The Fabric of Space

[Notvacka]

there are no constants , apart from change

That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.

[Godfree]

there are no constants , apart from change

That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.

yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,
I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,

[Notvacka]

there are no constants , apart from change

That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.

yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,
I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,

Your statement about constants and change indicated that you were talking about some variable speed of light threory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_light

On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

If you read the wikis you see that those are entirely different theories. None of them are embraced by mainstream physics today, and several problems would need to be solved for either to be seriously considered.

[Godfree]

[
yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,
I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,[/quote]Your statement about constants and change indicated that you were talking about some variable speed of light threory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_light

On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

If you read the wikis you see that those are entirely different theories. None of them are embraced by mainstream physics today, and several problems would need to be solved for either to be seriously considered.[/quote]
Being embraced by mainstream physics ,
that would be the bbt , which I think is crap ,
Olbers paradox , absolute crap,
the universe is expanding and accelerating , don't believe a word of it,
with people like me mainstream ,, almost ensures I won't believe it ,
main stream is , religion alcohol and tabaco ,
main stream physics says time and space began with our wee bang ,
I couldn't have faith in anything they have to say after that ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

[
yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,

That is simply not true. There is nothing without a cause. What makes light decay?



I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,

Your statement about constants and change indicated that you were talking about some variable speed of light threory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_light

On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

If you read the wikis you see that those are entirely different theories. None of them are embraced by mainstream physics today, and several problems would need to be solved for either to be seriously considered.[/quote]
Being embraced by mainstream physics ,
that would be the bbt , which I think is crap ,
Olbers paradox , absolute crap,
the universe is expanding and accelerating , don't believe a word of it,
with people like me mainstream ,, almost ensures I won't believe it ,
main stream is , religion alcohol and tabaco ,
main stream physics says time and space began with our wee bang ,
I couldn't have faith in anything they have to say after that ,,!!![/quote]

[Godfree]

That is simply not true. There is nothing without a cause. What makes light decay?

[/color]


On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,
I am getting the feeling that you don't want to learn anything here ,
you feel you know it all and are trying to give me homework ,
So lets see if I have you correct,
light goes on forever , never decaying , the universe has two constants ,
change , and light,,???
what generates light , energy by any chance,,???
light doesn't appear out of nothing , it takes energy to make that light,
if science could come up with something that stored energy forever ,
don't you think we would have , light batteries ,???

[Notvacka]

if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,

That is simply not the case. The red shift is the reason why the night sky is dark; light from distant galaxies are shifted below the visible spectrum. We can't see that light with our eyes, but with the right equipment it can be observed and measured. The red shift itself is well documented, and the generally accepted explanation for the red shift is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Photon decay is an alternative explanation that doesn't fit with other observations.

Did you read the wikis I linked to? You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions.

[chaz wyman]

That is simply not true. There is nothing without a cause. What makes light decay?

[/color]


On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,
I am getting the feeling that you don't want to learn anything here ,
you feel you know it all and are trying to give me homework ,
So lets see if I have you correct,
light goes on forever , never decaying , the universe has two constants ,
change , and light,,???
what generates light , energy by any chance,,???
light doesn't appear out of nothing , it takes energy to make that light,
if science could come up with something that stored energy forever ,
don't you think we would have , light batteries ,???

You are ignorant of basic science.
What makes light get tired?
Where does the energy go to?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You guys seem to have forgotten that electromagnetic energy can be either reflected, scattered or absorbed!

[SpheresOfBalance]

if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,

That is simply not the case. The red shift is the reason why the night sky is dark; light from distant galaxies are shifted below the visible spectrum. We can't see that light with our eyes, but with the right equipment it can be observed and measured. The red shift itself is well documented, and the generally accepted explanation for the red shift is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Photon decay is an alternative explanation that doesn't fit with other observations.

Did you read the wikis I linked to? You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions.

This declarative parroting is absurd, so one keeps up with the common beliefs (theories) of the day.

Once the earth was flat, you should bleed a sick person, and it was impossible to go to the moon. And I'm sure in those days many declared it was truth after reading that it was truth, but it was false.

Are we merely parrots, or can we think for ourselves?

The best you can do is say that it is the current popular model, but that doesn't necessarily disprove anything. So one is a fool to say things like, "That is simply not the case." and "You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions."

You have jumped to the conclusion that the current theories are correct. In some of your earlier posts, you spoke from the understanding of possibility and probability, what has happened for this one? Are we getting heated, caught up in our egos, like Chaz so often demonstrates?

[Godfree]

quote]This declarative parroting is absurd, so one keeps up with the common beliefs (theories) of the day.

Once the earth was flat, you should bleed a sick person, and it was impossible to go to the moon. And I'm sure in those days many declared it was truth after reading that it was truth, but it was false.

Are we merely parrots, or can we think for ourselves?

The best you can do is say that it is the current popular model, but that doesn't necessarily disprove anything. So one is a fool to say things like, "That is simply not the case." and "You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions."

You have jumped to the conclusion that the current theories are correct. In some of your earlier posts, you spoke from the understanding of possibility and probability, what has happened for this one? Are we getting heated, caught up in our egos, like Chaz so often demonstrates?[/quote]
I agree , most new ideas are rejected by the generation of the time ,
there are many ways to look at the picture/puzzle,
if we are to get bogged down on the detail of one or two concepts ,
we are limiting the amount of the picture we will ever see ,
we make assumptions to test theories ,
we really need to reduce the issues down to a yes or no/either either situation,
and on to the next question and so on ,
that way we get to test many theories of the whole picture ,
not just stuck on one issue ,
question ,
If the universe IS NOT EXPANDING , what are the possible explanations for the red shift,,,????

[John]

And we wonder why Hawking declared that philosophy was dead and said that "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."

[Notvacka]

This declarative parroting is absurd, so one keeps up with the common beliefs (theories) of the day.

Yes. I think it's good advice to keep up with the beliefs/theories you are discussing.

Are we merely parrots, or can we think for ourselves?

Thinking for yourself does not mean that you have to reinvent the wheel. Other people have done lots of thinking and plenty of scientific obeservations over the years. New ideas build upon old ideas, and if you try to come up with something new without understanding the old, you are at a serious disadvantage.

The best you can do is say that it is the current popular model, but that doesn't necessarily disprove anything. So one is a fool to say things like, "That is simply not the case." and "You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions."

The "simply not the case" statement referred to Godfree's notion that we should be able to see light from distant galaxies regardless of redshift. It's a well known fact that the human eye can't register wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. You can of course doubt that fact too, but disregarding science every turn won't get you very far, I'm afraid.

You have jumped to the conclusion that the current theories are correct.

Modern physics is a very abstract and highly specialized field. Not being a cutting edge scientist myself and not having anything like a particle accelerator at my disposal, I humbly suppose that current theories for the most part are the best they can be, based upon current observations. However, all scientific theories are not equal. Some are backed up by far more evidence than others, and some observations can be interpreted in different ways.

[Notvacka]

If the universe IS NOT EXPANDING , what are the possible explanations for the red shift,,,????

At least two possible explanations have been offered:

Variable speed of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_light

Tired ligth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Now, please at least read the wikis before continuing your argument.

And please, please read up a little on the currently accepted theory before investigating the alternatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

[Notvacka]

And we wonder why Hawking declared that philosophy was dead and said that "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."

Some "philosophers" seem to deliberately not keep up with developments in science.

Of course you can't replace scientific observation with "philosophy". But philosophy is needed when it comes to interpreting observations and understanding the ramifications of new theories.