Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Arising_uk]

...
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!!

It could just mean that the theory of galaxy formation needs revision. It could means a whole host of things but none of them will be answered by your approach.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

So you've said.

So you've done! You constantly apply your presumption to my meaning and then hold me accountable, which is why I call you a liar and say that you merely spit out words to see where they splatter. It's what you do, I just can't decide if it's because you're daft, or you like playing games.

Actually I choose to believe that you're just playing games, and I'm not simply being kind. It's due to the over all evidence. You seem to do pretty well with words, such that I refuse to believe that you have absolutely no common sense, whatsoever, but it would seem so, if I am to believe that you actually believe the contents of your words!

It could just go to show, that you can lead a fool to parrot knowledge, but you can't make them think!

[Arising_uk]

So you've done! You constantly apply your presumption to my meaning and then hold me accountable, which is why I call you a liar and say that you merely spit out words to see where they splatter. It's what you do, I just can't decide if it's because you're daft, or you like playing games.

Nope, I tell you what I understand from your words and my reaction to them. Mainly in the form of a question to try and clarify the issue. That you think others should be mind-readers rather than readers is your issue. That you view this as "games" is another and what you think about me is of little concern to me given your responses so far.

I choose to believe that you're just playing games, and I'm not simply being kind. It's due to the over all evidence. You seem to do pretty well with words, such that I refuse to believe that you have absolutely no common sense, whatsoever, but it would seem so, if I am to believe that you actually believe the contents of your words!

What do you think I've said so far?

It could just go to show, that you can lead a fool to parrot knowledge, but you can't make them think!

Could it? That you refuse to discuss anything about your actual thoughts but prefer to indulge in pop-psychoanalysis just goes to show how a lack of knowledge affects self-esteem. Or is it that those who think for themselves aren't used to actually critiquing their thoughts?

[Godfree]

I think one of the problems here, godfree, is that such theories are not argued like philosophy (auk), the theories arise from the math, and it is the math that drives the theoritcial speculation, not merely sitting I our arm chair and clashing ideas together in our thought space.

I have spent many hours looking at sites that argue both sides ,
my opinion is a collection of physics and maths ,
by people with degrees on the subject , and I am quoting them ,
So Lancek nobody wants to discuss the red and dead,
will you give it a go , not my claim , from 2005 they have had images ,
of galaxies old and dead , and the image is 10 billion years old ,
can you explain to me how they can overlook this reality ,
according to the site ,"not predicted by theory"
they were surprised to see red and dead galaxies that far out ,
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!!

Obviously the terms 'young' 'blue' 'old' 'red' have been misapplied. The meaning of such terms have changed where the movement and activity of the universe has not, or vice versa. And, The position of man in view of his not self has manifested meaning whch expemplifies our current state of knowledge.

The BB has to do with describing a necessary beginning, as to the subject.
But The observed objects of the universe seem to evidence a stasis.
This discrepancy comes at a time when spiriitual-metaphytsical propositions are being seen for what they are: ubiquitous to knowing reality and transient, based upon contemporary circumstance of an unknowable basis.

Is that a good explanation?[/quote]
No ,
the term red and dead is correct and in this case ,
a team of people from Oxford university were compiling the evidence ,
so lets try it again ,
10 billion year old image , of galaxies that are at least 10 billion years old,
this is not a mistake , there is no error here ,
you will find many sites that confirm these red dead galaxies ,
and being a bit out on the calculations doesn't matter ,
there is more than enough time to reduce it by 10 or even 20% and the bb is still busted,
if you think this is bogus , surely you will accept Hubble ultra deep field ,
images revealing 10,000 galaxies at 13 billion light years , fully formed ,
I was just on a site explaining the bb and how all the hydrogen was made ,
in this explanation they suggested as much as 380,000 years ,
before things cooled down enough to form hydrogen ,
now accepting that we are now up to or out to 13.2 billion year old images ,
I'm sure you can follow the maths ,
13.2 plus say 400,000=13.6 ,, leaving just 100,000 years to ,
produce fully formed galaxies,
also on this site they admitted that the bb theorists have accepted that,
the bb released a massive amount of energy ,
that they don't know where it came from , and as scientists ,
will know you don't get energy from nothing ,
so try it again if you will , the ages and states of evolution are correct,
red and dead galaxies ,3.7 billion years after the bang

[Godfree]

...
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!!

