The Fabric of Space

[xenuwonder]

Light decaying? Light changing colour because it's decaying?? WTF?

Where did this arm chair science come from Godfree??

Was it the christians that proposed it?

Lets assume your theory of light decaying in terms of it's frequency which seems to be how you attribute the clour change..

If that were true all the light would end up as audio frequencies when it decayed enough and our ears would be getting blasted from the Big Bang you have been trying to expose all this time!! Hahaha...Great theory mate.

What's next??

Inter stellar travel via particle transporters?? "where'd I put that bourbon..and pass me another pipe..."

I agree with a lot of people on here in that your basic science needs brushing up on.
Taking ideas from this documentary and that book etc and then putting all these fragments together does'nt equal great science or disprove everything that comes before it.

1+3 = what Godfree?

Xenu out.

[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."

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.

I certainly think philosophy has a part to play but I can understand the frustration of scientists who have spent their lives getting to grips with highly technical and challenging disciplines only to have their theories dismissed by people with no training who offer no credible alternative anyway and who, at times, clearly fail to understand the science anyway.

I once explained special relativity and time dilation to someone who just flatly refused to believe it on the basis that he considered it counter-intuitive and therefore had to be some sort of trick. It's difficult to proceed when encountered by that sort of reaction.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Light decaying? Light changing colour because it's decaying?? WTF?

Where did this arm chair science come from Godfree??

Was it the christians that proposed it?

Lets assume your theory of light decaying in terms of it's frequency which seems to be how you attribute the clour change..

If that were true all the light would end up as audio frequencies when it decayed enough and our ears would be getting blasted from the Big Bang you have been trying to expose all this time!! Hahaha...Great theory mate.

What's next??

Inter stellar travel via particle transporters?? "where'd I put that bourbon..and pass me another pipe..."

I agree with a lot of people on here in that your basic science needs brushing up on.
Taking ideas from this documentary and that book etc and then putting all these fragments together does'nt equal great science or disprove everything that comes before it.

1+3 = what Godfree?

Xenu out.

As far as science knows, electromagnetic energy and acoustical energy are two distinctly different things. One can never transform into another.

[chaz wyman]

Light decaying? Light changing colour because it's decaying?? WTF?

Where did this arm chair science come from Godfree??

Was it the christians that proposed it?

Lets assume your theory of light decaying in terms of it's frequency which seems to be how you attribute the clour change..

If that were true all the light would end up as audio frequencies when it decayed enough and our ears would be getting blasted from the Big Bang you have been trying to expose all this time!! Hahaha...Great theory mate.

What's next??

Inter stellar travel via particle transporters?? "where'd I put that bourbon..and pass me another pipe..."

I agree with a lot of people on here in that your basic science needs brushing up on.
Taking ideas from this documentary and that book etc and then putting all these fragments together does'nt equal great science or disprove everything that comes before it.

1+3 = what Godfree?

Xenu out.

As far as science knows, electromagnetic energy and acoustical energy are two distinctly different things. One can never transform into another.

NOPE - They can be transformed from one another by simple devices called microphones and speakers.

But then- SoB is not listening to me, so what will he learn?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
That's funny because he never said he was discussing 'their' beliefs. I do believe that he was discussing his. Where, in your mind, and obviously, yours alone, does their beliefs and his beliefs have their own substance. And just because you parrot 'them' doesn't mean 'you' are right! This is an all to common misconception, a 'safe' bet of the ego: "If I 'copy' those given the authority of knowing, that I believe know, then 'I' know;" as if this necessarily lends itself to 'knowing.'

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.
Oh Thank you, so very very much! without you to 'tell' me what it 'means,' I just don't know what I'd do. Please speak for yourself when you speak of thinking for yourself, because that's all you can say, in all honesty, that you 'believe' you truly 'know.' Who said he doesn't understand the old? He just believes it's wrong, and who is to say?

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.
The eye is something local the Universe is quite vast, there is a difference. Who said anything about disregarding it, he obviously believes it's wrong.

