Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[John]

I went to the web site , couldn't find the link to the article in question ,

The page presents you with an abstract and the links to the document, in various formates including pdf, are on the right hand side in a column entitled "Download". I've just checked it again and the links are still valid.

[John]

the Hubble deep field report said something like ,
"The age and size of our most distant galaxies is not consistent with the bbt"

I'd be intrigued to see that so please provide the link as there are resources on the internet explaining why the amateur might leap to incorrect conclusions that may seem intuitively correct.

[Arising_uk]

As I stated Arising , I never lost any faith , I wasn't brought up religious ,
I have never been religious or had a faith ,,!!!
What I'm trying to do is engage you in some of these issues ,
seems you don't want to elaborate or expand your understanding ,
you don't seem to want to apply your thinking at all ,
do you understand that I am proving things must have traveled many times the speed of light to form the universe as we know it today ,
this isn't a theory or a debate , this is fact ,
we can see 13 billion year old galaxies ,
in both directions , adding up to 26 billion light years,
do you accept that this is real , do you think I'm fudging the numbers ,
why is it you don't seem to grasp the significants of what I am saying ,
Einsteins cosmic speed limit has been well and truly smashed,
Einstein was wrong , things can and do go faster than light,,,fact,,,!!!!

As I've already said to you, you're not proving anything other than that ontological metaphysics is still alive and well outside of Philosophy. If you want to prove your ideas than become a physicist, shouldn't take more than a decade of application otherwise I think you're just proving what the scientists think about philosophers, i.e pointless thinking.

I'm also slightly confused about your acceptance of the figures you use to base your argument upon as if you are saying the doppler-effect and red-shift does not exist would this not mean a complete revision of your numbers as it'd change what we understand of velocity and speed and how we calculate distance so your numbers would be incorrect and your points moot?

[Godfree]

As I stated Arising , I never lost any faith , I wasn't brought up religious ,
I have never been religious or had a faith ,,!!!
What I'm trying to do is engage you in some of these issues ,
seems you don't want to elaborate or expand your understanding ,
you don't seem to want to apply your thinking at all ,
do you understand that I am proving things must have traveled many times the speed of light to form the universe as we know it today ,
this isn't a theory or a debate , this is fact ,
we can see 13 billion year old galaxies ,
in both directions , adding up to 26 billion light years,
do you accept that this is real , do you think I'm fudging the numbers ,
why is it you don't seem to grasp the significants of what I am saying ,
Einsteins cosmic speed limit has been well and truly smashed,
Einstein was wrong , things can and do go faster than light,,,fact,,,!!!!

As I've already said to you, you're not proving anything other than that ontological metaphysics is still alive and well outside of Philosophy. If you want to prove your ideas than become a physicist, shouldn't take more than a decade of application otherwise I think you're just proving what the scientists think about philosophers, i.e pointless thinking.

I'm also slightly confused about your acceptance of the figures you use to base your argument upon as if you are saying the doppler-effect and red-shift does not exist would this not mean a complete revision of your numbers as it'd change what we understand of velocity and speed and how we calculate distance so your numbers would be incorrect and your points moot?

As I have stated at least 50 times in these forums ,
the red shift is caused by photon decay ,
the red shift is real it exists , it is a measurement of distance ,
which is a measurement of time , we can calculate both from the colour,
the uniformity of the red shift ie it's all distant galaxies ,
suggests to me there is very little red shift caused by movement ,
or we should see galaxies with one half red and one half blue ,
because they are rotating, this doesn't appear to be the case,,!!!

[Godfree]

the Hubble deep field report said something like ,
"The age and size of our most distant galaxies is not consistent with the bbt"

I'd be intrigued to see that so please provide the link as there are resources on the internet explaining why the amateur might leap to incorrect conclusions that may seem intuitively correct.

