Re: The Big Bang is Busted
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:06 pm
I think you need more of it on a regular basis.SpheresOfBalance wrote:My Screw UP!
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I think you need more of it on a regular basis.SpheresOfBalance wrote:My Screw UP!
And thanks for making sure I have at least one more!bobevenson wrote:I think you need more of it on a regular basis.SpheresOfBalance wrote:My Screw UP!
I don't even know where you live.SpheresOfBalance wrote:And thanks for making sure I have at least one more!bobevenson wrote:I think you need more of it on a regular basis.SpheresOfBalance wrote:My Screw UP!
Then:SpheresOfBalance wrote:My Screw UP!
Then:bobevenson wrote:I think you need more of it on a regular basis.
Then:SpheresOfBalance wrote:And thanks for making sure I have at least one more!
Then:bobevenson wrote:I don't even know where you live.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's to be expected!
Since nobody else seems brave enough to comment on this site I posted , would you two like to have a go , seems they ask for the proof ,bobevenson wrote:I don't expect anything, I just take what I can get.
There is no question of the universe expanding, the only question is whether it is slowing down or speeding up. I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree because the general consensus of astrophysicists is totally against what you argue.Godfree wrote:Since nobody else seems brave enough to comment on this site I posted , would you two like to have a go , seems they ask for the proof ,bobevenson wrote:I don't expect anything, I just take what I can get.
and when you provide it , silence ,,???
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org,
give me your opinion , I think support for a non expanding universe ,
is expanding ,,!!!
Apart from the incorrect assumption that the red shift is caused by movement,bobevenson wrote:There is no question of the universe expanding, the only question is whether it is slowing down or speeding up. I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree because the general consensus of astrophysicists is totally against what you argue.Godfree wrote:Since nobody else seems brave enough to comment on this site I posted , would you two like to have a go , seems they ask for the proof ,bobevenson wrote:I don't expect anything, I just take what I can get.
and when you provide it , silence ,,???
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org,
give me your opinion , I think support for a non expanding universe ,
is expanding ,,!!!
Sorry, I've been otherwise occupied for the last few days and reading the answers that follow this my own answer will probably be predicatlbe and repetitious.SpheresOfBalance wrote: But I would like you to answer the hypothetical questions below. I'm really not seeking answers for my edification here, but I believe it shall put things into their proper perspective. You should, however post you answers or a dialog as to your view of them, call me curious.[/color]
Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yeah, and what "time" is it?
So if 51% of astro physicists support the bbt , then for you thats proof enough???bobevenson wrote:Ask yourself a simple question: Is the consensus among astrophysicists that the universe is expanding? If the answer is yes, then on what basis can you refute this consensus? You obviously don't know shit about astrophysics, astronomy or mathematics. In fact, I think a psychological workup would conclude that you're a lunatic!
Ask the top in any field and they will claim to be right ,,!!!bobevenson wrote:Ask the top 10 scientists involved in this subject, and they will all undoubtedly agree that the universe is expanding. Please, there's no rational way to refute their conclusion, my friend.
First you have to remember that there is no such thing (clock), that actually measures time itself. In all cases clocks are based upon the rate of change of a process, whether it be a pendulum, decay of a particle or otherwise.John wrote:Sorry, I've been otherwise occupied for the last few days and reading the answers that follow this my own answer will probably be predicatlbe and repetitious.SpheresOfBalance wrote: But I would like you to answer the hypothetical questions below. I'm really not seeking answers for my edification here, but I believe it shall put things into their proper perspective. You should, however post you answers or a dialog as to your view of them, call me curious.[/color]
Say you're in a space ship smack dab in the middle of an infinite universe, and there is nothing else anywhere. You are the only thing. Where are you, how fast are you going, and what is your trajectory? Oh yeah, and what "time" is it?
Properties such as location, speed and trajectory are meaningless without a reference point which I obviously would not have in an infinite and otherwise empty universe.
What time is is would be subjective to any measuring system I chose to initiate so without the movements of the Earth around the Sun to base it on I would have to base it on something else such as the transition frequency of caesium-133. Only elapsed time is relevant though and with regards relativity it would only be relevant if I had another frame of reference to compare them.
Incidentally, if time is not affected relativistically what's is your explanation for time discrepancies in clocks, either those where the theory has been tested or where it is put to practical use such as in GPS systems?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock