The Big Bang: Science's Greatest Blunder?

That's just plain nuts and does NOT address the question at all. Want to try one more time before I completely blow you out of the water with a detailed ACTUAL scientific description of what's involved?

(Actually, I suspect you probably already realize that your take on the Doppler effect is in complete error and you don't want to admit it.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Bub, you are the one that's ALWAY rude.

And I can answer your question easily. But first you have to face up to my question about the Doppler effect and stop all these rather childish attempts at distraction and diversion - they are NOT going to work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But how do you account for the existence of the relative absolutes associated with the event horizon of a black hole ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kaneda seems to be missing a fundamental understanding of light.

A photon has a wavelength in a given frame. There are three basic ways for the wavelength of this photon to be observed to change.

1) Simple doppler shift. You move toward or away from the photon.

2) Gravitational redshift. A photon climbing out of a gravity well loses energy, which is inversly proportional to wavelength. Lower energy, longer wavelength.

3) Cosmological redshift. This is similar to doppler redshift, but is attributed more to light actually "stretching" along with expanding space as it traverses billions of light years.

You can argue all you want. But the fact is that the BB model predicts this expansion and the redshifting of light.

 

Is anyone interested in my " Simulate the Universe Kit ". First you need a round balloon. preferably pink. Next paint spots of different colours on the surface to epresent , stars. galaxies . black holes and so on. Now, stand in front of a mirror. Take a deep breath and start inflating the balloon, paying close attention to the spots. There you have it, your very own pocket universe.
If you burst the balloon, that signifies the end of the universe. My method proves that the universe ends with a big bang. It certainly does not begin with one.

 

He's missing several fundamentals all over the place.

Oh - and I'm certain that you already know this - but you should make a small addition to your list above:

1)a The source of the photons can be moving towards or away from you. The result is identical to you yourself being in motion.

 

Right.

 

I admire your patience. I take it you realize you are pissing against the wind.

I apologize. it's none of my busines

 

Er,
it could be said that inflating the balloon was the bigbang.

 

Not if you blow quietly. The bang comes when the baloon bursts.

 

Actually I was just agreeing with Read Only in the point he mentioned. The source or observer can be moving (of course, without reference to a third point, who is moving?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Not sure what you were referring to Myles?

 

Time is change in anything. Something that does not experience time is something that does no change. What do you not understand about that? If a photon is infra-red light and it is redshifted to microwaves, then there is a time when it was IR and a time (now) that it is MW. Understand, or should I get the crayons out and draw some kind of diagram that even you may be able to understand?

Doppler effect. You have a fence that has slats 6 inches apart. If you run past it fast, those slats close up so that they are 5 inches apart, 4 inches apart, 3 inches apart, etc. That is the official explanation of a doppler shift, which you obviously believe. Do you want to admit that?

 

I think he was referring to convincing kaneda of these facts. You see, you can't just start throwing facts at him (proven or not), he will not accept them as facts, and therefore they are not applicable to anything you might be trying to explain to him. He argues facts and theories simply because he does not understand them... when they are explained to him he either dodges the explanations or just dismisses them outright... it seems simple to me:

He is a TROLL!!

 

Isn't it great how you again do not answer direct question but play to the gallery instead. Anyone would think you were trying to hide the fact that you don't know. I have started 2 new threads; one about how the BB doesn't do what you say and one on redshifts where you may like to pretend you have answers on and do a bit of grandstanding about.

(2) explains (1). You admit that a lower energy gives a longer wavelength though you try to doubt it every time I mention it that if you are moving away from an obuject, a photon will hav less "impact". Example; you throw a ball and it hits the back of a stationary car. Again you throw a ball and this time the car is moving away from you so less force on impact. Understand? That is how the redshift works.

(3) Light always travels at a set speed. We are led to believe that in one second where light has travelled at 186,282 mps and space has expanded in that second over that distance by about the width of an atom that this will somehow affect light which has not travelled that extra atom's width.

How does that happen? If 186,282 miles expands by just an atom's width, how far does a wavelength of light expand in that time? So we have a photon (size?) which in one second is stretched by 0.4275x10^-18. Call it Planck length. Is that possible? Feel free to dodge this question like you have dodged all the others I have asked you.

You are so gullible you believe everything you read in a book.

 

I have just asked superluminal some questions on the redshift. Feel free to get your text books out and parrot something from them in the hope that I will believe you have a clue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can you not see just how silly you are being? Walking or running past a picket fence has absolutely NO effect on their spacing! :bugeye:

But sound waves and EM waves are an entirely different matter. If either the source or observer are moving toward the other, compression of the waves occur. The sound will take on a higher pitch and the EM waves shift in the blue direction. Moving in the opposite direction produces the opposite effect - sound waves drop in pitch and EM waves shift in the red direction.

THAT'S the real Doppler effect - nothing to do with your rather dumb picket fence example.

 

Read-Only. I have answered these points to your fellow trolls superluminal and losfomoT. Feel free to show me where I am wrong, or you can show everyone that you don't have a clue by doing some grandstanding, superluminal-style.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While you, sir (and I use that term very loosely) are so gullible that you won't even read the book. :bugeye:

I hereby pronounce you a TROLL just as others have done. Do you wish to join Rieku in his fate? It would appear so.

 

That is the standard explanation of doppler shift. If the spacing of the slats (or waves) does not change, then there is no doppler shift. Just because you pass more waves over the same time, nothing is going to change. They are still the same waves.

Don't you recognise your term "compression" as a smaller spacing of the waves/slats? See how silly it sounds?