I would have to go find it again and at dial-up speeds it can be slow,,!!!
I'll trade you a link to the Hubble deep field
for a direct link , the url for the article
if I can find it again , while your there check out the pattern of galaxies,
and the scale of things , to understand the pattern of galaxies you need to be looking at it in the right scale , a wide angle view of a large chunk of universe

[Godfree]

I went to the web site , couldn't find the link to the article in question ,

The page presents you with an abstract and the links to the document, in various formates including pdf, are on the right hand side in a column entitled "Download". I've just checked it again and the links are still valid.

I havn't found the right site yet but take a look at this one ,
as it confirms two things I have been stating ,
Astronomers have found large old red shifted galaxies ,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 102001.htm
I'm not sure it's working,yes it works I just checked it,
clumping , here you will also see a reference to the fact that galaxies,
clump together to form the structures we see today,,!!!
this site is still a bit reluctant to claim no big bang,
and probably is still trying to fit the new knowledge into the old idea

[Cerveny]

Sad fact is that neither math nor experiment has brought even tiny advance in our understanding of space, elementary particles, time… We are hopelessly quantizing gravity for eighty years. Something must be wrong. Watching from any side the main suspicion remains on TR. Obscure “metric”, obscure (space) “expansion”, obscure (real) “singularities”, obscure “empty” (physical) space. Emperor's new clothes :(
New idea, new model is necessary ...

But QED is the most tested and accurate theory Physics has ever produced? It explains all the interactions of Light and Matter from three axioms, two particles and a shitload of maths and stop-watches.

Philosophy is not the place to resolve this. If you have a better explanation do the maths and propose the experiments.

QED is not related with GTR at all. There is a weak relation with STR via special non-commuted matrixes that were guessed by Dirac. Every real dilatation/contraction is nonsense - the subject can be whenever swapped with the object (in STR formalism) and every dilatation/contraction must thus have been mutual - then none...
Sorry, new model is necessary. Perhaps a finding of sense of Universe is necessary ... Determined Einstein's world does not have any…

[Godfree]

Sad fact is that neither math nor experiment has brought even tiny advance in our understanding of space, elementary particles, time… We are hopelessly quantizing gravity for eighty years. Something must be wrong. Watching from any side the main suspicion remains on TR. Obscure “metric”, obscure (space) “expansion”, obscure (real) “singularities”, obscure “empty” (physical) space. Emperor's new clothes
New idea, new model is necessary ...

But QED is the most tested and accurate theory Physics has ever produced? It explains all the interactions of Light and Matter from three axioms, two particles and a shitload of maths and stop-watches.

Philosophy is not the place to resolve this. If you have a better explanation do the maths and propose the experiments.

w
QED is not related with GTR at all. There is a weak relation with STR via special non-commuted matrixes that were guessed by Dirac. Every real dilatation/contraction is nonsense - the subject can be whenever swapped with the object (in STR formalism) and every dilatation/contraction must thus have been mutual - then none...
Sorry, new model is necessary. Perhaps a finding of sense of Universe is necessary ... Determined Einstein's world does not have any…

Well it seems my attempts to explain whats wrong with the bbt ,
have failed to convince most of you ,
so heres a couple of web sites that are typical of whats out there ,
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
and
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/D ... inning.asp
should be enough to get you going in the right direction

[Cerveny]

Well it seems my attempts to explain whats wrong with the bbt ,
have failed to convince most of you ,
so heres a couple of web sites that are typical of whats out there ,
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
and
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/D ... inning.asp
should be enough to get you going in the right direction

I perhaps was not clear enough before :(
I have problem with as with TR as well with BB
Universe does not "expand", it is "growing", it condensates, it crystallizes from the other phase, from the "future" by my opinion...
The number of “Planck cells” (space elements) is increasing …

[Godfree]

Well it seems my attempts to explain whats wrong with the bbt ,
have failed to convince most of you ,
so heres a couple of web sites that are typical of whats out there ,
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
and
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/D ... inning.asp
should be enough to get you going in the right direction

I perhaps was not clear enough before
I have problem with as with TR as well with BB
Universe does not "expand", it is "growing", it condensates, it crystallizes from the other phase, from the "future" by my opinion...
The number of “Planck cells” (space elements) is increasing …

