Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Red shifts and red faces.

  1. #1 Red shifts and red faces. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The red shift of distant stellar objects is supposed to be a corner stone of the big bang idea so is it true? Maybe not.

    Of course we know that a redshift is caused by an object moving away from us at great speed. The same red shift is caused when an object escapes a gravity well, even leaving the Earth.

    We are told that the rest of the universe is moving away from us (ignoring local gravity) due to the expansion of space, or rather the distance between us and everything else increasing since no one actually knows what space is (see my thread on the subject).

    The thing to remember here is the speed of light. It is a constant. If the distance it travels through in one second expands by one nanometer due to expansion, light still travels at the same speed but takes a fraction of a second longer to travel that distance.

    So it mounts up over distance and time. But not while you are watching (so making ridiculous the example of a train siren for the Doppler effect). It's (about) 14 miles per second over a million light years, so each second, one part in forty two million billion.

    A photon does not get stretched by a ridiculously small amount of expansion as some claim. If such a totally insignificant force were capable of that, entering the Earth's gravity well would blue shift most photons to gamma rays.

    It is said to happen over time but if you allow say a size of 10^-20 m for a photon, then each second it is expanding by just 1 part in 42x10^-36 of a meter. To put this in perspective, very energetic gamma rays go down to about 10^-15 m wavelength.

    We are told that the light curve of distant super novae lengthens due to expansion but that idea only works up to around five billion light years. beyond that, no light curve from expansion, so the idea must be wrong. There is another cause for it.

    And then there are linked quasars. Halton Arp's ideas so upset the BB community that because of their vitriol and sheer hatred he was forced to go to work in another country, but while some results may be explained away, others cannot and we have physically linked quasars with hugely different red shifts.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You like old information, don't you?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You like old information, don't you?
    What old information? Halton Arp? I was waiting for the "he's a nutter" style attacks from a certain bogus doctor here. The rest is my own information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    He's a nutter. But so are you Cyberia, so it is a match.

    Arp has been adequately addressed and thoroughly discredited by professional astronomers. There is no need to re-hash that here.

    Your many noted statements in direct contradiction to freshman physics in these forums have discredited you as vwell.

    Two nuts in a hull.

    The only reason that the red face is not yours is simply that you are too ignorant of the facts to be embarassed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    He's a nutter. But so are you, so it is a match.

    Arp has been adequately addressed and thoroughly discredited by professional astronomers. There is no need to re-hash that here.

    Your many noted statements in direct contradiction to freshman physics in these forums have discredited you as vwell.

    Two nuts in a hull.

    The only reason that the red face is not yours is simply that you are too ignorant of the facts to be embarassed.
    The so called learned people of cosmology did a DrRocket on him and just gibbered their hatred at Arp because he threatened to show they were wrong. The linked quasars with different red shifts are still there but Arp had to move to another country because the ranters and ravers made it uncomfortable for him back home.

    So another non answer from you.

    Take away your hand waving and insults and there does not seem to be anything left behind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Despite the belief that some things may be moving away from us at above light speed, actually all things would be moving at the same speed, about 14 mps per million light years so there is no Doppler effect due to actual speed since it is all the same and is totally insignificant.

    The idea of the redshift is that photons stretch, which is utter nonsense since the force on them exerted by expansion would be about half of nothing, as in trying to stretch them in units below Planck length. They get unimaginably more force exerted on them by entering the Earth's gravity well.

    My idea is gravity. Like photons, the universe is full of the stuff. It is endemic and binds the known universe together. It red and blue shifts photons just in the same way as a speeding object does to the point where someone about ten years ago claimed a red shift faster than light which turned out to be below light once gravity of the source (a quasar I seem to remember) was taken into account.

    If you allow that a photon leaves source A and arrives at target B, you can say they pretty much cancel out so ignore them. I think there could be a sea of gravity which would act on a photon like say the Atlantic on a row boat. Ignoring major currents, the pull and push of waves seems to be from every direction so it takes effort (or "work") to move the boat in any given direction.

