Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Notvacka]

Have you been confirmed and posted yet? I'm intrigued to see how they respond to your "for those with a brain , it becomes obvious" revelations.

I first jumped on a thread titled , "Are galaxies moving faster than the speed of light"
my answer was no , quoted my law of galaxy motion and basically gave them my version or model for the universe ,
one reply , rather sarcastic , and the post was deleted ,
I posted again , with less claims but still concluding the bb was busted ,
I'm banned from the site , censorship is alive and well ,
so when one visits that site , you will think they were interested in science ,
and discussion , but obviously they are a good example of ,
a site dedicated to promoting the bb , and anything else is censored ,,!!!
a very good example of how the bbt is still alive ,
we are being conned , and that site proves it ,,!!!

Well, well... I suggested that you could pose your questions in a serious physics forum:

As for your question about old galaxies in the farthest regions of space, I'm not an astronomer and not the right person to provide an answer. And I'm not into arguing for the sake of it.

You could try posting your questions in a serious physics forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

But you had to jump right in and break forum rules instead. Before posting in a new forum, you should read the rules. Here is a quote from the Physics Forums about overly speculative posts:

"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."

Had you asked questions instead of arguing, you might have gotten some answers.

[lancek4]

Oh, oh I got one -

You cannot apply the 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' law to the BB to say the BB must have been a reaction, because
Physicists say that the BB was the origination of these laws of our universe, that the Bang was so epic that it made fundamental particles Begin and/or that do react and respond the way we know them.

It is nonsequiter to argue that the BB was reacting to something prior to it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Have you been confirmed and posted yet? I'm intrigued to see how they respond to your "for those with a brain , it becomes obvious" revelations.

I first jumped on a thread titled , "Are galaxies moving faster than the speed of light"
my answer was no , quoted my law of galaxy motion and basically gave them my version or model for the universe ,
one reply , rather sarcastic , and the post was deleted ,
I posted again , with less claims but still concluding the bb was busted ,
I'm banned from the site , censorship is alive and well ,
so when one visits that site , you will think they were interested in science ,
and discussion , but obviously they are a good example of ,
a site dedicated to promoting the bb , and anything else is censored ,,!!!
a very good example of how the bbt is still alive ,
we are being conned , and that site proves it ,,!!!

Well, well... I suggested that you could pose your questions in a serious physics forum:

As for your question about old galaxies in the farthest regions of space, I'm not an astronomer and not the right person to provide an answer. And I'm not into arguing for the sake of it.

You could try posting your questions in a serious physics forum: http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

But you had to jump right in and break forum rules instead. Before posting in a new forum, you should read the rules. Here is a quote from the Physics Forums about overly speculative posts:

"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."
Dictatorial, Stagnant, Elitism!


Had you asked questions instead of arguing, you might have gotten some answers.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh, oh I got one -

You cannot apply the 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' law to the BB to say the BB must have been a reaction, because
Physicists say that the BB was the origination of these laws of our universe, that the Bang was so epic that it made fundamental particles Begin and/or that do react and respond the way we know them.

It is nonsequiter to argue that the BB was reacting to something prior to it.

Yes, the way they present it!
Anytime someone looks at possibilities of the past or the future, they can see, as easily as you, possible contradictions, and address them the best they can, to support their model. That's like, a no brainer!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm constantly amazed at the would be philosophers here, playing the parrot role, as to their ease and willingness to place people on pedestals and worship them as if they were gods, simply because they were first. Sequence has nothing to do with brilliance. And just because someone of collegiate study had an idea that sounds logical doesn't mean it can't be eventually revised, expanded upon or proven incorrect.

Everyone in a wise and free society should be encouraged to try and help with these matters. As far as I'm concerned it's not about any particular one being on top, but rather us all being elevated by truth! Everyone has the potential to play a role in the enlightenment of the human species.

[Godfree]

I'm constantly amazed at the would be philosophers here, playing the parrot role, as to their ease and willingness to place people on pedestals and worship them as if they were gods, simply because they were first. Sequence has nothing to do with brilliance. And just because someone of collegiate study had an idea that sounds logical doesn't mean it can't be eventually revised, expanded upon or proven incorrect.

Everyone in a wise and free society should be encouraged to try and help with these matters. As far as I'm concerned it's not about any particular one being on top, but rather us all being elevated by truth! Everyone has the potential to play a role in the enlightenment of the human species.

If a site doesn't allow any controversial or contradictory views ,
then it is a dictatorship , and like any other , tow the party line , or your banned,
if the site wants to call me a crackpot , while they are at it they might want,
to call the Hubble telescope images crackpot ,
Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven ,
and numerous other physicists who don't support the big bang ,
they don't want the controversy because they have no answers ,
for questions like ,"what was before the big bang"
"why are we looking at galaxies older than 13.7 billion years " ?
they don't have good answers for these questions , so they ban the questions,
bloody hell ,
Our first attempts to put an age on the Earth ,
were way off , far too short a time ,
I get the feeling we have done it again , 13.7 billion , seems far too short ,
when you look at the data coming out these days,
galaxies could be as old as 100 billion years old or more ,
I saw on a site today our sun is in it's second or third cycle ,
the matter has been a star before gone bang and re-formed a star ,
if it's third time , thats more than 13.7 billion years,,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

As I have said often ,"reality is an individual experience"
it's like your determined to draw nonsense from sense ,

The reality might be that they can only experience their 'reality' but this does not make reality dependent upon the individuals experience. Of course this is only my belief but I tend to think reality will still exist even upon the extinction of all individual experiences. You of course are free to believe that reality depends upon you, much like the religious think its been made for them.

