Philosophy Now Forum

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"
We have examples of the mechanics of the universe ,
with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,
and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges,
So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???
The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

When oh when will people who write upon philosophy boards realise that Philosophy does not do this kind of Metaphysics any more, especially not in Phil of Science.

We have given-up the idea that reasoning from an armchair only can provide useful theories or laws of nature. Why? Because the Newtonian metaphysicians have well and truly trounced such an idea, hence the 'sciences'.

If you think your hypothesis have merit then you need to study Maths up to say a UK A-level then Physics up to probably an MSc and then produce mathematical models to support your 'Law' and produce testable experiments that better fit the experimental data than the current BBT and even better produce testable experiments that would disprove what you say. Until then you are blowing hot-air much like the religions you say you are 'free' of.

I also note that much of what you use for your thought experiment is actually based upon the ideas from the subject your are trying to say is wrong?
p.s.
You forget the cosmic microwave background as evidence for the BBT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation
p.p.s
You appear to think that the physicists would dislike a disproof of the BBT? They would love it! As it would mean whole new research areas which would mean oodles of work and fun for them. Might keep them away from Finance at least.
p.p.p.s
You might like this for your edumicashun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Arising_uk wrote:When oh when will people who write upon philosophy boards realise that Philosophy does not do this kind of Metaphysics any more, especially not in Phil of Science.

We have given-up the idea that reasoning from an armchair only can provide useful theories or laws of nature. Why? Because the Newtonian metaphysicians have well and truly trounced such an idea, hence the 'sciences'.

If you think your hypothesis have merit then you need to study Maths up to say a UK A-level then Physics up to probably an MSc and then produce mathematical models to support your 'Law' and produce testable experiments that better fit the experimental data than the current BBT and even better produce testable experiments that would disprove what you say. Until then you are blowing hot-air much like the religions you say you are 'free' of.

I also note that much of what you use for your thought experiment is actually based upon the ideas from the subject your are trying to say is wrong?
p.s.
You forget the cosmic microwave background as evidence for the BBT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation
p.p.s
You appear to think that the physicists would dislike a disproof of the BBT? They would love it! As it would mean whole new research areas which would mean oodles of work and fun for them. Might keep them away from Finance at least.
p.p.p.s
You might like this for your edumicashun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I get the feeling the people don't actually think about the claims I make,
they just assume if it was that easy they would have done it by now,
but it's not easy , and I am referring to modern science's observational data,
lets just break it down to one claim ,
if you can , dispute the observational data that ,
the galaxies are clumping together in strings or clusters ,
the picture of the galaxies , spread out like bubbles or honeycomb,
are you saying this is not correct ,
that this is not what the universe looks like,,???
"Hubble deep field supports non expanding universe"
and lets not forget the bbt is not the only theory,
it is the most popular , what else do we know that is popular ,
religion , obesity , not a good recommendation really is it,
popular , just the idea that the average clunk head thinks it's good ,
is enough to put me off ,,,!!!

You appear to think Physics is a popularity contest? Its not, its a metaphysic that eschews the kind of metaphysics you do, i.e. it has an epistemology to prove and agree as to what constitutes a theory. It does not cast its thoughts in stone nor iron, its quite happy to revise its theories in the light of any hypothesis that can be framed and tested and which fit the experimental data better than whatever the current theory is. So if you wish your ideas to have currency follow their path. Learn maths and frame your hypotheses. If not you are doing something which both philosophy and metaphysics do not consider useful any more. Its more like the religious approach you claim you are free of.

Everything you say is based upon their approach and words but the difference is that you think the words are their theories but its the maths and experiments that make their case.

Arising_uk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Lawrence Krauss is really entertaining and good at explaining. I hope Godfree watches this, since he doesen't seem to have read the wikis I linked to in another topic.

The Law states:

Any theory, howsoever derived, if it makes Godfree slightly uncomfortable about the possibility of resembling any religious or theological account is by that fact incorrect and is replaceable with any proximate convenient fudge.

Notvacka wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Lawrence Krauss is really entertaining and good at explaining. I hope Godfree watches this, since he doesen't seem to have read the wikis I linked to in another topic.

There appears to be an assumption here that if I ,
just learn a little more , I might see it your way,,,!!!!!
ditto , if only you would learn from the wiki reference I made ,
and web sites , nobody but sob would even comment on ,
www.bigbangneverhappened.org
there are people with physics degrees that don't agree with the bbt ,
I agree with these individuals , and support their science and maths ,
the whole expanding universe fantasy is based on a single assumption ,
that motion is what causes the red shift,
well I can also base my model on an assumption ,
the assumption that the universe is not expanding ,
in a non expanding universe there would be no other force acting on the galaxies to move them around ,
so gravity would do what we know it can

chaz wyman wrote:The Law states:

Any theory, howsoever derived, if it makes Godfree slightly uncomfortable about the possibility of resembling any religious or theological account is by that fact incorrect and is replaceable with any proximate convenient fudge.

what I'm talking about is the growing number of scientists against the bb,
Hannes Alfven would not have got a Nobel prize if plasma cosmology was not
a real contribution to our current understanding .
there is more scientifically wrong with the bb ,
than there is right ,if you want to talk FUDGE , try looking at the bbt
dark energy ,yet to be confirmed , is driving the galaxies apart,,,???
into the nothing , the no space time , in the finite universe ,,???
I think it's called conditioning , you lot seem so conditioned to believe whatever the highest authority on the subject says ,,???
never mind that it doesn't make any sense ,
as long as you are towing the party/notables line ,
your happy because you think you are backing a winner,
wrong , the winner will be a non expanding universe ,
and you only have to look at the current observational data ,
to draw these conclusions
check out the web site above

Arising_uk wrote:You appear to think Physics is a popularity contest? Its not, its a metaphysic that eschews the kind of metaphysics you do, i.e. it has an epistemology to prove and agree as to what constitutes a theory. It does not cast its thoughts in stone nor iron, its quite happy to revise its theories in the light of any hypothesis that can be framed and tested and which fit the experimental data better than whatever the current theory is. So if you wish your ideas to have currency follow their path. Learn maths and frame your hypotheses. If not you are doing something which both philosophy and metaphysics do not consider useful any more. Its more like the religious approach you claim you are free of.

