The Red Shift without Expansion

@McGentrix,

McGentrix,

Layman is posting from Rense.com. I don't know if you have run accross Rense before. They believe in Alien Abductions and Lost Ancient Civilizations on Mars.

Quote:

“The time to pull the curtain back on this subject is long overdue. We have statements from the most credible sources those in a position to know about a fascinating phenomenon, the nature of which is yet to be determined.”

The statement above comes from John Podesta (you can find the source for this quote, and more from Podesta on UFOs in this article), Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and Counsellor to Barack Obama. It’s a powerful statement, because it’s true. We now have witness testimony from hundreds upon hundreds of high ranking, very credible people from within politics and government, military, and intelligence agencies saying that the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomenon is indeed real and deserves serious attention.

To view some of these statements from just a few of these ‘credible’ people, you can click here.

We also have official, declassified documentation to back up these statements, you can view some of those here.

If you put two and two together, it’s clear that:

“There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been contacting us for a very long time.” Dr. Brian O’Leary, Former NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor (source)

But it’s not just the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon that seems to be gaining more transparency. Strange things have been observed in space. Perhaps this is why the Russian government recently called for an international investigation regarding the missing film footage of the U.S. moon landings, or why a U.S. Defence physicist and the Deputy Manager of the Clemintine Mission to the moon recently blew the whistle on what’s really up there.

Major General Albert Stubblebine can be added to the long list. Although he did not participate in the Citizens Hearing On UFO disclsoure (where a number of military, political, academic, and government personnel testified to several former congressional members), his credentials speak for themselves.

General Stubblebine is a retired United States Major General. He was also the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), and one of America’s most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command.

He was a major proponent of “psychic” warfare and a key player in the “Stargate” project, which was a remote vewing program. Remote viewing can be defined in multiple ways. It’s the ability of individuals to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometers away (sometimes even more) from their physical location.

http://www.rense.com/general96/genreveals.html

This is the opposite of Science. However, It is somewhat amusing.

1 Reply

As you would expect, wiki also has a rather lengthy article on the big bang which discusses some of the problems and competing viewpoints. Near the end of the article it says:

Quote:

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined. The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified. (Also see Planck epoch.)

One proposed refinement to avoid this would-be singularity is to develop a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[114]

It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, though speculation abounds in the field of cosmogony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As cocky as some present themselves to be about "having all the right answers," it seems that there is much more that is unknown than is known in every area of science.

Quote:

"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding." (Bierce)

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This is the opposite of Science. However, It is somewhat amusing.

1. I wasn't citing this site for it's view on aliens, Max. If you could read, you could see that I merely used them to access a REPRINT from a peer-reviewed cosmological journal.

2. It is so typical of you to try to attack the source (by resorting to the well-known FALLACIOUS ad hominem argument) rather than the substance of an argument.

3. Your misguided sneering at something that's not there says a lot about the depth of your "thought" on these topics.

4. Say something of substance, for once, why don't you? Respond to the voluminous problems addressed in the other article I cited, if you can (you can't, we both know it).

5. I'm sure you think you sound brilliant, knowledegable, and wise with your vacuous, evasive tactics, but I'm also sure that few others who pay attention see you that way. Grow up, son.

2 Replies

@layman,

It is not an ad hominem argument, because I am not seriously arguing with you. I just found it a bit funny that in your frantic Google searching to prove yourself you stumbled upon a website that talks about psychic warfare.

You are doing science by Google, which doesn't lead to any understanding. And, you are arguing against the scientific establishment without having even taken the time to learn science. There is no real argument here that has any merit. You are forcefully rejecting basic high school science... you haven't even really considered the fact that maybe it iscorrect.

I have been quite direct in my main point.

People who have taken Univsersity level science classes know a good deal more about science than people who get their science through Google searches. This is just a fact.

You clearly don't understand basic science or mathematics, and yet you take snippets you find on the internet as some sort of equivalent to a real science education.

My main objective here (as I have made clear) is to make it very clear to anyone who stumbles on this thread that the weird uninformed musings here have nothing to do with real science.

0 Replies

@layman,

None of that does anything to forward a better theory than the Big Bang though. I am glad that so many are looking for answers though.

Now, show the math!

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

None of that does anything to forward a better theory than the Big Bang though. I am glad that so many are looking for answers though.

Now, show the math!

None of it, eh, Gent?

Does "anything," eh?

****, you must know about 1,000 times as much about "real, true science" than you pretend to, eh?

You might even know about a tenth of what Max knows, which would be an outstanding achievement in its own right.

0 Replies

@layman,

And just to make it clear, I have no doubt that you could learn Physics, for real, if you put your mind to it. But there are no short cuts. You have to learn Physics the way that everyone learns Physics (and it doesn't involve searching the fringes of the Internet).

You start with Galileo and Newton, you master classical mechanics. You learn about limits, derivatives and integral calculus (all of this is done in AP Physics and Math in high school).

Then you might take a detour into Legrangian Mechanics, which is rather cool because it is a different way to look at the Physics which comes up with the same answers. I think most programs do this.

And you probably should study Electodynamics before Special Relativity. Maxwell's equations are covered in Electrodynamics, and they are important in relativity.

Then you start with Special Relativity. The Physics is rather different than classical physics, so students do lots of problem sets. And then there are some more courses... and you need to get to Partial Differential Equations in math... you are ready for General Relativity.

Physics is an open subject... but is 500 years of human advancement in Math and Science. There is a lot study.

You can't expect to refute people who have PhD's based on Google Searches. And when 99% of the the scientific community disagrees with 1%... you aren't really in the position to take the side of the 1% (otherwise known as the fringe).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I've heard your sermon about 50 times, now, Max. Sorry, but I guess I'm just not good proselytization material for your religion.

Good luck at the next house, eh?

0 Replies

@layman,

I have my name in that paper since many years.

It proves that many prominent scientists think that the red shift can be explained without the expansion.

But the explanation has never been so clear that it could be approved by people like Max here. Who can make it crystal clear? I have my tryings here. Those people think that it is better to make the evidence fit the model, because it can be done, and the majority is of that opinion. They don't want to chance the model. And they are prisoners of the Einsteins equations, where the problem is putting the time for the space of the whole big universe.

The red shift is important because it is the only evidence that really points to the expansion. All other things can easily be explained in the always big, big space of the universe.

Hoyle's model needs the creation of matter. But that is because he approves the expansion. So have I understood. If we accept the red shift and most of its interpretation but still don't accept the expansion, Hoyle's model is still most valid.

1 Reply

@Olli S,

If we get 100 physicists in a room, how many will agree with you?

(I do mean actual trained physicists carrying with them a degree and a GPA>3.0. )

Per Wikipedia (*groan*)

Quote:

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGent, your posts here sound like those of a 'Fan' that has chosen a team of choice rather than a participant.

Alternate viewpoints are what makes these discussions interesting, otherwise, why even bother.

Just saying "Hurray for Science!" is a safe position to take but it's boring and advances nothing, including science.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I am a Patriots fan. I am not a Patriots participant. I will be very happy when they win the Superbowl, but I will not really have any part in the victory.

The actual participants in NFL football do all the things required to participate in a world class NFL team. In order to be a participant they need to do things like

- Work out at the gym
- Run sprints.
- Learn the rules of football.
- Play in child leagues, and college.
- Study playbooks
- And... try out for a team.

I haven't done any of those things (acept for spending some time in a gym). I have no right to say that I am a participant in football even though I occasionally run out on a field and toss a ball around (and I have been known to yell at the screen). I will admit that sometimes I have yelled "how can you miss that tackle" at a professional linebacker when in truth I have never myself tackled anyone (not even once). It is kind of silly really.

That is what you are doing here. There are real Physicists who are actually doing the work in Physics. They have taken the classes, done the problem sets, done the experiments, read the papers, spent nights studying for exams.

These are the real Physicists. You are just some guy yelling at them.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

That's an odd thing to say.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Your football analogy proves too much, Max. Most of the greatest coaches in sports were never personally capable of playing at the professional level. They still knew how it "should" be done.

By analogy, theoretical physicists are "coaches" and practicing, experimental physicists are like players. Many, probably most, "players" would make terrible coaches. Their job is to "do" things, not "think" about them. They need only concentrate on their individual job. They don't need to understand the "big picture," and all of the the strategical aspects regarding every other player on the field.

We're talking about completely different functions. A great coach can be a fat-ass who eats twinkies all day. He doesn't have to go to the gym.

What you don't understand is that I have never been addressing "practical" physics. My interest, and my points, relate to the "philosophy of science."

What is the relationship of math to science?
What is the relationship between theoretical science and empirical observations?
What makes a theory "scientific" as opposed to "pseudo-scientific?"

Questions like that.

You don't need to be a master logician to understand basic logic. To know, for example, that "affirming the consequent" (which is the best scientific reasoning can do) is a formal logical fallacy. You routinely "affirm the consequent," apparently with no thought about the logical validity of doing so.

0 Replies

If you want to indoctrinate a child with a sense of religious meaning, a sense that God is ever-present, etc., you start with simple things, often involving rituals.

You tell them bible stories. You teach them to kneel down and pray every night before sleeping; to say grace before meals; to go to Sunday school every week, without fail, etc.

You don't try to train them to debate the complex and subtle questions that academic theologians may struggle with, such as the so-called "problem of evil."

Even so, at a very early age children will raise such questions. They will ask things like "If God loves me, and cares about me, why did he let my dog die" (or let a car hit me, or whatever). He doesn't have to be a "theologican" to raise such questions, nor to seek his own answers.

Some, perhaps most, devoutly religious people are satisfied with the relatively simple explanations they are given by their parents, when they are children, when such questions are raised. But some aren't, and pursue such questions further.

Indoctrination into science has it's parallels. Some just want to learn the proper rituals, be assured that their questions have been adequately answered, even if they don't fully understand them, etc. Some continue to ask questions when the simple answers they are given don't strike them as quite sufficient, ya know?

Whatever the subject they are being trained in is, many students just want to "know the right answer," so they can pass the test. Others aren't satisfied with that. They want to understand why the "right" answer is right.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I am a Patriots fan. I am not a Patriots participant. I will be very happy when they win the Superbowl, but I will not really have any part in the victory.

I forgive you. For penance, do 500 Hail Mary passes. Go and sin no more

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 71.0 ± 2.5 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.4 ± 1.4 (km/sec)/Mpc.

Gent, I really don't think you cited this excerpt from NASA for the purpose of discussing its actual content. But, even so, I would like to take a little closer look at it.

Did you notice the qualification in this sentence: "no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down."?

Read in conjunction with the prior couple of sentences, this is telling you that the "predictions" break down "close to the edge." So what does that tell you about the theory which generates the predictions (one of my earlier posts addressed this issue)?

Quote:

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 71.0 ± 2.5 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.4 ± 1.4 (km/sec)/Mpc.

What do they really mean by "...WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be...? What is WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)?
What does a spacecraft "show." Does it talk? Does it look into outer space and take pictures of a sign posted there which says, in big letters: "The Hubble Constant is± 2.5 (km/sec)/Mpc\?"

What do the words in this sentence really tell you?

A complete answer to that question could take many pages to "explain." A full explanation would have to include assumptions, which are not themselves observable facts or data. In this case, I think it would have to include assumptions which are not only "unproven" but also unprovable--beyond the scope of anything that could ever be proven by observation.

In short, the sentence really tells you nothing, standing alone. It sounds quite authoritative, but it really "explains" nothing. It is a conclusion--the result of a series of mental postulations and deductions. The observations do NOT give those conclusions--theory does.

Often an answer given by religious people will simply be that an assertion must be true because "the bible says so." That is not an explanation either. Furthermore what the bible "says" (i.e its "true" meaning) is generally subject to different interpretations and dispute.

Personally, I don't find the claim that "the bible says so" to be very informative (apart from what it may tell me about the person making it).

I don't feel any different if the answer is "because NASA says so," I'm afraid.

Or, for that matter, "because Max says so."

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

McGent, your posts here sound like those of a 'Fan' that has chosen a team of choice rather than a participant.

People tend to think that "scientific" subjects are different than "social" subjects, like say, politics.

Of course there are many actual differences, but certain things are about the same.

No matter what the particular scientific subject is (physics, biology, chemistry, or whatever) there are always internal debates about unresolved issues. And, just like in politics, factions form. One "side" favors a certain resolution and the "other side" a different resolution (theory).

And, invariably it seems, sides will be chosen based upon the "kind of person" doing the choosing. Basic philosophical approaches to things in general will often be the deciding factor which leads one to prefer one suggestion or theory over another.

The question of which "team" you're on, and which side you "root for" definitely comes into play in these so-called "scientific" debates. And the side you choose tends to depend on the fundamental personal premises and values a person has previously adopted/acquired more than the inherent "facts" or "logic" of the position chosen.

2 Replies

@layman,

True, I just wanted McGent to offer something of his own, even if he doesn't have the proper credentials. You know, like - ' I think they should have punted instead of running on that last play' or something. I really wasn't complaining about him being a fan, that's fine, but we're talk'n football here, not just cheerleading.

Damn, we're risking another Non-Science warning here

0 Replies

@layman,

No no no Layman. Science is not religion.

For one thing, Science accomplishes things. We are now curing diseases with science, we are putting robots on Mars, we are sending our ideas around the world on the Internet, we are extending the human lifespan.

The reason that Science is actually useful is that it is testable. Many issues can be resolved to the point where Scientists (i.e. the people who have studied for years to gain understanding) all agree that the evidence is overwhelming. This is nothing like religion or Philsophy where nothing is ever truly resolved to the point where it can actually do anything useful.

Yes, there are things in science that aren't resolved yet... and scientists are honest about that. The system and the scientific process are clear... an issue isn't resolved until there is a mathematical model that has been confirmed by experiments (in this case many experiments. No religion can do this. Yet science does resolve things...

The Earth Orbits the Sun (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). Humans evolved from earlier species (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). Germs are responsible for diseases (in spite of the arguments of philosophers). And time passes at different rates in different frames of reference.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't correct.

1 Reply

The Red Shift without Expansion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know