Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
43 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric, vimesey, WookieeB (10 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,488 Year: 20,524/19,786 Month: 921/2,023 Week: 429/392 Day: 45/74 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 16 of 181 (672490)
09-08-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
09-08-2012 7:03 PM


Percy,

I think I already stated I am a layman. Just someone who is interested in science and has a scientific turn of mind. I guess I always believed that science was a search for truth based on the scientific method. I recent years however I have been disturbed by what I see as an ideological "group think" as invulnerable to new information as any fundamentalist wackjob.

In response to what I've seen as disturbing eveidence of this I've recently read a number of books and articles by scientists who themselves are protesting everything from the mainstream tenets of modern Big Bang cosmology which ignores evidence to the contrary of their cherished "beliefs;" to the referee process where so-called peers reject any new ideas, (or data), that don't fit the worshiped paradigm.

Just my opinion.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 7:03 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 09-08-2012 7:26 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 8:54 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5532
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 17 of 181 (672492)
09-08-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 6:44 PM


Tired light!! Wowie kerzowie, talk about behind the times!

Tired light was dead already when it was first proposed, in 1929, and it's deader now.

E.g Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Ah, the entire Hubble & Tolman article is available on-line, but unfortunately not OCR'd. Here's an OCR'd copy: Two Methods of Investigating the Nature of the Nebular Redshift:

quote:
Light arrivig from the extra-galactic nebulae exhibits a shift toward the red in the position of its spectral lines which is approximately proportional to the distance to the emitting nebula. The most obvious explanation of this finding is to regard it as directly correlated with a recessional motion of the nebulae, and this assumption has been commonly adopted in the extensive treatments of nebular motion that have been made with the help of the relativistic theory of gravitation, and also in the more purely kinematical treatment proposed by Milne. Nevertheless, the possibility that the redshift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of light from nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected; and several investigators have indeed suggested such other causes, although without as yet giving an entirely satisfactory detailed account of their mechanism. Until further evidence is available, both the present writers wish to express an open mind with respect to the ultimately most satisfactory explanation of the nebular red-shift and, in the presentation of purely observational findings, to continue to use the phrase "apparent" velocity of recession. They both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles.

...

In the case of the non-recessional theory, which predicts smaller effects from the red-shift, approximate agreement with the data could be attained, provided we disregard the possibility of any appreciable light-absorption on the way from the nebulae, and then take for the correction delta mI values calculated from equation (58') with the aid of a KI corresponding to the high effective temperature of about 6000 degrees, and at the same time neglect any possible effects of spatial curvature. On the other hand, in the case of the recessional theory, which predicts larger effects from the red-shift, approximate agreement with the data would seem attainable, in accordance with equation (58), only by also making use of possible effects from spatial curvature which correspond to the appearance of the third term in the expression for the correction delta mI.

...

In conclusion it may be repeated that the main function of the present article has been to provide a formulation for the two theoretical methods of investigating the nature of the red-shift which would be applicable under actual circumstances, the length of the article being due to the real complexity of these circumstances. In addition it seemed of interest to give some tentative statement as to the present status of the data for the tests, even though their complete presentation and analysis must be reserved for a later time. It also seemed desirable to express an open-minded position as to the true cause of the nebular red-shift, and to point out the indications that spatial curvature may have to play a part in the explanation of existing nebular data.



{Emphasis added}

Doesn't sound to me like

Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model.

We've made a few advances since 1935, and made a few more observations. The jury is long in; space is expanding, this causes cosmological redshift, and the expansion is accelerating. Lots to learn yet. But there are some things we do know; tired light is exhausted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:44 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5532
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 18 of 181 (672493)
09-08-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:18 PM


It appears you haven't read anything by proponents of the mainstream theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:18 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 19 of 181 (672494)
09-08-2012 7:35 PM


Percy,

Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space. Nikola Tesla thought so too so you may place me in the same catagory of "what"? I think he would be hard to class as some imbecile which it seems you are driving at regarding me. Tesla published in the New York Times an article in which he said (paraphrase) "I do not believe that gravity (something) can act upon nothing (space). He felt that space had no identifiable properties including "shape". That essentially it is Euclidean. Further, "space" being curved has never been proven in the laboratory. Gravatational lensing can just as easily be explained by gravity refracting light.

