Against Stupidity

[John]

stupid people tend to have more kids than smart people

You sure you're not confusing stupid and uneducated?

[spike]

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
John Stuart Mill

[chaz wyman]

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
John Stuart Mill

That is you.

I'm surprised you quoted that one. How stupid of you.

[spike]

Talking about stupidity, it is interesting how so often philosophical discussions on this forum spiral into stupidity.

[Godfree]

Talking about stupidity, it is interesting how so often philosophical discussions on this forum spiral into stupidity.

Well getting back to the start then , the realization when we finally see ,
how stupid we were before we saw ,
well maybe we have another forehead slapping realization ,
Hubble was wrong and the red shift is not caused by movement of the galaxies ,
it is caused by the age of the light , the closest are blue and the farthest are red , there seems to be a lot of yellow ones in the middle ,
so the red shift would appear just the same in a steady state static universe ,
as it does now , the red shift is no proof of the expansion of the universe

[chaz wyman]

Talking about stupidity, it is interesting how so often philosophical discussions on this forum spiral into stupidity.

Especially when 'conservatives' like you speak.

[Godfree]

Talking about stupidity, it is interesting how so often philosophical discussions on this forum spiral into stupidity.

Especially when 'conservatives' like you speak.

Michael Lewis ,
The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay ;
a sensible explanation

[chaz wyman]

Talking about stupidity, it is interesting how so often philosophical discussions on this forum spiral into stupidity.

Especially when 'conservatives' like you speak.

Michael Lewis ,
The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay ;
a sensible explanation

So what makes photons decay?

[Godfree]

[
Michael Lewis ,
The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay ;
a sensible explanation[/quote]

So what makes photons decay?[/quote]
I could presume you are interested in knowing this ,
or you think you already know and are toying with me ,
light is a form of energy ,it contains heat ,
eventually that heat must be lost , did you check out the web page ,
on it ML does the maths to prove his claims ,
I don't believe science is challenging the decay rate of an isotope/photon
A better question would be ,
how could it be possible for light not to decay ,,???
ML claims 6.5 billion years as the half life of an isotope , so thats 13 billion years before the light would disappear ,
and that is what we observe .
there is plenty of educated individuals with degrees in physics and astronomy that don't support the bbt ,
Paul Violette would be another
so my question Chaz ,
do you imagine photons don't decay,,???

[chaz wyman]

I could presume you are interested in knowing this ,
or you think you already know and are toying with me ,
light is a form of energy ,it contains heat ,
eventually that heat must be lost , did you check out the web page ,
on it ML does the maths to prove his claims ,
I don't believe science is challenging the decay rate of an isotope/photon
A better question would be ,
how could it be possible for light not to decay ,,???
ML claims 6.5 billion years as the half life of an isotope , so thats 13 billion years before the light would disappear ,
and that is what we observe .
there is plenty of educated individuals with degrees in physics and astronomy that don't support the bbt ,
Paul Violette would be another
so my question Chaz ,
do you imagine photons don't decay,,???

So, it seems you have not actually read the book.
You certainly do not understand the concept of heat by what you say.
A photo does not 'contain' heat. Photos do not loose "it".
You are wrong that energy is 'lost'.
It is a founding principle of all physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Photos do not loose heat. Where does this energy go? Nothing decays without cause. And there has to be an effect for every cause.
Yes, photons do not decay. They can be slowed down when travelling through dense media, but they always speed back up again when going through a vacuum.
The only way for physics to account for red shift is by the fact that the wavelength is stretched by expansion- travelling away form us.
How does he account for the darkness of space?

Are you talking about this Lewis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lewis_(author)

[Godfree]

I could presume you are interested in knowing this ,
or you think you already know and are toying with me ,
light is a form of energy ,it contains heat ,
eventually that heat must be lost , did you check out the web page ,
on it ML does the maths to prove his claims ,
I don't believe science is challenging the decay rate of an isotope/photon
A better question would be ,
how could it be possible for light not to decay ,,???
ML claims 6.5 billion years as the half life of an isotope , so thats 13 billion years before the light would disappear ,
and that is what we observe .
there is plenty of educated individuals with degrees in physics and astronomy that don't support the bbt ,
Paul Violette would be another
so my question Chaz ,
do you imagine photons don't decay,,???

