For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.Godfree wrote:there are no constants , apart from change
yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,Notvacka wrote:That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.Godfree wrote:there are no constants , apart from change
Your statement about constants and change indicated that you were talking about some variable speed of light threory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_lightGodfree wrote:yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,Notvacka wrote:That might be true from a philosophical standpoint (panta rhei as Heraclitus put it). But in physics we do have a few constants, and the world would be incomprehensible without them.Godfree wrote:there are no constants , apart from change
I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,
Your statement about constants and change indicated that you were talking about some variable speed of light threory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varying_speed_of_lightGodfree wrote:[
yes I could say nothing lasts forever , everything eventually decays,
That is simply not true. There is nothing without a cause. What makes light decay?
I tend to work a lot of these things out for myself ,
but have looked for other similar claims ,
Michael Lewis ,,The Hubble Red Shift by photon decay;
a sensible explanation , this web page seems to be saying ,
the red shift could be caused by photon decay ,
if this is true , we can then question if the universe is expanding ,
if so what is the proof ,
That is simply not the case. The red shift is the reason why the night sky is dark; light from distant galaxies are shifted below the visible spectrum. We can't see that light with our eyes, but with the right equipment it can be observed and measured. The red shift itself is well documented, and the generally accepted explanation for the red shift is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Photon decay is an alternative explanation that doesn't fit with other observations.Godfree wrote:if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,
Godfree wrote:That is simply not true. There is nothing without a cause. What makes light decay?
[/color]
On the other hand, your mentioning of photon decay indicates that you are talking about some tired ligth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,
I am getting the feeling that you don't want to learn anything here ,
you feel you know it all and are trying to give me homework ,
So lets see if I have you correct,
light goes on forever , never decaying , the universe has two constants ,
change , and light,,???
what generates light , energy by any chance,,???
light doesn't appear out of nothing , it takes energy to make that light,
if science could come up with something that stored energy forever ,
don't you think we would have , light batteries ,???
This declarative parroting is absurd, so one keeps up with the common beliefs (theories) of the day.Notvacka wrote:That is simply not the case. The red shift is the reason why the night sky is dark; light from distant galaxies are shifted below the visible spectrum. We can't see that light with our eyes, but with the right equipment it can be observed and measured. The red shift itself is well documented, and the generally accepted explanation for the red shift is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Photon decay is an alternative explanation that doesn't fit with other observations.Godfree wrote:if light radio waves etc didn't decay , we would be able to see the rest of the universe, regardless of how much red shift ,if they don't decay the radio waves or whatever radio waves stretch into would still be there for us to see,
Did you read the wikis I linked to? You really should read up on the basics before jumping to conclusions.
Yes. I think it's good advice to keep up with the beliefs/theories you are discussing.SpheresOfBalance wrote:This declarative parroting is absurd, so one keeps up with the common beliefs (theories) of the day.
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.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Are we merely parrots, or can we think for ourselves?
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.SpheresOfBalance wrote: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."
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.SpheresOfBalance wrote:You have jumped to the conclusion that the current theories are correct.
At least two possible explanations have been offered:Godfree wrote:If the universe IS NOT EXPANDING , what are the possible explanations for the red shift,,,????
Some "philosophers" seem to deliberately not keep up with developments in science.John wrote: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."
