Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by The God, Apr 17, 2016.
It's important to get this stuff right. There's a lot of popscience misinformation out there.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We know that space is expanding because universe is expanding. That means space has some elasticity, which can be stretched. So, if space can be stretched, it can also bend or curve.
What do you mean by inhomogeneous? Its density is changing?
So you mean light bends due refraction(due density change)?
Read your quote of Newton. Here Newton considered bending of light as an effect of refraction rather than an effect of gravity.
Certainly is important to get things right and mostly they do in time.
Why are you adjudicating on his putting me on ignore or not ? You are placing yourself where you are not required.
asking Mods to clear the air, does not fall in right or no right to demand an answer ? Its sad that you took action without understanding the intent of the post properly.
So ? the same effect does not make the causal processes same.
I had very clearly stated that from the resultant redshift, doppler shift due to peculiar velocities cannot be separated out easily.
Irrelevant lecture......I cited Prof Geraint f Lewis paper and his statement that spacetime is not a thing, it is a mathematical tool. And your last line shows, you did not see the thread, where this issue was taken up and your attention was drawn. You should have asked me where the original claim was made, I have hinted that I asked you for clarification, you took hasty and improper action.
Again hasty and incorrect response....you should have asked me that where Schneibster has claimed that BB came after inflation ? He has categorically stated that, few members objected to that. You are the only person seeking original reference.
Shocking, Rpenner, that you have not categorically responded on these three points. As a member you have right to remain silent, but not as Moderator. I am on this board, from day one I am of the opinion that nothing incorrect should remain on board, wherever possible. You are letting 2-3 crucial mainstream points hanging in air for want of taking on your invited pal schneibster.
TG please think about airing your complaints here.
It is wrong in so many ways.
You seem to have ignored all that has been said in the other thread.
Your concerns have been dealt with but if you have issues take the trouble to do a PM to the moderator.
You are digging a hole which looks more like a grave each time you post.
I can not imagine you not being banned in most other forums.
I beg you give it a rest for your sake.
I do not know what else to say to you.
Well what are you claiming? The effects of doppler and cosmological redshift are observationally indistinguishable. But cosmological redshift is only viewed with distant galaxies: Doppler is a much smaller effect, due to peculiar velocities.Cosmological experience and known data, are tools cosmologists use to weed one out from the other.
So are you now claiming that there is for some unknown reason, some sort of fraudulent behaviour going on with mainstream that you have already claimed happened with GP-B and LIGO, solely to support an expanding universe?
I mean at this stage, I do not know where you are coming from, nor where you are going to.
This may help in deciphering what I'm trying to tell you....
Cosmological redshifts are only seen unambiguously at distances of 100s of megaparsecs. At nearer distances, ordinary Doppler shifts from galaxian motion with respect to a local center of mass ( galaxy cluster) is comparable to the cosmological effect and you have to disentangle the two contributions very carefully. Typical galaxy speeds in a cluster are 300 km/sec, and this equals the cosmological recession at a distance of only 5 megaparsecs or so!
more at link.
Yet it is rare for you to take notice of any mainstream opinion and/or link: We have had many professional replies and you deride most.
The reality or otherwise of spacetime is simply a semantical argument based on what an individual sees as the meaning of "real". Some see time as real, others do not.
I have the utmost respect for Professor Lewis and have personally met him.
In this instant, I'm sure he could enlighten you further if he were a part of this forum and could see where you are trying to take this.
Plus I have given link supporting my stance that spacetime is real.
I raised that with Schneibs and suggested "Eternal Inflation" an aspect brucep was keen on.
I agree with regard to incorrect info.
But there are some aspects of cosmology, [as in the stretching of light and frames of references] and light bending or saying spacetime is simply curved with light following geodesics that are simply varying interpretations and neither are wrong.
And who is to decide what is wrong and what is right...you?
You seem to be suggesting somewhat with your statement "for want of taking on your invited pal schneibster" that he is a plant.
You seem to want to stoop to many suggestions when people are refuting your take on cosmology.
You have also derided me for "liking" Schneibs.
Please, with all due respect, take a step back, and ask yourself honestly where you are coming from.
I see nothing wrong in questioning certain aspects of cosmology......I have done it and continue to do it as I have today with Schneibs.
But when a poster continues to posts threads that just happen to question every aspect of mainstream accepted cosmology that he is able to think of, then alarm bells start ringing.
Thread closed since this is not the place for this thread, not to mention this thread is not exactly appropriate and this issue is being discussed here and elsewhere.
Separate names with a comma.