First problem with the idea the universe is expanding ,
is you have to imagine it is finite and not existing before some wee bang ,
I don't believe they can produce any evidence or maths ,
that can prove or demonstrate , how there could be nothing ,
and that this nothing then became everything ,
what they seem to be doing , is building the science around the theory ,
ie , they take the theory as real and find maths that sort of fit it ,
I'm looking forward to being able to tell the likes of Chaz that ,
the big bang is busted , and heres another site that is seeing the light ,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my-weblog/20 ... think.html
if this doesn't convince them nothing will,,!!!
the link doesn't seem to be working , try just,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com ,
and see if you can find the article on the massive ancient galaxy stirs mystery , is the universe older than we think,,,???
can't seem to find the article there , try googling ,
galaxies older than the bang ,,,,,,,that should give you , massive ancient galaxy stirs mystery ,,!!!

[Notvacka]

Every real dilatation/contraction is nonsense - the subject can be whenever swapped with the object (in STR formalism) and every dilatation/contraction must thus have been mutual - then none... Sorry, new model is necessary. Perhaps a finding of sense of Universe is necessary ... Determined Einstein's world does not have any…

While Godfree obviously hasn't understood even the basics, you seem to know a lot about physics. But I must confess that I have a hard time following you sometimes. And I don't know if it's because I know too little physics myself, or because you are lost out there. Maybe it's just down to language.

Anyway, your objection to Einstein's theory of relativity here hinges on the word "real" (marked in red by me). But what does "real" mean? The relative dilation/contraction is measurable and calculable. Isn't that real enough? Are you looking for something absolute? It's called theory of relativity for a reason. Like quantum mechanics, it's a theory about what can be observed. Einstein proved that any notion of absolute measurements is nonsense. In that sense at least, you are perfectly right.

Much like quantum uncertainty, relativity hurts our common sense. We want absolute truths, we want to know what the world is really like. But perhpas that's asking too much.

What do you mean by "sense of universe" that Einstein's determined world does not have? Myself I'm perfectly happy with the deterministic implications of his theory. If you can come up with another model that makes more sense, I'd very much like to see it.

[Godfree]

John , and Notvacka,,!!!
if you care to follow the trail and get to the site ,
Massive ancient galaxy stirs mystery ...
then you will find as I did that they not only can see large old galaxies ,
13 billion years ago , but they also see the full range ,
13 billion years ago the universe looked pretty much the same as it does now ,
if you go to a Hubble site , they will mention the galaxies 13 billion light years away , but only the young blue ones , as if thats all there was,
go to a non Hubble site referring to the same Hubble imagery ,
and we get all types of galaxies have been found 13 billion years ago ,
including red and dead , galaxies 13 billion years ago have already been through their life cycle ,
if you can't work out that the big bang is busted from that ,
then you have a closed mind and don't want to see,
you have put the telescope up to your blind eye , Nelson ,
absolute proof the universe is older than the bang ,
if there ever was a bang , which is looking less and less likely,
so where does that leave the experts and their maths ,
intellectual masturbation , they have been pulling themselves for 80 years,!!

[Cerveny]

Every real dilatation/contraction is nonsense - the subject can be whenever swapped with the object (in STR formalism) and every dilatation/contraction must thus have been mutual - then none... Sorry, new model is necessary. Perhaps a finding of sense of Universe is necessary ... Determined Einstein's world does not have any…

While Godfree obviously hasn't understood even the basics, you seem to know a lot about physics. But I must confess that I have a hard time following you sometimes. And I don't know if it's because I know too little physics myself, or because you are lost out there. Maybe it's just down to language.

Anyway, your objection to Einstein's theory of relativity here hinges on the word "real" (marked in red by me). But what does "real" mean? The relative dilation/contraction is measurable and calculable. Isn't that real enough? Are you looking for something absolute? It's called theory of relativity for a reason. Like quantum mechanics, it's a theory about what can be observed. Einstein proved that any notion of absolute measurements is nonsense. In that sense at least, you are perfectly right.