What I'm trying to draw from you is the understanding that what you are doing is called metaphysics and in the history of philosophy we've come to the conclusion that its a waste-of-thought in the subject you have chosen to discuss, i.e. Astro-physics. If you truly wish to challenge the current BBT theory then you need to learn to speak to them in their language, otherwise they will consider you at worst a crank and at best yet another 'philosopher' with no idea of how they work.

so lets correct your incorrect assumptions about my post ,
"I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it"
the bb , we were talking of proof for what was before the bb ,
so my response , were not going back to watch it ,
nobodies going to build a space craft and time travel back to the bb ,
you REALLY think I don't know we look back in time the further out we look,
like your parting with this big wisdom I didn't have,,?????????
you are a simpleton ,

There is no way to prove what was 'before' the BB as science deals with the empirical, not religion or faith.

"we can't please all of the people"
no that is not what I seek , never claimed to have been , your very confused,

Not as confused as you as you'll find no quote like this from me?

"physicists don't talk about "before"as it's not possible to discuss such things,"
as I said , we aint going back to watch it,,,DUH ,!!!!!

I think you fail to understand that in the theory time is a spatial direction, its a spatial dimension. I think you keep thinking of it as a 'bang' that appeared in Space, but from what I understand the BB is the creation of Spacetime. So nowhere in our Universe will we find a 'center' or an originating point of creation. You could say that none of the galxies are moving at all, whats happening is Spacetime is expanding which gives the impression of movement but all thats happening is the distance between the galaxies is expanding. Did you not watch the Krauss lecture?

what happened to "that is exactly what were doing when we observe the far reaches of the universe"
"black holes are still just a theory"
so I take it from that that your not impressed by theory,,???
JUST theory doesn't do it for you,,???
obviously it depends on which theory ,
if it's the bb theory , there is no other option or real alternative ,

Again I'm not being clear, there were and are, I assume, many theories about such things, but currently the BBT best fits the experimental data. The steady-state and big-crunch theories do not, otherwise they'd be the currently accepted theory.

I would pressume far more Newtonians would back black holes over the bbt,
any day , far more probable and likely , that black holes exist ,
than the bbt is true ,

I doubt they even have them in opposition.

we can see the stars circling something , and it has to have a massive ,
gravitational pull to hold all those stars in it's grip,
we have observational evidence to support the black hole theory,,!!

Again you show your misunderstanding of such things. There is no 'grip' or 'pull', so far, in Gravity.

you appear to be trying to pull apart anything you can of my posts,
with no real purpose or motive it seems ,
I don't get the sense your trying to make sense ,
your just trying to make nonsense of my sense,,!!!

I'm attempting to point out to you that one, what you are doing is not philosophy any more, and two, its not science. At best its a political metaphysics based upon your atheist 'belief' that science is somehow in cahoots with religion and that this situation can be solved by some dictat from govt.

[Arising_uk]

...
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."
Dictatorial, Stagnant, Elitism!

Or more likely just bored with crackpots and loons filling-up their forum with nonsense about subjects they've not bothered to study.

[Arising_uk]

If a site doesn't allow any controversial or contradictory views ,
then it is a dictatorship , and like any other , tow the party line , or your banned,
if the site wants to call me a crackpot , while they are at it they might want,
to call the Hubble telescope images crackpot ,
Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven ,
and numerous other physicists who don't support the big bang ,
they don't want the controversy because they have no answers ,
for questions like ,"what was before the big bang"
"why are we looking at galaxies older than 13.7 billion years " ?
they don't have good answers for these questions , so they ban the questions,
bloody hell ,

I doubt this is why they banned you. They banned you because you can't be bothered to learn their language and discuss your concerns in a way they can agree or disagree with. Quoting authorities in science is exactly how science doesn't work and why, although they revere them, they also know that they should not accept things just because of the reputation of the speaker. You continually ignore that many more as notable physicists do support the theory.

You also fail to understand that Physics loves things like apparently older galaxies, as it means work for them, as it points to their theories of galaxy formation being in error or there may be another explanation, either way you also ignore that it the astro-physicists themselves that are discovering such things! Hardly the acts of the dogmatist.

Your problem appears to be that you are searching for some kind of existential faith or meaning for life and existence from the sciences, why?

Our first attempts to put an age on the Earth ,
were way off , far too short a time ,
I get the feeling we have done it again , 13.7 billion , seems far too short ,
when you look at the data coming out these days,
galaxies could be as old as 100 billion years old or more ,
I saw on a site today our sun is in it's second or third cycle ,
the matter has been a star before gone bang and re-formed a star ,
if it's third time , thats more than 13.7 billion years,,,!!!

