Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

  1. #1 Hubble's law is wrong. Why? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    71
    Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

    Were Hubble's law right, it should, at least, satisfy the following twelve conditions:

    1- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel at the same instant.
    2- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding travel from at the same distance from the Earth.
    3- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel while they were positioned stationary.
    4- To prove that all the galaxies didnít suffer any stopping whatever its cause.
    5- To prove that all galaxies began their cosmological travel while having the same luminosity.
    6- To prove that all the galaxies began their travel while having the same density.
    7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies.
    8- To prove that the recent distance of any galaxy is purely a result of recession. In other words, to prove that any galaxy as a whole doesnít experience any translational motion save the recessional one.
    9- To prove that the rate of the expansion of any galaxy is time independent.
    10- To prove that the galaxies of equal masses are still at the same distance.
    11- To prove that there is no any other shift affecting the Doppler shift.
    12- Showing that it could be applied to all the galaxies irrespective of their distance from the Earth.

    Anyway, there are no evidence for proving any condition of the twelve. Therefore, Hubble's law is wrong


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

    You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.


    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

    You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.
    Please take condition #7:
    "7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies."
    Hubble's law considers thar all galaxies are red-shift showing. However, there are blueshift-showing galaxies. So, where is the law? ow such galaxies can show that the universe is expanding?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Attiyah,
    you have already posted this in slightly longer form in the forum. My remarks there still stand (and speedfreak has said much the same thing in this thread). Here are my comments a second time:

    You seem to have two mistaken ideas.

    Hubbles Law is an observational statement. It does not claim that all galaxies have a particular behaviour. It states the majority of galaxies are receding and that there distance is propotional to their rate of recession. Each of your challenges involves a misinterpretation of what Hubble's Law says: you are arguing against a strawman.

    Science does not prove anything, so your demand that any scientific law should prove something is meaningless and reveals a profound ignorance of the philosopy of science.


    Please address these two points before indulging in the posting of further nonsense. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Attiyah,
    you have already posted this in slightly longer form in the forum. My remarks there still stand (and speedfreak has said much the same thing in this thread). Here are my comments a second time:

    You seem to have two mistaken ideas.

    Hubbles Law is an observational statement. It does not claim that all galaxies have a particular behaviour. It states the majority of galaxies are receding and that there distance is propotional to their rate of recession. Each of your challenges involves a misinterpretation of what Hubble's Law says: you are arguing against a strawman.

    Science does not prove anything, so your demand that any scientific law should prove something is meaningless and reveals a profound ignorance of the philosopy of science.


    Please address these two points before indulging in the posting of further nonsense. Thank you.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Attiy...%27-29573t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your link to more word salad fails completely to address either of my points. This is a discussion forum. Please start dicussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Hubble's law is wrong. Why? 
    Unregistered
    Guest
    If Hubble's "law" is correct, that means there must be a lot more matter in the universe to cause the acceleration. We can't see or measure that matter so it must be dark mysterious matter. Hmm. Something is rotten in Denmark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    No, a lot more matter would slow the expansion through gravity, rather than accelerate it. The term you are looking for is dark energy, which seems to act like a cosmological constant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh View Post

    Were Hubble's law right, it should, at least, satisfy the following twelve conditions:

    1- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel at the same instant.
    2- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding travel from at the same distance from the Earth.
    3- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel while they were positioned stationary.
    4- To prove that all the galaxies didn’t suffer any stopping whatever its cause.
    5- To prove that all galaxies began their cosmological travel while having the same luminosity.
    6- To prove that all the galaxies began their travel while having the same density.
    7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies.
    8- To prove that the recent distance of any galaxy is purely a result of recession. In other words, to prove that any galaxy as a whole doesn’t experience any translational motion save the recessional one.
    9- To prove that the rate of the expansion of any galaxy is time independent.
    10- To prove that the galaxies of equal masses are still at the same distance.
    11- To prove that there is no any other shift affecting the Doppler shift.
    12- Showing that it could be applied to all the galaxies irrespective of their distance from the Earth.

    Anyway, there are no evidence for proving any condition of the twelve. Therefore, Hubble's law is wrong
    Basically word salad, nonsense at best.
    Why are you going on about galaxies traveling ? Most of the above mentioned effects are due to metric expansion of space, and have little or nothing to do with the movements of the galaxies themselves. I suppose that only goes to show how little you know about astronomy and cosmology.

    Hubble's law is wrong. Why?
    It's not, you just don't understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Way to completely misunderstand Hubble's Law and create twelve "straw man" arguments against it. That has got to be some sort of record, for such a short post.

    You might explain why you think it should satisfy those twelve conditions, so we can show you the errors in your thinking.
    Please take condition #7:
    "7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies."
    Hubble's law considers thar all galaxies are red-shift showing.
    No, it doesn't. Hubble's Law only really kicks in for galaxies outside of our local group, this is because the galaxies in our local group are gravitationally bound to each other and this overrides any expansion of the universe. Outside of our local group, you might have a galaxy or two that happens to have a large peculiar velocity towards us that is greater than the Hubble recession velocity leaving you with a net blue-shift. The further the galaxies are away the larger chance of this happening becomes less and less as the recessional velocity increases.

    However, there are blueshift-showing galaxies. So, where is the law? ow such galaxies can show that the universe is expanding?
    The only way that that this could be evidence against Hubble expansion would be if the Number of blueshift galaxies did not fall off with distance. If we saw just as many blue shift galaxies far away as we did close by, then you would have an argument. How ever we don't, we only see Blue shift galaxies relatively close by and at further distances see none at all.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Google this guy. If this thread follows the same pattern as his others, we're headed for the trash bin at warp speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Google this guy. If this thread follows the same pattern as his others, we're headed for the trash bin at warp speed.
    Warp 9.5
    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
  •