    I think gravity as in endless small "forces" would intermingle and become directionless so just create a drag on any photon travelling through it. Photons cannot lose speed so would lose energy, and the further they went, the more energy they would lose, so be red shifted. So red shifting would still be a measure of distance travelled but not through any mythical expansion.

    Inside a galaxy where there are far more gravitational sources about, more closely packed, this red shift would be more noticeable so a major component of stars we see moving away from us which means they are not moving as fast as claimed so no need for dark matter.

    Where we see blue shift, as in the Andromeda Galaxy, it means it is moving faster than believed, sufficient to counter any redshifting over that distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Despite the belief that some things may be moving away from us at above light speed, actually all things would be moving at the same speed, about 14 mps per million light years so there is no Doppler effect due to actual speed since it is all the same and is totally insignificant.
    Huh? Don't you understand how it works? Let's say you three points and space is expanding between them. For each single unit of expansion between point A and B, there will be double the expansion between A and C because of the distance being doubled. Don't you get it?

    The idea of the redshift is that photons stretch, which is utter nonsense since the force on them exerted by expansion would be about half of nothing
    Another misunderstanding among a giant mountain of them. Light doesn't stretch out due to expansion because of any forces, it does so because the space it is propagating through iself is stretching. If you take an elastic band and make series of dots on it corresponding to the peak amplitudes of the light wave, stretching the rubber band stretches the space between the dots, lengthening the wavelength. It is as simple as that.

    I think there could be a sea of gravity which would act on a photon like say the Atlantic on a row boat. Ignoring major currents, the pull and push of waves seems to be from every direction so it takes effort (or "work") to move the boat in any given direction.
    Photons are massless. They don't need any work to move anywhere or under any pull of gravity up to a limit. They always move at C precisely because they are massless.

    I think gravity as in endless small "forces" would intermingle and become directionless so just create a drag on any photon travelling through it
    You discount GR, so how can gravity act on a massless object if not through curvature? Besides, even if there was a "pull" as you seem to imagine it, it would cancel out to zero, so the photons would not tend to be held in place by the opposing forces, it would have zero forces acting on it.

    Inside a galaxy where there are far more gravitational sources about, more closely packed, this red shift would be more noticeable so a major component of stars we see moving away from us which means they are not moving as fast as claimed so no need for dark matter.
    This doesn't make sense, even with your hand waving. If you have similar galaxy A with distance X from us and galaxy B with distance 2X from us, the only differentiating feature between them would be their distance. Where does dark matter fit into it? Dark energy is what is needed for acceleration of expansion only.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Despite the belief that some things may be moving away from us at above light speed, actually all things would be moving at the same speed, about 14 mps per million light years so there is no Doppler effect due to actual speed since it is all the same and is totally insignificant.
    This statement is self-contradictory. If the recession rate is linear with distance ("about 14 mps per million light years" then objects twice as far away recede twice as fast, so not the same speed. Second, Doppler effect is not dependent on any sort of speed differential, only varying red shift requires varying speed -- and varying red shift is what is in fact observed, which what is implied by "about 14 mps per million light years". So you contradict yourself -- within a single sentence. A truly impressive display of stupidity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The idea of the redshift is that photons stretch, which is utter nonsense since the force on them exerted by expansion would be about half of nothing, as in trying to stretch them in units below Planck length. They get unimaginably more force exerted on them by entering the Earth's gravity well.
    What is ridiculous is you assertion that red shift has anything to do with photons being stretched. Red shift is a change in the energy of photons as a result of the expansion of space -- and energy is related to frequency via .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    My idea is gravity. Like photons, the universe is full of the stuff. It is endemic and binds the known universe together. It red and blue shifts photons just in the same way as a speeding object does to the point where someone about ten years ago claimed a red shift faster than light which turned out to be below light once gravity of the source (a quasar I seem to remember) was taken into account.
    ?????

    Word salad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    If you allow that a photon leaves source A and arrives at target B, you can say they pretty much cancel out so ignore them. I think there could be a sea of gravity which would act on a photon like say the Atlantic on a row boat. Ignoring major currents, the pull and push of waves seems to be from every direction so it takes effort (or "work") to move the boat in any given direction.

    I think gravity as in endless small "forces" would intermingle and become directionless so just create a drag on any photon travelling through it. Photons cannot lose speed so would lose energy, and the further they went, the more energy they would lose, so be red shifted. So red shifting would still be a measure of distance travelled but not through any mythical expansion.
    That's not right. It's not even wrong -- Wolfgang Pauli



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Inside a galaxy where there are far more gravitational sources about, more closely packed, this red shift would be more noticeable so a major component of stars we see moving away from us which means they are not moving as fast as claimed so no need for dark matter.

    Where we see blue shift, as in the Andromeda Galaxy, it means it is moving faster than believed, sufficient to counter any redshifting over that distance.
    Have you EVER taken a physics course?

    This is ridiculous.

    Red shift is the result of a source moving away from the observer, and blue shift from a source moving toward the observer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Where we see blue shift, as in the Andromeda Galaxy, it means it is moving faster than believed, sufficient to counter any redshifting over that distance.
    I have zero formal training in physics and I know this is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of redshift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Huh? Don't you understand how it works? Let's say you three points and space is expanding between them. For each single unit of expansion between point A and B, there will be double the expansion between A and C because of the distance being doubled. Don't you get it?
    Yes but you don't. Put ten dots on an elastic band and stretch it. Space between ALL dots expand equally. What you are confusing is distance from us, which I have no interest in. Only all the point A to point B's as in a million light years, so 14 miles per second expansion for each such section.

    Another misunderstanding among a giant mountain of them. Light doesn't stretch out due to expansion because of any forces, it does so because the space it is propagating through iself is stretching. If you take an elastic band and make series of dots on it corresponding to the peak amplitudes of the light wave, stretching the rubber band stretches the space between the dots, lengthening the wavelength. It is as simple as that.
    Light travels at light speed. No more, no less. If over the distance of one light second, space expands by part of a nanometer, so what? It just takes a fraction longer to travel that distance. For a photon to expand part of it would have to travel faster than light forwards and part of it slower than light backwards which are both impossible. The problem is also that expansion even over one second would be below the minimum possible size, Planck length, so impossible.

    Photons are massless. They don't need any work to move anywhere or under any pull of gravity up to a limit. They always move at C precisely because they are massless.
    Old dogma. Some are now willing to say that photons could have mass but it would be below 10^-35 kg. If so, no need to bend space to bend light because gravity affects light like any other mass. Makes life a lot easier.

    The highest energy particles (protons) detected on Earth were 3x10^20 eV. Over a light year they would arrive just 47 nanometers behind a photon. And if we have much higher energies from say a hyper nova, who is to say they will not beat a photon? It is unproven dogma that nothing can travel faster than light. BTW, the LHC is a very paltry 7x10^12 eV I believe. It's like using your car to see how fast light can travel.

    Why do photons lose energy (redshifting) if they climb out of a gravity well if they have no mass so "do no work"?

    You discount GR, so how can gravity act on a massless object if not through curvature? Besides, even if there was a "pull" as you seem to imagine it, it would cancel out to zero, so the photons would not tend to be held in place by the opposing forces, it would have zero forces acting on it.
    Curving space is about the dumbest idea ever. It is like saying invisible demons cause gravity then using known effects of gravity as proof that invisible demons exist because the equations work.

    Indeed, how can gravity act on a mass less object? How can it red shift and blue shift photons?

    This doesn't make sense, even with your hand waving. If you have similar galaxy A with distance X from us and galaxy B with distance 2X from us, the only differentiating feature between them would be their distance. Where does dark matter fit into it? Dark energy is what is needed for acceleration of expansion only.
    This is INSIDE a galaxy. The first word of my sentence is a clue. INSIDE. If we allow that part of red shift in a galaxy is due to endemic gravity, then no need for dark matter to hold a galaxy together because the stars are not moving as fast as was thought.

