Instead of lurking around, why don't you answer the question. You are instigating members against me, which is against forum rules.
Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Instead of lurking around, why don't you answer the question. You are instigating members against me, which is against forum rules.
Then why don't you explain it?
Daecon, you get cute sometimes.
See, Paddoboy, DaveC are defending mainstream without even knowing what it is. My position is very clear, there is no such thing called as super luminal expansion of galaxies, in fact there is no space expansion as envisaged. This is a part of Big Bang Cosmology along with inflation, the very concept of inflation has been questioned by one of the founders, it has not percolated down to amateur levels, but it will. Big Bang, Inflation and Super Duper Luminal Expansion of galaxies all will have to go, it will take time.
And why do you think that? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?
Then replace them - you are saying, quite plainly, that these things do not exist. What replaces them, or how do you reconcile the attributes they held in the grander scheme of cosmology?
Thats the point of contention. We generally expect the voice of dissent to provide us with the alternative. Its good if it is done, but lack of alternative does not mean that we should tag along with the problematic.
IMO the interpretation of high red shift is bad, this interpretation works well with BB and inflation, so it got the stamp of approval, but the bigger point is very existence of inflation and thus BB is at stake.
Is it mandatory for me to provide an alternative before I question the established?
'Tis you as usual beating round the bush, avoiding the issue at hand and making insane statements like "I'm never wrong" [sorry PhysBang, perhaps you were/are on the right track.
]Mainstream is mainstream for many reasons, one being that it is the most logical, successfully predictable theory at that time. Your blanket derision of mainstream cosmology again most certainly points to a religious agenda, as vehemently as you try and deny it, and likewise as vehemently as expletive deleted try to convince all he was Atheist.
[I actually see a similarity between you and him. ]
As you have subsequently shown since I made that suggestion, you have proved me wrong and PhysBang right on the money.
No, I am correct. You may separate your mainstream scientific comments and pseudscientific claims from your religious comments, but that fools no one. There is obviously an underlying connection, and that is the "god of the gaps" arguments people like you eventually fall back on.No I',m quite serious and your overlords must be quite content at the job they have done on you.
There go your delusional aspects again!
It's obviously your own understanding, or lack thereof that is in question, and secondly your position while being clear, is totally against observable data and obviously driven by the agenda you dislike being associated with.
That's why this thread and all your others are in the fringes...
Your hidden "god of the gaps" substitute/explanation is as clear as day.
If there is no alternative explanation then that is far easier for you to fall back on your "god of the gaps" argument as a short cut for your agenda.
And while certainly mysteries are still not resolved as yet, they are being worked on and researched, instead of taking your personal easy way out.
Last edited:
As you seem to be the only one with a problem with "the established" then yes, you do. Especially when your objections are founded on ignorance and delusions of grandeur.
Did I not give you the name of the guy, mainstream guy, one of the founders of inflation along with guth, who started quedtioning his baby?
Science accepts questioning off genuine professionals that may have a problem with some aspect, so?. Inflation was envisaged to solve some problems which were nagging at the BB. But like Hawking Radiation, it seems logical and aligns with what we already know: Both of course need to be validated as yet.
You are not a professional...you lack credibility....you obviously have an agenda....your questions are not genuine....
See the difference?
Unless you have / can point out a specific flaw or problem with the established, then yes, generally you should have an alternative.
All of this ties together pretty closely - you can't just strike out a chunk of the equation and expect the rest to keep on keeping on without consequence. Thus, if you are declaring that it is wrong, you should either be able to point out why, or have a plausible alternative.
"Rule 4. In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction may not be nullified by hypotheses."
-Isaac Newton
That is, if we have a system that is demonstrated to work with the available evidence, then we stick with it and, until you can actually do better on the available evidence with your idea, we can't seriously entertain your alternative idea.
We have the red shift observation. That observation is explained as expansion of universe.
1. The metric expansion is force free, but it can stretch light thus changing the photon energy, playing havoc with the energy conservation. How? Accelerated part needs another kaboom DE.
2. Expansion as envisaged in the mainstream is everywhere, it is not that it is not here and only present few mpc away. Since it is force free phenomenon linking it with gravity or EM forces is quite funny. It is smartly termed as metric expansion, which in simple words mean no matter will expand. Science does not require smartness.
3. Since expansion is here also. Now let's use aLIGO, 4 Kms long arms, have the capability of sub protonic length measurements, I am sure a multi loop system can be designed which will detect the metric expansion. Why its not being done? For example for few hundred Kms of space, the expansion surely will be of the order of sub proton dimension, well within our detection capability.
Galaxies receding subluminal is non verifiable, why we cannot make a verifiable set up here.
And by the way one of the founders of inflationary theory has put a big question mark on its truthfulness.
The rest of your post is best ignored, as a jumble of fabricated nonsense, misinterpretations that have all been explained to you many times, in this thread and in the past.
The above was answered and is simply science in progress
Science accepts questioning off genuine professionals that may have a problem with some aspect, so?. Inflation was envisaged to solve some problems which were nagging at the BB. But like Hawking Radiation, it seems logical and aligns with what we already know: Both of course need to be validated as yet.
You are not a professional...you lack credibility....you obviously have an agenda....your questions are not genuine....
See the difference?
In the end it is up to NASA TO explain what they mean , really.
Look NASA presented the program it gave the information ; it said what it said on the program . Bottom line .
So... look up the the title ; which is in my first post and stop messing around with conjecture and the lot . Just look up the program . And watch it .
END OF THIS STORY , PERIOD .
If you have this ohhhh...NASA couldn't have said this BS. Well you are wrong . Unequivocally wrong.
So get your ass in gear and watch the program . We you do all the ney sayers will shut the fuck up .
Who has watched the program other than myself ? HANDS UP ; anybody ?
Waiting for the count . Zero so far .
Bunch of arrogant fools at times .
Look NASA presented the program it gave the information ; it said what it said on the program . Bottom line .
So... look up the the title ; which is in my first post and stop messing around with conjecture and the lot . Just look up the program . And watch it .
END OF THIS STORY , PERIOD .
If you have this ohhhh...NASA couldn't have said this BS. Well you are wrong . Unequivocally wrong.
So get your ass in gear and watch the program . We you do all the ney sayers will shut the fuck up .
Who has watched the program other than myself ? HANDS UP ; anybody ?
Waiting for the count . Zero so far .
Bunch of arrogant fools at times .
Last edited:
And NASA very probably have done so.
No.
The programme is NOT NASA-presented. Or sponsored or anything else.
It's yet another Discovery Channel "documentary" (shark week!).
Very probably: but it's not necessarily what NASA actually said:
The show opens with narration that suggests that NASA keeps "files" of phenomena that science cannot explain. The fact is, the only such files are those fabricated by the show and supported by comments from cranks as well as a few real scientists that have been deliberately quote mined to make all the conspiracy nonsense sound plausible.
False.
What do you mean massive?
I bet aLIGO facility can be remodelled a bit to establish expansion or lack of it. None will do it. Simply because if expansion is falsified entire cosmology, which is around BB and GR, will collapse.
Questioning by him hwte is not asking questions or removing deadlocks,..its almost abandoning because of severe problems. Do you get it?