It could just mean that the theory of galaxy formation needs revision. It could means a whole host of things but none of them will be answered by your approach.

oh my approach is wrong , not sticking out my pinky whilst sipping my,
cup of tea ,,I don't wear a shirt and tie either , obviously a peasant ,
the bb is busted , is becoming the Elephant in the living room ,
everybody keeps bumping into it but just can't see it or work out why,
the 13 billion year old universe looked the same as today ,
not predicted by the bbt , 13 billion year old images should be only young blue galaxies according to the theory , the theory is wrong,
the galaxies are red and dead , fully formed and everything in between ,

[Godfree]

Where did all the hydrogen come from,
this is my latest google search , and proving to be interesting ,
according to the bbt , the energy produced by the bb , cooled to form,
quarks and some other bits , that eventually formed hydrogen ,
at about 380,000 years after the bang ,
which means they are saying the nuclei were formed in open space,
as apposed to the pressure cooker of a black hole ,
so I'm instantly seeing a problem with this theory ,
we release the energy of a nuclei by force , it takes a targeted explosion ,
this is because the bonds that hold a nuclei together ,
were bonded under pressure , in a black hole ,
which is why it takes pressure to release it ,
so I see black holes as the source of all the hydrogen ,
as matter is broken down into nuclei and quarks etc , by the pressure,
it then becomes like a nuclei soup ,
so when a black hole goes bang , we get hydrogen ,
because matter has been reduced to it's single component again,
and spat out into the universe ,
as a non expanding universe model guy,
I would now see my picture as looking almost complete ,
black holes spit out hydrogen and stars convert that hydrogen into,
the heavy elements , the cycle is complete ,,!!!!!!!!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

So you've done! You constantly apply your presumption to my meaning and then hold me accountable, which is why I call you a liar and say that you merely spit out words to see where they splatter. It's what you do, I just can't decide if it's because you're daft, or you like playing games.

Nope, I tell you what I understand from your words and my reaction to them. Mainly in the form of a question to try and clarify the issue. That you think others should be mind-readers rather than readers is your issue. That you view this as "games" is another and what you think about me is of little concern to me given your responses so far.

I choose to believe that you're just playing games, and I'm not simply being kind. It's due to the over all evidence. You seem to do pretty well with words, such that I refuse to believe that you have absolutely no common sense, whatsoever, but it would seem so, if I am to believe that you actually believe the contents of your words!

What do you think I've said so far?

It could just go to show, that you can lead a fool to parrot knowledge, but you can't make them think!

Could it? That you refuse to discuss anything about your actual thoughts but prefer to indulge in pop-psychoanalysis just goes to show how a lack of knowledge affects self-esteem. Or is it that those who think for themselves aren't used to actually critiquing their thoughts?

The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

[Arising_uk]

...
oh my approach is wrong , not sticking out my pinky whilst sipping my,
cup of tea ,,I don't wear a shirt and tie either , obviously a peasant ,
the bb is busted , is becoming the Elephant in the living room ,
everybody keeps bumping into it but just can't see it or work out why,
the 13 billion year old universe looked the same as today ,
not predicted by the bbt , 13 billion year old images should be only young blue galaxies according to the theory , the theory is wrong,
the galaxies are red and dead , fully formed and everything in between ,

So you keep saying. Do you think you can back any of this up with falsifiable predictions? Can you model it with maths? Until then you are going to be wasting your time with a style of metaphysics that philosophy itself has abandoned.

What are you searching for or trying to achieve with such effort?

[lancek4]

I think one of the problems here, godfree, is that such theories are not argued like philosophy (auk), the theories arise from the math, and it is the math that drives the theoritcial speculation, not merely sitting I our arm chair and clashing ideas together in our thought space.

I have spent many hours looking at sites that argue both sides ,
my opinion is a collection of physics and maths ,
by people with degrees on the subject , and I am quoting them ,
So Lancek nobody wants to discuss the red and dead,
will you give it a go , not my claim , from 2005 they have had images ,
of galaxies old and dead , and the image is 10 billion years old ,
can you explain to me how they can overlook this reality ,
according to the site ,"not predicted by theory"
they were surprised to see red and dead galaxies that far out ,
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!!

Obviously the terms 'young' 'blue' 'old' 'red' have been misapplied. The meaning of such terms have changed where the movement and activity of the universe has not, or vice versa. And, The position of man in view of his not self has manifested meaning whch expemplifies our current state of knowledge.

The BB has to do with describing a necessary beginning, as to the subject.
But The observed objects of the universe seem to evidence a stasis.
This discrepancy comes at a time when spiriitual-metaphytsical propositions are being seen for what they are: ubiquitous to knowing reality and transient, based upon contemporary circumstance of an unknowable basis.

Is that a good explanation?