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.
There you go, now I'm hearing the humility that is in truth, that of true intellect. We are not cutting edge scientists that have all the expensive gadgetry and can see for ourselves, what we believe as we use them. Yes we are laymen and even those that are in the position to be excepted as cutting edge scientists don't necessarily 'know.' I really love reading your posts that embrace and give credit to possibility and probability as it is a testament of true intellect.

My point was that we should all respect one another as we are not cutting edge scientists, and that we should use verbiage that indicates such in the interest of fair play and truth. The so called facts that we parrot are not necessarily so, so it is folly to relax in the bosom of someone else's facts as to embrace our egos. The honesty of what we individuals believe we know is the best policy.

[Godfree]

Light decaying? Light changing colour because it's decaying?? WTF?

Where did this arm chair science come from Godfree??

Was it the christians that proposed it?

Lets assume your theory of light decaying in terms of it's frequency which seems to be how you attribute the clour change..

If that were true all the light would end up as audio frequencies when it decayed enough and our ears would be getting blasted from the Big Bang you have been trying to expose all this time!! Hahaha...Great theory mate.

What's next??

Inter stellar travel via particle transporters?? "where'd I put that bourbon..and pass me another pipe..."

I agree with a lot of people on here in that your basic science needs brushing up on.
Taking ideas from this documentary and that book etc and then putting all these fragments together does'nt equal great science or disprove everything that comes before it.

1+3 = what Godfree?

Xenu out.

If mines armchair science I suggest you get off the potty ,
there is a slight problem with your theory ,
the process of red shifting is not being challenged ,
the question is whats causing it ,
so even in the expanding Universe model light red shifts then radio waves ,
then I presume according to your theory audio ,
that would be reality , with both models ,
so your theory can't be correct,
there is no proof the universe is expanding ,it's still theory ,
if I could prove light decays into the rainbow and so on ,
then that would be the only proven explanation,

[Godfree]

While looking for any real proof the universe is expanding ,
I came upon the two main assumptions the bbt makes ,to my surprise something I had suggested here in regards to the universe being infinite ,
I suggested that the bit we know about is a sufficiently large sample as to assume the rest of the universe will be the same,
and guess what , thats the exact same rationale they use in the bbt,
surely if we accept the sample we know is big enough ,
the universe is infinite , because our sample has no edges , there is no start and end to the bit we can see , it appears to go on forever ,
so they are arguing for the universe to be infinite,
and yet they are arguing the opposite ,
reality is indeed an individual experience,,???

[John]

the process of red shifting is not being challenged ,
the question is whats causing it ,
so even in the expanding Universe model light red shifts then radio waves ,
then I presume according to your theory audio ,
that would be reality , with both models ,
so your theory can't be correct,

What are you saying? That sound waves don't experience the equivalent of red shift?

[chaz wyman]

While looking for any real proof the universe is expanding ,
I came upon the two main assumptions the bbt makes ,to my surprise something I had suggested here in regards to the universe being infinite ,
I suggested that the bit we know about is a sufficiently large sample as to assume the rest of the universe will be the same,
and guess what , thats the exact same rationale they use in the bbt,
surely if we accept the sample we know is big enough ,
the universe is infinite , because our sample has no edges , there is no start and end to the bit we can see , it appears to go on forever ,
so they are arguing for the universe to be infinite,
and yet they are arguing the opposite ,
reality is indeed an individual experience,,???

It is impossible for the universe to 'appear' to go on forever. What would it look like?

[chaz wyman]

If mines armchair science I suggest you get off the potty ,
there is a slight problem with your theory ,
the process of red shifting is not being challenged ,
the question is whats causing it ,
so even in the expanding Universe model light red shifts then radio waves ,
then I presume according to your theory audio ,
that would be reality , with both models ,
so your theory can't be correct,
there is no proof the universe is expanding ,it's still theory ,
if I could prove light decays into the rainbow and so on ,
then that would be the only proven explanation,

Science is based on observation. The red-shift theory is based on observations of the doppler shift in sound.
The cause of that is know. The Doppler effect has been extrapolated to understand the red shift of light.
Simple really.
What observation have you got that light slows down because it gets tired; none.