So, it seems you have not actually read the book.
You certainly do not understand the concept of heat by what you say.
A photo does not 'contain' heat. Photos do not loose "it".
You are wrong that energy is 'lost'.
It is a founding principle of all physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Photos do not loose heat. Where does this energy go? Nothing decays without cause. And there has to be an effect for every cause.
Yes, photons do not decay. They can be slowed down when travelling through dense media, but they always speed back up again when going through a vacuum.
The only way for physics to account for red shift is by the fact that the wavelength is stretched by expansion- travelling away form us.
How does he account for the darkness of space?

Are you talking about this Lewis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lewis_(author)

Does that seem like him to you,,????
try googling ,the Hubble red shift by photon decay ,
a web page describing his claim ,
members.chello.nl/~benschopindx.red.htm
the darkness of space ,Chaz we have covered that one many times,
space is dark because the light from galaxies over 13 billion light years is invisible , the light is still there and a radio telescope will still see the galaxies , but we don't ,,
your not still stuck on Olbers paradox are you,,???

[chaz wyman]

I could presume you are interested in knowing this ,
or you think you already know and are toying with me ,
light is a form of energy ,it contains heat ,
eventually that heat must be lost , did you check out the web page ,
on it ML does the maths to prove his claims ,
I don't believe science is challenging the decay rate of an isotope/photon
A better question would be ,
how could it be possible for light not to decay ,,???
ML claims 6.5 billion years as the half life of an isotope , so thats 13 billion years before the light would disappear ,
and that is what we observe .
there is plenty of educated individuals with degrees in physics and astronomy that don't support the bbt ,
Paul Violette would be another
so my question Chaz ,
do you imagine photons don't decay,,???

So, it seems you have not actually read the book.
You certainly do not understand the concept of heat by what you say.
A photo does not 'contain' heat. Photos do not loose "it".
You are wrong that energy is 'lost'.
It is a founding principle of all physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Photos do not loose heat. Where does this energy go? Nothing decays without cause. And there has to be an effect for every cause.
Yes, photons do not decay. They can be slowed down when travelling through dense media, but they always speed back up again when going through a vacuum.
The only way for physics to account for red shift is by the fact that the wavelength is stretched by expansion- travelling away form us.
How does he account for the darkness of space?

Are you talking about this Lewis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lewis_(author)

Does that seem like him to you,,????
try googling ,the Hubble red shift by photon decay ,
a web page describing his claim ,
members.chello.nl/~benschopindx.red.htm
the darkness of space ,Chaz we have covered that one many times,
space is dark because the light from galaxies over 13 billion light years is invisible , the light is still there and a radio telescope will still see the galaxies , but we don't ,,
your not still stuck on Olbers paradox are you,,???

Invisible light - are you complete bonkers?
In a thread called against stupidity - the irony is rich!

[Godfree]

Chaz ,
sometimes you seem so uneducated ,???
light , splits up into the rainbow we see , and a few more we don't ,
invisible light , is , microwaves , radio waves etc ,
do you not understand that Hubble's model also includes ,
light fading into the invisible ,
in order for us to see beyond 13 billion light years we need a radio telescope,
do you really not know this, this is basic science beginner level,
how could you not know light splits up into what it does ,???
Olbers Paradox assumes light is constant and doesn't decay ,
which is why it's such an ignorant piece of rubbish ,
I repeat , the night sky is black because light decays into the invisible,
the fact that we can't see beyond 13 billion light years ,
is by bb theorists caused by the expansion ,,??? bullshit
in a static steady state universe we would observe light as we do,
the world would seem exactly the same, we would still have a red shift,
things would still fade into invisible ,
no expansion required ,,,there will be proof , eventually ,
I have already worked out one way to prove this ,
it will require exact colour identification of each galaxy ,
and the picture should look like a rainbow ,
if the universe is expanding the rainbow would be bigger at the red end than the blue , because if time is the factor ,
more distance has been covered in the same amount of time ,
if distance is the factor , the rainbow should appear normal,
regardless of expanding or not ,
if time is the factor and the universe is static ,
the rainbow will appear normal,
if movement is the factor ,
we should be able to see the red shift at any distance or time ,
as long as it's moving ,