Everything you say is based upon their approach and words but the difference is that you think the words are their theories but its the maths and experiments that make their case.

Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof ,
in this model , an infinite universe , not expanding ,
are you saying plasma cosmology is wrong ,,???
That the Nobel prize was awarded to a mistake ,,???
I don't need to re-invent the universe to create my model,
my model fits with plasma cosmology ,
thats what good science does , it agrees with it's self,
I had worked out most of the picture and sites like bigbangneverhappened
just confirm for me that I'm on the right track,
So starting with the assumption that the ,
Universe is infinite , and not expanding, I can then find existing theories,
that fit this assumption , so like a jig saw piece, if there is only a few pieces missing in the puzzle , you are a lot more likely to recognize the piece when you see your picture is almost complete,
but if you don't have a big picture ,
and are juggling a collection of images and bits that don't fit together or support each other , don't ad up to make any sense collectively,
then you are a chook with it's head chopped off ,
running around madly with no idea of where or why

Godfree wrote:Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof

Yes, I agree they have proof that the theory exists. You can read about it on Wikipedia after all so it must exist.

The bottom line here is that the subject matter is too technical for anyone but a specialist to make a real contribution so the rest of us are left waiting for the astrophysicists to come to a conclusion. That may be uncomfortable for some to accept but really, unless you can do the maths and talk the same language as the people testing the theories you're just wasting your time.

Godfree wrote:Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof ,
in this model , an infinite universe , not expanding ,
are you saying plasma cosmology is wrong ,,???
That the Nobel prize was awarded to a mistake ,,???

Hannes Alfvén was awarded the Nobel prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics, not for his plasma cosmology. It's a failed and abandoned theory.

You seem too embrace anything that confirms your view of the world and reject anything that challenges it. That's no way to do science or philosophy, but it's rather common among the religious.

Godfree wrote:There appears to be an assumption here that if I ,
just learn a little more , I might see it your way,,,!!!!!

I think that you might, actually. But if not, at least you would be able to argue your case better.

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof

Yes, I agree they have proof that the theory exists. You can read about it on Wikipedia after all so it must exist.

The bottom line here is that the subject matter is too technical for anyone but a specialist to make a real contribution so the rest of us are left waiting for the astrophysicists to come to a conclusion. That may be uncomfortable for some to accept but really, unless you can do the maths and talk the same language as the people testing the theories you're just wasting your time.

I think you can only speak for yourself , John ,
you my find it too technical and therefore assume everyone else also does,
but that is a common mistake , to assume others are the same or think like you,
years ago I posted a thread called ,"Big/little bang are we being deceived"
and on it I suggested that bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one , and that the red shift wasn't caused by movement,
the universe is infinite , and not expanding ,
So you can imagine when I find a model for the universe that also has these same realities , that I would find it infinitely more reasonable ,
or probable to be real or true than the bbt,
here are some simple examples of whats wrong with the bbt
the known universe is now so large we have to assume the large old galaxies at the outer limits of our view are older than the bang ,
we can assume this from their size and stage of evolution,
the pattern of galaxies we see across the universe , does not fit an expanding universe ,
rather it is exactly what you would expect to see if the universe was not expanding and gravity was the only force working on the galaxies pulling them into the patterns we see .
the Red Shift is caused by photon decay , not movement,
there are plenty more , but you have to want to find them ,
if you have already decided , then there is no point in looking,,!!!

Notvacka wrote:

Godfree wrote:Plasma cosmology , theory already exists , they have proof ,
in this model , an infinite universe , not expanding ,
are you saying plasma cosmology is wrong ,,???
That the Nobel prize was awarded to a mistake ,,???

Hannes Alfvén was awarded the Nobel prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics, not for his plasma cosmology. It's a failed and abandoned theory.

You seem too embrace anything that confirms your view of the world and reject anything that challenges it. That's no way to do science or philosophy, but it's rather common among the religious.

Godfree wrote:There appears to be an assumption here that if I ,
just learn a little more , I might see it your way,,,!!!!!

I think that you might, actually. But if not, at least you would be able to argue your case better.

his work on magnetohydrodynamics , which is part of plasma cosmology ,
it's not like they were separate subjects ,
and the people like Eric J Lerner think the bb is a dead idea and ,
being proven wrong more and more as the new info comes to hand ,
such as the Hubble deep field , Lerner claims this shows a luminosity rate consistent with a non expanding universe ,
I guess it's all who we choose to believe,,,!!!

Godfree wrote:...
I guess it's all who we choose to believe,,,!!!

And there in a nutshell is your problem. You are looking for another belief to replace your lost faith.

Godfree wrote:I think you can only speak for yourself , John ,
you my find it too technical and therefore assume everyone else also does,
but that is a common mistake , to assume others are the same or think like you,

I studied maths, physics and astronomy at university so I know how demanding it is and I know how easy it is to propose grand theories that don't require any serious, or any at all in your case, maths or experimental data to back them up. Children do it all the time.

Thinking you can make a serious contribution without actually studying the subject in a rigorous manner just demonstrates your arrogance and your delusions.

You're clinging to ideas because they reinforce a view of the universe that you want to preserve. Exactly the same as the religious believers you seem to think you're better than.