    Have you been taking lessons from DrRocket?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="DrRocket"]
    This statement is self-contradictory. If the recession rate is linear with distance ("about 14 mps per million light years" then objects twice as far away recede twice as fast, so not the same speed. Second, Doppler effect is not dependent on any sort of speed differential, only varying red shift requires varying speed -- and varying red shift is what is in fact observed, which what is implied by "about 14 mps per million light years". So you contradict yourself -- within a single sentence. A truly impressive display of stupidity.
    Your problem is not so much blatant ignorance of the subject as a total lack of comprehension so you get it all wrong. I have no interest in objects twice as far away so explain what I am talking about. That explanation was the thing you felt fly over your head. Regardless of distance and ignoring local velocities and gravities, expansion will make all things move at about 14 mps.

    What varying redshift? Everything is moving at the same speed due to expansion. Photons just take longer to reach us. Surely there must be something in one of these libraries of physics books you have worked your way through ro give you a clue?


    What is ridiculous is you assertion that red shift has anything to do with photons being stretched. Red shift is a change in the energy of photons as a result of the expansion of space -- and energy is related to frequency via .
    And what does the expansion of space have to do with change of energy? Photons cannot stretch for reasons I have already given in a previous post. They just take longer to travel from A to B and distances are such that we cannot see this happening, as in a train with it';s whistle going as it passes us in that so stupid example.

    ?????

    Word salad.
    Meaning you can't find anything in the wiki to quote from. Gravity like photons goes on seemingly forever if given the chance, which is how the universe is held together. In travelling, a photon must travel through a gravity well all of it's journey.

    That's not right. It's not even wrong -- Wolfgang Pauli
    As in it's not in the wiki do you don't understand it so it must be wrong. What a load of Pauli.

    Have you EVER taken a physics course?

    This is ridiculous.
    Same again. Why not keep quiet and let people think you are stupid instead of posting such stuff and proving it?

    Red shift is the result of a source moving away from the observer, and blue shift from a source moving toward the observer.
    Yes, and gravity also causes the same effect. The same effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I have zero formal training in physics and I know this is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of redshift.
    Instinctive knowledge?

    I tend not to post anything about Peko as I know almost nothing about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I have zero formal training in physics and I know this is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of redshift.
    Instinctive knowledge?
    Knowledge is not dependant on formal training, especially when the concepts are simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Yes but you don't. Put ten dots on an elastic band and stretch it. Space between ALL dots expand equally. What you are confusing is distance from us, which I have no interest in. Only all the point A to point B's as in a million light years, so 14 miles per second expansion for each such section.
    I thought you would be able to make the connection here, but I was mistaken. If the distance between point A and point B expands the same amount as the distance between point B and C in time T, then within the same time T, C would appear to be moving away from point A at twice the speed B is moving from A, since twice the amount of separation has occurred in the same time. That is why expansion explains why we see the farther galaxies receding at ever greater speeds from us. I really thought had at least this very simple concept down.

    Light travels at light speed. No more, no less. If over the distance of one light second, space expands by part of a nanometer, so what? It just takes a fraction longer to travel that distance. For a photon to expand part of it would have to travel faster than light forwards and part of it slower than light backwards which are both impossible. The problem is also that expansion even over one second would be below the minimum possible size, Planck length, so impossible.
    Well, I am greatly simplifying it of course and I don't have the mathematical know-how to fully describe it to you, but I would guess that it is a fairly simple concept to wrap one's head around. You seem to be invoking random scientific concepts, even mutually dependant ones, to make points even when you disbelieve the other part of the same set of mutually dependant concepts, simply to try and find some scientific basis for your own non-scientific criticisms. This really does show a profound lack of scientific knowledge and even some intellectual dishonesty, even to an interested layman as myself.

    If space is simply space (and not made up of particles as in an aether), what would stop it to expand a sub-Planck length in a short enough amount of time? Besides, the Plancks scale is not necessarily or simply the phenomenological limit of nature. There seems to be some significance to it, but its significance has not been established as fundamental or to definitely impose any scale limit on it yet. You are simply plucking it from thin air to try and make your point sound scientific, when it is in fact not.

    If space expands and stretching the photons as it is moving through it, then no part of the photon would be propagating at speeds exceeding C for the same reasons that far away galaxies are not violating SR. The moving of the photon through space is always at C in any frame of reference, but the moving of any part of it with space at apparent speeds exceeding C does not violate SR. That is precisely what makes inflation theories viable, as expansion during these times are thought to have exceeded C exponentially, yet was still not violating SR.