[chaz wyman]

Chaz ,
sometimes you seem so uneducated ,???
light , splits up into the rainbow we see , and a few more we don't ,

No it does not 'split up; it changes wavelength due to prismatic differences in medium density. The 'colours' you see are not a natrual category, but an artefact of perception.
Sometime I feel you never went further than high school science.

invisible light , is , microwaves , radio waves etc ,

No, wrong again. Light is, by definition, the visual part of the EMS.

do you not understand that Hubble's model also includes ,
light fading into the invisible ,
in order for us to see beyond 13 billion light years we need a radio telescope,

Not relevant.

do you really not know this, this is basic science beginner level,

Dah!

how could you not know light splits up into what it does ,???
Dah! See above.
Olbers Paradox assumes light is constant and doesn't decay ,

Which is true. Light does not decay. In the 'rainbow' you are confusing two separate phenomena. Changes in wavelength due to density of glass as in a prism, and a fanciful theory not accepted by the scientific community.
A prism does not change the energy of light. Ask yourself what happens to light when it goes back through a vaccum.

which is why it's such an ignorant piece of rubbish ,

Which is why it has cause the scientific community to have to account for it.

I repeat , the night sky is black because light decays into the invisible,

And, idiot, you said that already. And I asked you what makes light disobey the laws of thermodynamics - what CASUES light to slow down?


the fact that we can't see beyond 13 billion light years ,
is by bb theorists caused by the expansion ,,??? bullshit
"Bullshit" is not an argument.

in a static steady state universe we would observe light as we do,

In a steady state universe we would have no stellar evolution, not galaxies crashing into each other, no nebulae, no black-holes, no planets ad infinitem....

the world would seem exactly the same, we would still have a red shift,
things would still fade into invisible ,
no expansion required ,,,there will be proof , eventually ,
I have already worked out one way to prove this ,
it will require exact colour identification of each galaxy ,
and the picture should look like a rainbow ,
if the universe is expanding the rainbow would be bigger at the red end than the blue , because if time is the factor ,
more distance has been covered in the same amount of time ,
if distance is the factor , the rainbow should appear normal,
regardless of expanding or not ,
if time is the factor and the universe is static ,
the rainbow will appear normal,
if movement is the factor ,
we should be able to see the red shift at any distance or time ,
as long as it's moving ,

[Godfree]

You really just like being difficult Chaz ,
you suggested my statement that light is invisible was wrong,,
we have the visible part of the spectrum and the invisible part of the spectrum,
xray and gamma ray would be a couple I forgot to mention ,
Steady state , why are you so determined to not get it ,
you surely must understand what I am saying ,
there was no big bang , galaxies are created , stars and planets ,
still do in a steady state universe what they do in the bbt ,
you can't recall my birth and re-birth of the galaxies ,???
of course I'm not saying everything never changes ,
what sort of a moron are you,,???
I guess if you can imagine light as a constant , moron would be correct,
it's not my fault science hasn't caught up with modern thinking ,
if steady state or static universe is not the correct term ,
then I would have to come up with a new one,
The Cosmic Rainbow ,,will that do Chaz ,
from now on I will refer to my model of the universe as the Cosmic Rainbow,
did you manage to find Michael Lewis,,??
using google a bit beyond your capabilities,,???
and the other guy I mentioned Violette,
claims to be the first to disprove the bbt,
tired light again ,
this is the alternative to the bbt,
if tired light is correct ,
we don't need to imagine the universe is expanding,,!!