Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roge ... r-all.html


So anyways,

Interesting, then again, it feels as if theoretical physicists always are in a state of uncertainty, and I'm never quite sure if I'm to believe any of them.

Wrong forum again though, this is belongs in science forum.

TVoT,

You may want to peruse most of the posts in a thread called "The universe expands". The vast majority of Godfree's posts are rants involving cosmic expansion and the related science.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10675

Rotating galaxies are bluer on the approaching edge and redder on the receding edge.

YehYeh wrote:Rotating galaxies are bluer on the approaching edge and redder on the receding edge.

I have heard that claimed , never seen the images that show it ,,???
we can try and explain things many ways , either the universe is expanding , or it's not ,
if it is infinite ,,,it is not expanding ,, so isn't that the first question ,
is the universe infinite or finite ??
the red shift can be explained by several theories , Kuzys , well done not heard this theory before ,
photon decay , or the universe is expanding ,
but we have problems with the idea that the universe is expanding ,
mainly that the observational data does not fit the bbt ,
the more recent the images the less it seems to support the tired old idea ,
galaxies are clumping together , not moving apart , the galaxy looks a bit like ,
balls all packed in tight , and the galaxies are the gaps inbetween the balls ,
strings and clumps , chains , these are the way the pattern is described ,
what is becoming obvious is they are not all moving away from each other .

Kuznetzova wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roge ... r-all.html


So anyways,

Marry me you sexy woman ,,
no surprise the UK telegraph , how many american papers ran that one ,??
there is a noticeable difference in the UK science vrs the american bbt fundamentalists ,
Einstein originally claimed steady state ,
and it was the likes of Hubble , and no doubt some american funding that changed his mind ,
Fred Hoyle , Sir Fred I believe , another steady state man ,
if this world is ever going to become sane , lets face it , it's not there now ,
it is going to have to lose it's religion , it's simply not rational ,
as long as they cling to their precious bbt ,
they can claim a moment of creation ,
and that is why I believe the americans are so determined to promote the bbt .

Godfree wrote:if this world is ever going to become sane , lets face it , it's not there now ,
it is going to have to lose it's religion , it's simply not rational ,
as long as they cling to their precious bbt ,
they can claim a moment of creation ,
and that is why I believe the americans are so determined to promote the bbt .

Godfree, sorry to be so blunt, me old mucker, but you are ranting like a fundamentalist nutter. The most alarming actual fundamentalist nutters insist that the bible is a literal description of historical events and they despise the Big Bang theory precisely because it denies that the world was created in seven days. The Big bang theory is fuck all to do with religion.
Do yourself a favour, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift . Note that it is not only Americans that support cosmological expansion and there is no suggestion that all the people mentioned are Christian headcases.

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:if this world is ever going to become sane , lets face it , it's not there now ,
it is going to have to lose it's religion , it's simply not rational ,
as long as they cling to their precious bbt ,
they can claim a moment of creation ,
and that is why I believe the americans are so determined to promote the bbt .

Godfree, sorry to be so blunt, me old mucker, but you are ranting like a fundamentalist nutter. The most alarming actual fundamentalist nutters insist that the bible is a literal description of historical events and they despise the Big Bang theory precisely because it denies that the world was created in seven days. The Big bang theory is fuck all to do with religion.
Do yourself a favour, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift . Note that it is not only Americans that support cosmological expansion and there is no suggestion that all the people mentioned are Christian headcases.

Yawn ,,,
you don't think I have red all of that before ,
if you want an expanding universe , you need to be able to describe finite , the mechanism ,
you would have to describe "nothing " ,
you know , the universe is so big and then"nothing" ,
to just say the red shift is proof the universe is expanding , is not supported by ,
other ways to look at the puzzle , photon decay is undeniable ,
no form of energy lasts forever , light is a form of energy , there is energy in light that can be released ,
many miles from the source , a transfer of energy from one place to another , light carries energy ,
so it can't not lose energy , and eventually decay ,
it would appear that decay to the invisible spectrum occurs at about 14 billion light years ,
the galaxies are not all moving apart , try us , our nearest galaxy ,
moving towards us , just as you would expect in a steady state universe ,
all galaxies will be moving towards their nearest or largest nearby galaxy ,
not moving apart at all ,
try getting up to date with the observational data ,
they are having to come up with more and more bizzare theories to make the bbt fit as the data ,
conflicts more and more with the theory ,,,!!!

Godfree wrote:Yawn ,,,
you don't think I have red all of that before ,

If you say you have, I have no reason to doubt you, but it is evident that you have read it in the belief that the Big Bang theory is a Christian conspiracy to convince atheists that the creation story is true. That is utter bollocks. I am not a Christian and yet I think the Big Bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the observed red shift. So if the creationist nutters hoped that I would therefore feel compelled to swallow their account for how the world came to be, the strategy has failed.

Godfree wrote:if you want an expanding universe , you need to be able to describe finite , the mechanism ,
you would have to describe "nothing " ,
you know , the universe is so big and then"nothing" ,

It is nothing to do with what I want. What on Earth is there to explain about "nothing"?