    Old dogma. Some are now willing to say that photons could have mass but it would be below 10^-35 kg.
    Old? Dogma? Are you completely unaware of experimentation in physics and the scientific method? No theory can gain prominence and acceptance without a strong evidentiary basis. Can you cite these "some" that are willing to say that? And why are you so willing to readily accept the say-so of "some"? The obvious answer is that you are grasping at straws yourself and are displaying extraordinary hypocrisy by accusing others of doing so by characterising decades of painstaking and scientifically valid research as simply spouting ideas and propagating dogma. You are simply displaying an very obvious lack of understanding of the state of scientific research and the methodology behind it, while arrogantly supplanting it with your own ideas that you proffer as facts without the faintest shred of intellectual integrity.

    The highest energy particles (protons) detected on Earth were 3x10^20 eV. Over a light year they would arrive just 47 nanometers behind a photon.
    Why precisely 47 nanometres? Does expansion have some significance for photons that it doesn't hold for particles with mass according to you? The photon would arrive before the proton, but simply because it has no mass and can propagate at C, while the proton with mass can not.

    And if we have much higher energies from say a hyper nova, who is to say they will not beat a photon? It is unproven dogma that nothing can travel faster than light.
    No it is not. The fact that massless particles always travel at C form the instant of its creation is a fundamental property of our universe and a fact that has been verified many times. It is the cornerstone of SR, which has been directly observed. You are again simply picking and choosing among mutually dependant aspects of theories to make things work as you have imagined them in your ignorance.

    Curving space is about the dumbest idea ever. It is like saying invisible demons cause gravity then using known effects of gravity as proof that invisible demons exist because the equations work.

    Indeed, how can gravity act on a mass less object? How can it red shift and blue shift photons?
    You are arguing out of personal incredulity and as such, it is not a worthy argument. Ignorance is no excuse for discounting that which you do not understand.

    This is INSIDE a galaxy. The first word of my sentence is a clue. INSIDE. If we allow that part of red shift in a galaxy is due to endemic gravity, then no need for dark matter to hold a galaxy together because the stars are not moving as fast as was thought.
    If gravitational red shifting is masquerading as Doppler shift (gravitational red shifting is eliminated from the equation by the way), the centre would show higher red shift and so higher speeds than the outer edges. This is not what is seen though, is it? Also, comparisons between either side of the axis of rotation would be virtually non-existent if it was mostly due to red shifting, because the relative velocities would not come into play. This is also not what is seen. You are thumb sucking and again invoking certain parts of GR and SR, while rejecting others, while all parts need to work for a viable theory.

    Have you been taking lessons from DrRocket?
    I should be so lucky.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I thought you would be able to make the connection here, but I was mistaken. If the distance between point A and point B expands the same amount as the distance between point B and C in time T, then within the same time T, C would appear to be moving away from point A at twice the speed B is moving from A, since twice the amount of separation has occurred in the same time. That is why expansion explains why we see the farther galaxies receding at ever greater speeds from us. I really thought had at least this very simple concept down.
    Definitely DrRocket trained. I have no interest in what speed things appear to move from ever greater distances from us. Expansion is 14 mps per million light years so all items are actually moving at the same speed within their own frame.

    Well, I am greatly simplifying it of course and I don't have the mathematical know-how to fully describe it to you, but I would guess that it is a fairly simple concept to wrap one's head around. You seem to be invoking random scientific concepts, even mutually dependant ones, to make points even when you disbelieve the other part of the same set of mutually dependant concepts, simply to try and find some scientific basis for your own non-scientific criticisms. This really does show a profound lack of scientific knowledge and even some intellectual dishonesty, even to an interested layman as myself.
    A DrRocket style non answer.

    If space is simply space (and not made up of particles as in an aether), what would stop it to expand a sub-Planck length in a short enough amount of time? Besides, the Plancks scale is not necessarily or simply the phenomenological limit of nature. There seems to be some significance to it, but its significance has not been established as fundamental or to definitely impose any scale limit on it yet. You are simply plucking it from thin air to try and make your point sound scientific, when it is in fact not.
    Moving the goal posts.