No ,
the term red and dead is correct and in this case ,
a team of people from Oxford university were compiling the evidence ,
so lets try it again ,
10 billion year old image , of galaxies that are at least 10 billion years old,
this is not a mistake , there is no error here ,
you will find many sites that confirm these red dead galaxies ,
and being a bit out on the calculations doesn't matter ,
there is more than enough time to reduce it by 10 or even 20% and the bb is still busted,
if you think this is bogus , surely you will accept Hubble ultra deep field ,
images revealing 10,000 galaxies at 13 billion light years , fully formed ,
I was just on a site explaining the bb and how all the hydrogen was made ,
in this explanation they suggested as much as 380,000 years ,
before things cooled down enough to form hydrogen ,
now accepting that we are now up to or out to 13.2 billion year old images ,
I'm sure you can follow the maths ,
13.2 plus say 400,000=13.6 ,, leaving just 100,000 years to ,
produce fully formed galaxies,
also on this site they admitted that the bb theorists have accepted that,
the bb released a massive amount of energy ,
that they don't know where it came from , and as scientists ,
will know you don't get energy from nothing ,
so try it again if you will , the ages and states of evolution are correct,
red and dead galaxies ,3.7 billion years after the bang[/quote]


Perhaps, like a human body that is of course the same age of itself, the are parts of it that 'age' to greater and lesser extents, like if one subjects ones skin to sun, that part 'ages' quicker that those parts that were under clothes, for example.

Perhaps, we have not come upon the ability to know of all aspects of effect gooing on in the universe.

[Arising_uk]

The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?
Oh so now we finally come to it. You're so tired of me hitting your nail upon it's head, that you seek my solution. It's enough that I see humanity for what it is, a cancer! It's up to you to find solution.

You're not paying attention: I DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING THE WAY.

If it fails, you and I will blame me. Those that are at odds, will blame me. It's 'impossible' for one man to find solution for everyone. A panel of our brightest, needs to concern themselves with it. My job is to point out the problem. I know that most of it has to do with our fear of death, that we are so selfish, but I am no psychologist, biologist, or brain specialist. How am I to possibly find proper solution.

It could be that it shall take some time for all to realize the problem for solution to manifest. But we have to become our own worst critic first. Why do you think I can't tolerate you or everyone else labeling me? It's because I know my flaws, only too well and no one can brow beat me more than I, which is why I won't take it from you. You don't deserve to, until such time that you mind your own store, and I know you don't, because of how you label everyone else! You're a "me, me, me, me," person if I've ever read one! From Bill's animal rights thread to this one, and every one in between, it's quite apparent. I've been the one consistently screaming: we, we, we, we and us, us, us, us, not me, me, me, me! You just don't pay attention, and therefore you just don't get it.

Now, am I the coolest head to disburse this truth? Hell no! I can be so crass and tactless it's not funny. I can sound like a big p****, due to my upbringing, that I'm working on. My attitude can really suck when someone push's me on purpose. I don't turn the other cheek, I'm an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of guy. But that does not mean that I don't see a problem, as a matter of fact, it may just be the reason I do!

It really started to sink in when I analyzed the saying: 'Money is the root of all evil' (I know that it's not the coined version, it's the popular one of the day, but the original has the same implications). I thought why did man (if memory serves, it may have been Jesus) create a saying that blames an inanimate object for all the evils of his world? Denial! of course! So originally I said. well if money is the root of all evil, then surely selfishness is the seed of all evil, as it sprouts the roots. (to hell with the chicken or egg paradox in this case, we start with the smallest and work toward the largest).

How do you fix it so no one has a temper tantrum? Good question? It cost Abraham Lincoln his life!

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

[lancek4]

The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

What 'articles'? Do youmean posts?

[lancek4]

I submit, that to view humanity as a cancer shows an aspect of the viewer, not so much the viewed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I submit, that to view humanity as a cancer shows an aspect of the viewer, not so much the viewed.

Clearly, your submission is based upon ignorance and thus denial!

[Godfree]

...
oh my approach is wrong , not sticking out my pinky whilst sipping my,
cup of tea ,,I don't wear a shirt and tie either , obviously a peasant ,
the bb is busted , is becoming the Elephant in the living room ,
everybody keeps bumping into it but just can't see it or work out why,
the 13 billion year old universe looked the same as today ,
not predicted by the bbt , 13 billion year old images should be only young blue galaxies according to the theory , the theory is wrong,
the galaxies are red and dead , fully formed and everything in between ,

So you keep saying. Do you think you can back any of this up with falsifiable predictions? Can you model it with maths? Until then you are going to be wasting your time with a style of metaphysics that philosophy itself has abandoned.

What are you searching for or trying to achieve with such effort?

Surely my quest is the same as everybody elses ,
to know reality , that has always been the aim , to know the real world ,
religion is clearly not real , so that is easy to dismiss ,
the bbt has a beginning to time , and space ,???also easily dismissed ,
so obviously there is another explanation for how we came to be ,
and it is that explanation that I am piecing together here ,
Black holes make hydrogen , and stars gobble it up,
stars make heavy elements and black holes gobble them up,
there was no big bang , beginning to time or space ,
I am 100% convinced that within a few years or say less than 10 ,
we will have images of galaxies beyond 13.7 billion light years,
and I'm going to really enjoy saying I told you so ,
so less mathturbation , and more believing what we see,
and we might actually finally get the real picture of the universe,,!!!