Godfree wrote:to just say the red shift is proof the universe is expanding , is not supported by ,
other ways to look at the puzzle ,

Well, no. Alternative explanations generally don't support the argument they are an alternative to.

Godfree wrote:photon decay is undeniable ,

Not if you don't refuse to deny it.

Godfree wrote:no form of energy lasts forever , light is a form of energy , there is energy in light that can be released ,
many miles from the source , a transfer of energy from one place to another , light carries energy ,
so it can't not lose energy , and eventually decay ,
it would appear that decay to the invisible spectrum occurs at about 14 billion light years ,

We've been here before; as SpheresOfBalance magnificently put it, a single fart will propel you around the universe forever. You're thinking like a pre-Newtonian, his first law of motion states: An object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. In other words, unless something stops it, an object will continue forever, without losing energy. Not convinced? Try the law of conservation of energy, which states that the energy of a isolated system doesn't change; a photon crossing intergalactic space is pretty bloody isolated.

Godfree wrote:the galaxies are not all moving apart , try us , our nearest galaxy ,
moving towards us , just as you would expect in a steady state universe ,

Indeed. Andromeda is on a collision course and a few other galaxies in our local cluster are also coming our way. The other 200 billion or so galaxies in the visible universe are all moving away.

Godfree wrote:all galaxies will be moving towards their nearest or largest nearby galaxy ,
not moving apart at all ,

If your universe is infinitely old, why haven't all galaxies clumped together?

Godfree wrote:try getting up to date with the observational data ,
they are having to come up with more and more bizzare theories to make the bbt fit as the data ,
conflicts more and more with the theory ,,,!!!

Such as? YehYeh made the point:

YehYeh wrote:Rotating galaxies are bluer on the approaching edge and redder on the receding edge.

To which you replied that you haven't seen the pictures. Have you looked?
Religion has got a lot of things to answer for; the Big Bang isn't one of them.

If you accept the bbt ,
then ,
the universe is not infinite ,,
to take one piece of knowledge out of context and make it sound plausible ,
doesn't help see the whole picture .
so don't just say you think the red shift is reality ,
give us the whole picture , will the universe ,
continue to expand forever , stop expanding and begin to contract ,
how old is the universe , what caused it to start if such a thing happened ,
if before the bb there was nothing , or a point of singularity ,
what caused it to change , does the universe really come and go ,???
or would that be the matter comes and goes within an infinite universe ,,?????????

You appear to not want to watch this. Try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jY5BjGADv4
Not saying it's the 'truth' but it addresses what you raise.

Godfree wrote:give us the whole picture ,

I'm afraid I can't do that. When people give up searching for answers and insist that their understanding of how the world works is the truth, they either found a religion or are dismissed as nutters. The reason science and philosophy exist is that some people haven't given up trying to find out what's what; the search for answers is an admission that we haven't found them all yet. Any picture of the world that is provided by science or philosophy is riddled with ifs and buts and maybes. Your insistence that the world must be as you see it is closer to religious dogma than philosophical wonder; it makes you look foolish.

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:give us the whole picture ,

I'm afraid I can't do that. When people give up searching for answers and insist that their understanding of how the world works is the truth, they either found a religion or are dismissed as nutters. The reason science and philosophy exist is that some people haven't given up trying to find out what's what; the search for answers is an admission that we haven't found them all yet. Any picture of the world that is provided by science or philosophy is riddled with ifs and buts and maybes. Your insistence that the world must be as you see it is closer to religious dogma than philosophical wonder; it makes you look foolish.

Clearly you don't understand me , at school , I always won the hundred meters ,
I was fastest out of the blocks and then just had to maintain that lead ,
I'm the fastest to find and re-evaluate the knew knowledge ,
to come up with how the universe looks taking in to consideration all the new info ,
and if you know what your doing , the info will support your story ,
the recent observational data does not support the bbt ,
it supports a much older larger universe , that is not expanding ,,!!!

Arising_uk wrote:You appear to not want to watch this. Try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jY5BjGADv4
Not saying it's the 'truth' but it addresses what you raise.

I have mentioned on many occasions that I am on dial-up ,
so just find it a wee bit boring waiting for the universe to go bang ,
and the clip says a Universe From NOTHING ,
now we have my brain kicking in and saying bullshit ,not from nothing ,
an infinite universe cannot be gathered into a "nothing" point of singularity ,
so we keep , or I do , getting back to the universe is infinite so therefore ,
it isn't expanding , didn't go bang etc

You're making two conflicting claims here; on the one hand you say:

Godfree wrote:I'm the fastest to find and re-evaluate the knew knowledge ,
to come up with how the universe looks taking in to consideration all the new info ,

If this were true, then you would have been amongst the first to find and re-evaluate the new knowledge that convinced the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists that the universe was expanding.
However, I doubt that you have ever believed that the universe is expanding, because:

Godfree wrote:and if you know what your doing , the info will support your story ,

You believe all the bits that support your story and ignore anything that challenges it. It's nothing to do with being the fastest, it's called confirmation bias.

Godfree wrote:the recent observational data does not support the bbt ,
it supports a much older larger universe , that is not expanding ,,!!!

What recent observational data do you believe supports your view?