Much like quantum uncertainty, relativity hurts our common sense. We want absolute truths, we want to know what the world is really like. But perhpas that's asking too much.

What do you mean by "sense of universe" that Einstein's determined world does not have? Myself I'm perfectly happy with the deterministic implications of his theory. If you can come up with another model that makes more sense, I'd very much like to see it.

Sorry for my poor language knowledge, it has many reasons
To the dilatation/contraction: simply saying - "real" means it has any real impact to the subject. See the example: I am moving by very fast velocity. STR says "your time runs slower" (in comparison with other world). But do I live longer? No, all „contractions/dilatations" are only formal changes following from change of representation (frame). They used to prove STR by some muons caught on the Earth surface. But from such muons’ point of view we should have lived for thousands years (if mentioned time dilatations are real). STR contractions/dilatations are only formal. It is as if I use, let say, hexadecimal calculator instead of decimal one (in the best case)

As for determinism: Do you really believe that you are already prepared somewhere in (remote) region of "space-time", let say, ten years older? Perhaps the common purpose of the mankind is determined; perhaps it is a "blossom" of the life, prepared for an extra-terrestrial life spreading, but hardly in the detail…

[John]

I went to the web site , couldn't find the link to the article in question ,

The page presents you with an abstract and the links to the document, in various formates including pdf, are on the right hand side in a column entitled "Download". I've just checked it again and the links are still valid.

I havn't found the right site yet but take a look at this one ,
as it confirms two things I have been stating ,
Astronomers have found large old red shifted galaxies ,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 102001.htm
I'm not sure it's working,yes it works I just checked it,
clumping , here you will also see a reference to the fact that galaxies,
clump together to form the structures we see today,,!!!
this site is still a bit reluctant to claim no big bang,
and probably is still trying to fit the new knowledge into the old idea

You can find the paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf

I don't think you'll ever get over your 13 billion years problem if you don't accept the metric expansion of the universe, which you clearly don't.

I also had a look at the other links you provided and honestly, how can any of us refute theories of Compton scattering as an explanation for galaxy red-shift? The empirical analysis of these things isn't done by looking at pretty pictures provided by the Hubble telescope it's done by crunching a huge array of numbers. Maybe the big bang theory will eventually be replaced by some other theory because that's what the scientific method does.

I have an open mind on all this in that I accept that I don't know the answers nor am I capable of arriving at an independent conclusion on the matter because I'm not capable of doing the original research that would be necessary or properly interpreting the existing research (and believe me, you need some serious mathematical skills to do so) so my conclusion is to defer to the consensus.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are dissenting voices but they are in a very small minority and without the expertise to emphatically determine who is correct what logic would drive me to accept the minority position? You've chosen that position, and you're entitled to do so, but I think you're deluding yourself if you believe you're doing anything more than putting your faith in a minority opinion because let's, face it, can you reproduce the research or the theoretical work needed to justify your "lazy light" explanation for the red-shift? Adopting the minority position does not automatically qualify you to claim some superior knowledge that the rest of us are missing.

[Arising_uk]

QED is not related with GTR at all. There is a weak relation with STR via special non-commuted matrixes that were guessed by Dirac. Every real dilatation/contraction is nonsense - the subject can be whenever swapped with the object (in STR formalism) and every dilatation/contraction must thus have been mutual - then none...
Sorry, new model is necessary. Perhaps a finding of sense of Universe is necessary ... Determined Einstein's world does not have any…

I did not say it was related, its that you said we had no understanding of elementary particles but photons and electrons are fairly elemental. I assume you mean the smaller than these and I agree we have no method like Feynmans to calculate with just yet but then we had none for the photon and electron for a long while, so I don't see why we will not find one sooner or later.

For myself its all a planck-bit computer so we'll be hitting a bottom limit in the long-run, i.e. no explanation of the 'god' machine possible.