[John]

The tired light theory has been around since the late 1920s and there's no observational data to support it whereas there is a lot of observational data to support the accepted theories.

Godfree seems to be clinging to a theory that isn't supported by the evidence because he doesn't want to believe in the Big Bang. In other words, he believes something for which there is no evidence because it suits a particular view he has of the universe.

And he has the effrontery to mock the religious for making faith based claims. It's almost comical in its irony.

[chaz wyman]

The tired light theory has been around since the late 1920s and there's no observational data to support it whereas there is a lot of observational data to support the accepted theories.

Godfree seems to be clinging to a theory that isn't supported by the evidence because he doesn't want to believe in the Big Bang. In other words, he believes something for which there is no evidence because it suits a particular view he has of the universe.

And he has the effrontery to mock the religious for making faith based claims. It's almost comical in its irony.

What is really sick about all this is that he is objecting to the BBT from purely ideological reasons; he does not want to accept that there was a beginning because he is an Atheist.
I started this whole thing thinking that the BBT was flaky. I am naturally skeptical and thought that the expansion theory was a bit of a fudge. After numerous postings on this and other threads with Godfree I now find the BBT more convincing than before.
Maybe I should stop arguing with him about atheism too - I don't want to end up believing in God too!!!!

[John]

Maybe I should stop arguing with him about atheism too - I don't want to end up believing in God too!!!!

Maybe he's actually an agent of some evangelical church using some sort of reverse psychology to convert you

[SpheresOfBalance]

the process of red shifting is not being challenged ,
the question is whats causing it ,
so even in the expanding Universe model light red shifts then radio waves ,
then I presume according to your theory audio ,
that would be reality , with both models ,
so your theory can't be correct,

What are you saying? That sound waves don't experience the equivalent of red shift?

The Doppler effect is a two way street. With sound waves, there is both a compression and an expansion, and this phenomena is best appreciated, with a closest point of approach (CPA). At the relatively close proximities here on earth this effect is readily discernible.

If every star is red shifted then only a one way street is being observed, so where are all those stars that are closing? One could look at this and believe that earth is the center of the universe, but it is a falsehood to juxtapose two unknowns and then say they prove one another, those two being the location of the center of the universe and the expansion of the universe as indicated by a red shift. In addition one has to consider supernovas where a stars remains and thus it's shock wave is dispersed omnidirectionally, such that it could be considered curious that we don't see visible light being shifted towards the ultra violet, as surly, a supernova sets things in motion.

And lets not forget that electromagnetic radiation can be either reflected, scattered, or absorbed, and how this might present itself within the theory of dark matter, dark energy and dark flow.

[Godfree]

If every star is red shifted then only a one way street is being observed, so where are all those stars that are closing? One could look at this and believe that earth is the center of the universe, but it is a falsehood to juxtapose two unknowns and then say they prove one another, those two being the location of the center of the universe and the expansion of the universe as indicated by a red shift. In addition one has to consider supernovas where a stars remains and thus it's shock wave is dispersed omnidirectionally, such that it could be considered curious that we don't see visible light being shifted towards the ultra violet, as surly, a supernova sets things in motion.

And lets not forget that electromagnetic radiation can be either reflected, scattered, or absorbed, and how this might present itself within the theory of dark matter, dark energy and dark flow.[/color][/quote]
I think we have to accept that both effects are real ,
Michael Lewis accepts that within a non expanding universe ,
we would still see the doppler effect from the rotation of galaxies ,etc
so both are creating the same effect , which is yet to be determined ,
for any one example ,
I don't think Chaz or anyone else can prove the bbt is any more real ,
than my Cosmic Rainbow model ,
and I suppose that pisses off the old die hards clinging to their precious ,
they worked hard to know what they do ,
how dare I come along and turn it all on it's head , without proof ,,!!!