannot be wrong', makes you the 'arm waver' in this instance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please see previous responses above re this aspect. Thanks.

No. The word "threatening" which you used was the point in itself that I was making. The fact that you used such a word with such connotations displays your 'preconclusionary' attitude even before you have read the actual consistent contents and explanations of the foreshadowed Complete ToE. That was all. Your 'predismissive' attitude based on your 'preconclusionary certainty'; both of which are the reason you have fallen into the erroneous and strawman misunderstandings of what has been said and presented to you that is mainstream not crank. Change that attitude, is my advice; that is what science demands of everyone who pretends to be discussing 'scientifically' and not 'emotionally/prejudicially' from ego and/or troll agendas not having any regard to the actual science or merits involved objectively.

Again, how would you know? Since as I have proved above, you keep subjectively kneejerking and making erroneous 'connections' and false logic interpretations of what was said and the new mainstream info presented which you have read with bias and without care, obviously.

Again, your own opinion has been proven to be based on your own false steps, as corrected above. It is your compulsion for preconclusion and certainty without fair reading/thinking which speaks volumes. Read and think objectively and respond on the facts instead of on your own fallacious misconstructions. That would be a change from what has issued from you in this instance so far.

Your proven repeated missteps and misleading certainties based on your own belief in the inerrancy of current theory; from you obviously ignoring and misreading/misunderstanding the implications of the new mainstream data presented, makes you repeat your opinions about persons and facts which you have so far not comprehended correctly. Obviously.

So you are in no position to accuse others of repetition and/or arrogance; especially if your own arrogance and repetition has above been shown to be based on biased/false impressions of your own misconstructions and non-scientific attitude, so far all too evident to see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow, the links/discussion points were presented for others to discussed (based on the facts presented and their implications for redshift etc). What you bring to the discussion should be based on fair and reasonable attitudes and considerations of the facts in context, and no 'personality bias' (even against "engineers" or whatever) should be brought to the discussion. Because the subjective/source is nothing, the objective/content is everything. Yes?

Bye for now, origin, everyone; and enjoy your polite and objective discussions wherever they may transpire!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An FYI link/exceprt from mainstream astronomical science observations...

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-massive-galaxy-cluster-cosmological-theory.html

Just the latest hint as to the 'mixmaster' that is vast reaches of so-called 'empty space' which may:

- attenuate light to randomized frequencies (which mimic/produce most of the CMD 'black body' spectrum observed here/now); and

- the light that never reaches us because it is destructively interfered (via interactions with electrons and other photons co-moving but 'out of phase' in cold dark space distances, such that it is destructively reduced to randomized Quantum Vacuum levels, which can also explain at least some part of Olbers' Paradox?)

Anyhow, that was for your further hint/info and your own further considerations in the fuller context of what I have been trying to point out for many decades now about other alternative explanations for the light we see and the light we don't see here from far distant sources across the 'mixmaster' of fields and matter oscillations and velocities and interactions in that long long transit.

Good luck and good thinking!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Massive galaxy cluster verifies predictions of cosmological theory" -- the headline says it all. The universe is weird, but not yet observed to be weirder than we think. There is no content in this article which in the least way suggests the previous poster had any correct original idea.

Also:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/778/1/52

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If going by headlines is the basis for your opinions, then your blogging must be sadly lacking in rigor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is yet another excerpt which (especially when read in conjunction with the previously provided excerpt in my prior post) makes your opinion totally missing the point of both the thrust of the SPECIFIC discovery/observation and its SPECIFIC scientific import especially for CMB observed (and possibly also for part of Olbers Paradox etc as I pointed out in addition).

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-massive-galaxy-cluster-cosmological-theory.html

If you bothered to go past the headline, you would have understood that the ''cosmological theory' in question was a SPECIFIC ASPECT regarding effects on CMB radiation by energy/matter in large regions between source and observer. There is nothing there regarding what YOU obviously ASSUMED it was 'confirming' (Big Bang etc 'as a whole' perhaps?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Your apology to me and the forum for your unseemly haste, biased reading, and otherwise lack of due diligence/rigor before commenting so in this instance, will be accepted whenever you care to post same. Try not to do it again, though, or respect for you and your 'opinions' will wane accordingly!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: I again will log out, in the hope and trust that I won't have to come in again to defend against such misplaced opinions again? Thanks. Logging out now! Cheers all.

 

Reflection off a moving mirror (of electrons) is different than reflection off a stationary mirror. Quantitatively the result agrees with an independent check as to the speed of the moving mirror.

 

Why bring in irrelevancies? It wasn't the 'method' of detection/discrimination/quantification of the discovery that is at issue in this. No argument there.

Keep to the context of the posts I made as to the actual discovery and conditions/processes involved in the article/observation linked to. It is the 'mixmaster' of space transit over vast fields/processes in 'space' that I am pointing to, and the implications for the CMB observed that the scientist/processes refer to (and to the possible Olbers Paradox implications as well which I then point to in my post). Thanks.


PS:
Please don't replace 'you-know-who' (in the 'diversionary/stubborn tactics department') in order to avoid admitting a mistaken hasty post/comment like that in your previous post. I don't want to come back again and again for such things which should have stopped when 'you know who' was finally perma-banned. Why not just apologize for your hasty/mistaken opinion and we'll forget it, hey? And I won't have to keep logging back in again. Cheers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!