You keep describing the process as tho' some one sat in a chair and made a guestimate? Such things were based upon the current theories and state of knowledge at the time. So the deep-time of geology came about due to the understanding of rock formation and sedimentary layers(chemistry).

You on the other hand keep saying things like "I feel" but feelings have bugger all to do with proving your 'feeling'. To do this you need to understand the subject, so go get the requisite study(you appear fairly thoughtful) and you may be taken seriously.

Take the above for example, you've read a website and made a general assumption that is not there. Whilst it appears true that the matter that makes us and our star has already been a sun before, i.e. in a very real sense we are all star-dust, its not the case that 'our sun' is in some kind of cycle. Our sun has one lifetime like all the others. You also appear to think that all suns age and expire at the same rate?

[lancek4]

As I have said often ,"reality is an individual experience"
it's like your determined to draw nonsense from sense ,

The reality might be that they can only experience their 'reality' but this does not make reality dependent upon the individuals experience. Of course this is only my belief but I tend to think reality will still exist even upon the extinction of all individual experiences. You of course are free to believe that reality depends upon you, much like the religious think its been made for them.

What I'm trying to draw from you is the understanding that what you are doing is called metaphysics and in the history of philosophy we've come to the conclusion that its a waste-of-thought in the subject you have chosen to discuss, i.e. Astro-physics. If you truly wish to challenge the current BBT theory then you need to learn to speak to them in their language, otherwise they will consider you at worst a crank and at best yet another 'philosopher' with no idea of how they work.

so lets correct your incorrect assumptions about my post ,
"I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it"
the bb , we were talking of proof for what was before the bb ,
so my response , were not going back to watch it ,
nobodies going to build a space craft and time travel back to the bb ,
you REALLY think I don't know we look back in time the further out we look,
like your parting with this big wisdom I didn't have,,?????????
you are a simpleton ,

There is no way to prove what was 'before' the BB as science deals with the empirical, not religion or faith.

"we can't please all of the people"
no that is not what I seek , never claimed to have been , your very confused,

Not as confused as you as you'll find no quote like this from me?

"physicists don't talk about "before"as it's not possible to discuss such things,"
as I said , we aint going back to watch it,,,DUH ,!!!!!

I think you fail to understand that in the theory time is a spatial direction, its a spatial dimension. I think you keep thinking of it as a 'bang' that appeared in Space, but from what I understand the BB is the creation of Spacetime. So nowhere in our Universe will we find a 'center' or an originating point of creation. You could say that none of the galxies are moving at all, whats happening is Spacetime is expanding which gives the impression of movement but all thats happening is the distance between the galaxies is expanding. Did you not watch the Krauss lecture?

what happened to "that is exactly what were doing when we observe the far reaches of the universe"
"black holes are still just a theory"
so I take it from that that your not impressed by theory,,???
JUST theory doesn't do it for you,,???
obviously it depends on which theory ,
if it's the bb theory , there is no other option or real alternative ,

Again I'm not being clear, there were and are, I assume, many theories about such things, but currently the BBT best fits the experimental data. The steady-state and big-crunch theories do not, otherwise they'd be the currently accepted theory.

I would pressume far more Newtonians would back black holes over the bbt,
any day , far more probable and likely , that black holes exist ,
than the bbt is true ,

I doubt they even have them in opposition.

we can see the stars circling something , and it has to have a massive ,
gravitational pull to hold all those stars in it's grip,
we have observational evidence to support the black hole theory,,!!

Again you show your misunderstanding of such things. There is no 'grip' or 'pull', so far, in Gravity.

you appear to be trying to pull apart anything you can of my posts,
with no real purpose or motive it seems ,
I don't get the sense your trying to make sense ,
your just trying to make nonsense of my sense,,!!!

I'm attempting to point out to you that one, what you are doing is not philosophy any more, and two, its not science. At best its a political metaphysics based upon your atheist 'belief' that science is somehow in cahoots with religion and that this situation can be solved by some dictat from govt.

I think I'm getting a crush on AUK, so I hope he's a girl.

[Arising_uk]

p.s.
I stand corrected, as I just re-watched the Krauss lecture(great fun!) and the idea that we could 'see' the BB is correct, but there is a 'wall' of opaqueness due to the way the CMB works.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."
Dictatorial, Stagnant, Elitism!

Or more likely just bored with crackpots and loons filling-up their forum with nonsense about subjects they've not bothered to study.

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

[lancek4]

...
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."
Dictatorial, Stagnant, Elitism!

Or more likely just bored with crackpots and loons filling-up their forum with nonsense about subjects they've not bothered to study.

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

And yet, it is this same kind of science (located in this process of 'power') though which is found climate change, global warming, and eco-catastophism.

[Arising_uk]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

Excuse for what? Not allowing their forum to be full of talk by those who don't know what they are talking about? You think ignorance should be encouraged? They well may be exercising power but what of it? Its hardly repressive to request a shared basis upon which to discuss a scientific subject.

[John]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

It seems reasonable to me that ideas under discussion should have been subject to peer review so they're not saying that unorthodox ideas cannot be discussed.

Without knowing what Godfree posted or attempted to post it's hard to comment on his particular case.