    If space expands and stretching the photons as it is moving through it, then no part of the photon would be propagating at speeds exceeding C for the same reasons that far away galaxies are not violating SR. The moving of the photon through space is always at C in any frame of reference, but the moving of any part of it with space at apparent speeds exceeding C does not violate SR. That is precisely what makes inflation theories viable, as expansion during these times are thought to have exceeded C exponentially, yet was still not violating SR.
    Inflation is just an unproven idea and has not been shown to be reliable in GR, as in General Reality. Photons cannot move faster than light but parts of them can is another unproven idea which sounds daft.

    Old? Dogma? Are you completely unaware of experimentation in physics and the scientific method? No theory can gain prominence and acceptance without a strong evidentiary basis.
    Like the big bang IDEA?

    Can you cite these "some" that are willing to say that? And why are you so willing to readily accept the say-so of "some"? The obvious answer is that you are grasping at straws yourself and are displaying extraordinary hypocrisy by accusing others of doing so by characterising decades of painstaking and scientifically valid research as simply spouting ideas and propagating dogma. You are simply displaying an very obvious lack of understanding of the state of scientific research and the methodology behind it, while arrogantly supplanting it with your own ideas that you proffer as facts without the faintest shred of intellectual integrity.
    The idea that something other than maybe shadows can exist without mass is nonsense. If something exists and can react with anything else, it is "real" so has mass. If you give a photon mass, it then explains how gravity can bend it and red shift it without using nonsensical ideas like bending space.

    I have already told you that much of cosmology is just speculation. To claim it is a "hard science" is merely to admit you know nothing about it so do not know it's many basic faults.

    Why precisely 47 nanometres? Does expansion have some significance for photons that it doesn't hold for particles with mass according to you? The photon would arrive before the proton, but simply because it has no mass and can propagate at C, while the proton with mass can not.
    I'm just quoting the figures. Higher energy means faster and over six trillion miles, the proton is virtually touching the photon all the way.

    We use the recently opened LHC which has less than one forty millionth of the energy of these protons to tell us all about high energy particles and think we know it all. Why do you know a photon has no mass and that nothing can travel faster?

    No it is not. The fact that massless particles always travel at C form the instant of its creation is a fundamental property of our universe and a fact that has been verified many times. It is the cornerstone of SR, which has been directly observed. You are again simply picking and choosing among mutually dependant aspects of theories to make things work as you have imagined them in your ignorance.
    Photons always travel at c, but that does not mean they are massless. Just that they travel at c. I know. Verified every day and twice on Sundays. I don't know how any new science is ever done when everybody is busy verifying old science.

    You are arguing out of personal incredulity and as such, it is not a worthy argument. Ignorance is no excuse for discounting that which you do not understand.
    Pigs can fly. Anyone who says otherwise is arguing out of personal credulity, etc, etc. It seems to me that you are arguing out of personal gullibility and as such, it is not a worthy argument, etc.

    Prove that space can actually be curved? That gravity does not affect something the way heat does but can only affect it through the medium of space. I am still waiting for someone to define space and explain how something that is infinitely elastic is sufficiently solid to be affected by gravity. A contradiction.

    If gravitational red shifting is masquerading as Doppler shift (gravitational red shifting is eliminated from the equation by the way), the centre would show higher red shift and so higher speeds than the outer edges. This is not what is seen though, is it? Also, comparisons between either side of the axis of rotation would be virtually non-existent if it was mostly due to red shifting, because the relative velocities would not come into play. This is also not what is seen. You are thumb sucking and again invoking certain parts of GR and SR, while rejecting others, while all parts need to work for a viable theory.
    It is accepted that the inner parts of the galaxy travel faster than the outer parts (the arms). Google it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You know what, I think you simply are an obnoxious idiot incapable of conceding anything that you have not dreamt up in your own stew of obnoxious idiocy. You are the only one who thinks you have anything interesting to say and display abject ignorance mingled with idiocy induced incredulity. There is simply no discussion to be had here. I am done.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •