|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2010 : 02:24:54
|
Sorry. Is error.
I put below a new one.
Thanks.
|
Edited by - lbiar on 07/05/2010 02:53:33
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 05:10:57 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the Skeptic Friends Network!Originally posted by lbiar
1w Hubbles law: relation distance speed is impossible in expansion. |
This point fails because you assume that expansion is through space, but instead it is an expansion of spacetime. Newtonian physics fails to describe the universe correctly, but that's not because expansion is a failed hypothesis, it's because Newtonian physics is limited.| 2w Homogeneous expansion is impossible |
This point also fails because you're insisting upon a Newtonian analysis.| 3w The light we see in all universe is emitted near us according to expansion |
Again, the Newtonian analysis fails.| 4w - The expansion equal in all places according to the theory |
This point is nearly impossible for me to parse.Since the conclusions are based upon at least three false premises (false in that you assume that cosmological expansion can be modeled with Newtonian physics, ignoring Einstein altogether), the conclusions are not sound. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 12:39:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Correct me if I'm wrong Dave (not that it needed to be said), but Newtonian physics handles this situation perfectly fine as long as you properly assume that space itself is expanding. Relativistic effects don't come into play because as you said, it's not the objects that are moving, it's the space they live in.
Unless you're saying that space expanding is a relativistic effect, which I'm not sure I'd agree with. |
Newtonianism had a fixed 3-D space metric. It's not "relativistic effects" we're needing to account for, but instead the malleable spacetime metric that we need to use. In other words, from a Newtonian perspective, it really does look like the galaxies are moving through space, while from an Einsteinian viewpoint, spacetime just "grows" between the galaxies.
Well, no matter how we describe reality, lbiar's analysis assumes very wrong things. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2010 : 06:08:05 [Permalink]
|
Also it should be pointed out that it is not certain that the expansion is uniform, it may be that the Dark Energy is a result of empty space and that larger empty spaces expand faster.
Too bad you went to all that trouble without all the data, really the fact that ST is what is expanding is common knowledge to anyone who is interested in such things.
P.S. your words do not translate too well, many of your sentences read like a second-rate Chinese-English travel guide.
"I'm according to visual expansion."
"No evidences, a theory can't to be a evidence."
-these are unreadable
Lastly, you are completely wrong, clearly you have started with a conclusion and are trying to prove it with simple math and a woeful lack of expertise and easily found data. This is not the 19th century, you cannot rewrite physics without a masters in physics anymore*, it is too well founded.
Unless you're like Rain man...
...you are not like Rain man, sorry.
Also there are quite a few statements in your writing which do not compute, you need to expand your sentences to include more details. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 23:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, I think if you took classical Newtonian mechanics and added in everything necessary to accurately model our current observations, you'd wind up with something that's mathematically indistinguishable from General Relativity, because that's pretty much what Einstein and other post-Newton physicists have done.
Does cosmological red-shift even make sense in a Newton-plus-expanding-space context? If space only expands far from mass, then what Newtonian principle prevents red-shifted light from blue-shifting again as it nears Earth, in the unexpanded space around the Local Cluster? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2010 : 04:14:49 [Permalink]
|
We all know that the universe is not expanding, the Earth is!
If you can watch that video without screaming at the screen you are a better man than I am Gunga Din.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2010 : 10:13:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
We all know that the universe is not expanding, the Earth is!
If you can watch that video without screaming at the screen you are a better man than I am Gunga Din.
|
That's genius, perfectly done and extremely funny Rat. I actually got this emailed from a friend that lives here on St John, about 2 years ago. The same friend that truly thought gravity and magnetism are the same, whom I've referred to before. Because I thought she was serious at the time, I didn't see it's humorous intent, like I do now. I just went into shock, didn't reply and tried to forget that she might believe it. I must ask her, if she knows it as a joke.
Now when I watched it, when it said " The Atlantic spread is so obvious, that a child would recognize it!", I laughed and thought "or even a theist". What made me think of theist's was actually this is quite believable as delivered, only to those who choose not to view it critically and look at all the evidence pro and con. All it takes is for those ignorant of the topic to accept what is said, believe what is apparently obvious, then ignore or dispute any evidence to the contrary. Like convergence and subduction zones or "where did the water come form?". To name just three. Of course any believers (of this video) would have to piss on the contrary evidence, it's required so they won't have to say "How could I be so gullible?".
Rat get's my vote for best reply to the OP. I don't take Ibiar's OP as anything serious but posted as a trial balloon. It was his first and only post, so there is no history to judge. One I chuckled at but enjoyed all the serious replies generated. The replies made me think of Randy Olson's book " Don't Be Such A Scientist", which many here are akin to. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2010 : 13:04:52 [Permalink]
|
SS, have you looked at Ibiar's blog?
Google shows he's been spamming it around a bunch of science-oriented forums. He's serious. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2010 : 19:18:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
SS, have you looked at Ibiar's blog?
Google shows he's been spamming it around a bunch of science-oriented forums. He's serious.
|
Thanks for skinny (info). No I haven't seen his blog. Can't say I knew he had one. Why bother? I won't live long enough to visit every wack-a-loon's site on the web, even if I wanted to. I have to eat and believe I have a life. When I originally scanned his post, which was way to long to read in detail on a fist go round. I found nothing that caught my interest that made me want to read it over, in more detail. From the replies it got, which I read closer, I saw it's a bunch of shit, basically. The replies were way better than I could have given for the effort.
Whether He's toying, which I alluded to or real makes no difference to me. I posted because Rat gave a great link in reply (imo) and I said so. As I read the replies I felt that they were good enough but weren't going to change his mind. Rat's reply made me see the parallels in his errors of understanding reality and others. Parallels in how He maintains his rejection of conflicting data on his issue and others rejection of conflicting data on their issues. So I tried to say so. Maybe not everyone got that, maybe no one got it or maybe one other got it besides me. That would be nice.
Ibiar wrote
I have also 26 hypotheses for a cosmology without expansion |
Come on, there is no way I'm replying to that. Treating him seriously, in his court, is like dealing with a black hole. He needs to argue with himself, until he get's the number down a little, don't you think? SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2010 : 19:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Maybe not everyone got that, maybe no one got it or maybe one other got it besides me. |
Maybe I'm the only one who didn't get it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2010 : 04:12:15 [Permalink]
|
| It's pretty much the standard in physics and astrophysics theory (to say nothing of all the other sciences) that a new hypothesis needs to explain the known data better than established theory, rather than to ignore conflicting data. Ibiar, it seems to this non-physicist that you've conspicuously done the latter rather than the former. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2010 : 02:52:43 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry by the errors, I put a new one. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2010 : 02:53:46 [Permalink]
|
2 works:
1w The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory.
By expansion and homogeneity we see the universe in the form: 4-4-4-4 (each 4 is d/4), by distance speed, at double distance the speed is double and how t is c and t/2 is c/2 (t/2 is need to double distance and double speed, so d/4 is d/2 also in t/2) by that also is double time, so in t/2 less the form of this is 2-2-2-2. (d is distance of universe visual, t the time for this, c = lightspeed or: Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]).
If in actual time 4-4-4-4 = 16 is c and by that 8 needs t/2, we see a photon of d/2 (8) that was emitted from there in t/2 less, and in that time the distance was 4 (8 in t/2 less was half = 4), how c is constant that photon arrive to us in less of 3t/8 and not t/2 that need the expansion theory.
3t/8 because in first t/4 with expansion at c/4 finish in distance of 1 (4+1 or expansion -1), next t/4 expansion is at c/3 but is near (need between 1/16 and 2/16 with c of 16), so is near that arrive in less of 3t/8 (less that 4t/8 or t/2)
With formulas: d/2 is c/2 (d is c), this d/2 in t/2 is d with speed c, the light we see in d/2 need t/2 to see (need t/2 to travel to us), by that was emitted made t/2, in that time d/2 was in (d/2)/2 = d/4 and in d/4 light need less of 3t/8 to arrive to us.
According to the theory the universe expand equal in all points and by that more at more distance (the expansion is not at constant speed), but lightspeed is constant speed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2w - The stretching is our expansion (not compensate with expansion).
According to the expansion theory we see homogeneous the universe by expansion + stretch (or stretching), so we would see in the form 1-2-3-4, but by expansion + stretch (100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 = expansion + stretch) we see in the form 5-5-5-5 (because the expansion is 5-4-3-2-1), but this is false.
An example: there are 2 objects A and B, A is at 1 lightyear and B is ar 2 lighyears, we move away at c/2.
year 1: we don't see neither A nor B, A is at 1.5 lighyears and B is a 2.5 lighyears
year 2: we see A at 2 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3 lighyears
year 3: we see A at 2.5 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3.5 lighyears
year 4: we see A at 3 lighyears and also B at 4 lighyears
year 5: we see A at 3.5 lighyears and also B at 4.5 lighyears
The stretching don't change the relation between A and B that remains in 1 lighyear. We see A at 2 lighyears and B at 4 lighyears, but not in the form 2-4 how expansion theory need.
If the objects A and B are moving the distance is according to this, so in a universe in expansion the distance would be expansion + stretch, but expansion is the moving of the objects and stretch is our separation.
In expansion universe the stretch is in relation with expansion, so double distance is half expansion and also stretch. The formula of expansion + stretch is not 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 is not so, is: +25% of 75% (=93%), +50% of 50% (= 75%), +75% of 25% (=43%). Really is not 25-50-75% (this is thinking in homogeneity), the universe according to theory expand less in past (and by that farther) by that the expansion is like 8,4,2,1 (periods of t/4), by that is more like stretch of 8/15%, 12/15% and 14/15% - 12 is 8+4 and 14 is 8+4+2.
By that expansion is against homogeneity and also against Hubble's law.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
All my work is according to visual expansion and against real expansion.
In my web I have more arguments (but I only is sufficent) more or less good.
I have also 26 hypotheses for a cosmology without expansion - http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/bighypo.html
I have also more arguments in http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/expands/bigargs-html/ |
| Edited by - lbiar on 07/05/2010 13:34:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2010 : 07:34:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
2 works:
1w The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory.
By expansion and homogeneity we see the universe in the form: 4-4-4-4 (each 4 is d/4), by distance speed, at double distance the speed is double and how t is c and t/2 is c/2 (t/2 is need to double distance and double speed, so d/4 is d/2 also in t/2) by that also is double time, so in t/2 less the form of this is 2-2-2-2. (d is distance of universe visual, t the time for this, c = lightspeed or: Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]).
If in actual time 4-4-4-4 = 16 is c and by that 8 needs t/2, we see a photon of d/2 (8) that was emitted from there in t/2 less, and in that time the distance was 4 (8 in t/2 less was half = 4), how c is constant that photon arrive to us in only t/4 and not t/2 that need the expansion theory.
With formulas: d/2 is c/2 (d is c), this d/2 in t/2 is d with speed c, the light we see in d/2 need t/2 to see (need t/2 to travel to us), by that was emitted made t/2, in that time d/2 was in (d/2)/2 = d/4 and in d/4 light need only t/4 to arrive to us.
According to the theory the universe expand equal in all points and by that more at more distance (the expansion is not at constant speed), but lightspeed is constant speed. |
Is this a language problem, a math problem, or both?2w - The stretching is our expansion (not compensate with expansion).
According to the expansion theory we see homogeneous the universe by expansion + stretch (or stretching), so we would see in the form 1-2-3-4, but by expansion + stretch (100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 = expansion + stretch) we see in the form 5-5-5-5 (because the expansion is 5-4-3-2-1), but this is false.
An example: there are 2 objects A and B, A is at 1 lightyear and B is ar 2 lighyears, we move away at c/2.
year 1: we don't see neither A nor B, A is at 1.5 lighyears and B is a 2.5 lighyears
year 2: we see A at 2 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3 lighyears
year 3: we see A at 2.5 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3.5 lighyears
year 4: we see A at 3 lighyears and also B at 4 lighyears
year 5: we see A at 3.5 lighyears and also B at 4.5 lighyears
The stretching don't change the relation between A and B that remains in 1 lighyear. |
No, the above is not an example of cosmological expansion for at least two reasons. You're arguing against a wrong model, still.| So the formula of expansion + stretch is not 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100, is: 75+s = 50+s = 25+s, not 100% (s is stretch and is equal for all in the same moment). |
No, that's even more wrong. Just mathematically, even. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Universe expansion