Even further, I believe several well known scietists also published around the time of the starlight refraction event predicted by Einstien that jumping to the conclusion that space itself was bent by gravity was a bridge too far when the light itself being bent could just as easily be the explanation. Do you want me to cite those publications?

Trou.


Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Son Goku, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-08-2012 9:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 09-08-2012 11:25 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(2)
Message 20 of 181 (672495)
09-08-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 5:42 PM


It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.

Well, Einstein created a theory which predicted the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of light by massive objects. When observations were made, these predictions were confirmed. Since that same theory then predicts the existence of black holes and the Big Bang history of cosmology, people were naturally curious about whether these same predictions would be confirmed.

The Big Bang and black holes are two separate predictions of General Relativity. One was not created as a handy tool for the other.

Both predictions have been confirmed by observational evidence. So as odd as some of what it predicts might seem, General Relativity is currently the only theory matching all the data we receive from the cosmos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 5:42 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:00 PM Son Goku has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 21 of 181 (672496)
09-08-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
09-08-2012 7:22 PM


JonF,

Sounds more like it's your mind that's exhausted buddy. Hubble and Tolman merely admitted that they knew of no other "mechanism" by which to explain the redshift than the Doppler Interpretation. Indeed a new physics is required. Like I said in the OP. I believe I've found it.

But while you're preening about how up to date you are; why don't you wow us with your brilliant explanation of the "Pioneer Maser Effect, (Blueshifting)," observed by JPL in the 80's regarding the Pioneer and other spacecraft.

Come on "genius". Start talking.

Just a "suggestion".

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 09-08-2012 7:22 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2012 9:03 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 09-09-2012 7:45 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 09-09-2012 11:13 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(2)
Message 22 of 181 (672497)
09-08-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:35 PM


Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space.

General Relativity does not say gravity bends space. It says that what we perceive as gravitation (the tendency of massive objects to move along certain paths in each other's presence) is just our perception of these objects following straight paths in curved spacetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:35 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:03 PM Son Goku has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 23 of 181 (672499)
09-08-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Son Goku
09-08-2012 7:39 PM


Son Goku,

I believe Mercury's orbit problem was calculated as consitent with a Euclidean concept of Space by another astronomer at the time. I will find it.

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Son Goku, posted 09-08-2012 7:39 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:30 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 24 of 181 (672500)
09-08-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Son Goku
09-08-2012 7:44 PM


Son Goku,

It is conventionally held that the "fabric" of something we call "SpaceTime" is actually warped by gravity.

Trou.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Son Goku, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:32 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 25 of 181 (672501)
09-08-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
09-08-2012 6:17 PM


'brane teaser
Hi cavediver,

The Big Bang and Black Holes are predictions of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. ...

It's been a while, and I've been too busy to follow much lately, but how does this affect the 'brane theory (from string theory origin, right?)?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077357/ is from 2002 and my other two links now have 404 errors.

I googled the names and came up with
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/536504/posts from 2001
and
http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2896 a 2007 sort of recap\update of the 2001 article

(and what's happened with string theory lately - I'm working on reading Brian Green's book on string theory and have to wonder if I am wasting time on it or should pay attention).

whaaas up eh?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2012 6:17 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 26 of 181 (672503)
09-08-2012 8:07 PM


Got to go to dinner. Later.

Trou


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 27 of 181 (672507)
09-08-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 6:44 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

But rather than ask me a layman what I've missed...

I didn't ask what writings you as a layman missed. I asked how you, a self-proclaimed science and big bang buff, could be so ignorant of mainstream views in cosmology. The answer has become obvious. You're not a science buff. You're a creationist, someone whose views are driven by religious sensibilities rather than evidence.

How did so-called scientists "miss" that Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model?

As Jon pointed out, the Hubble/Tolman paper made no such claim, but that's irrelevant. Even if the Hubble/Tolman paper said just what you say it did, the tired light model did not stand the test of time. Accumulating evidence provided less and less support for tired light and more and more for the big bang.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 6:44 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 28 of 181 (672509)
09-08-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:18 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

I think I already stated I am a layman. Just someone who is interested in science and has a scientific turn of mind.

Oh, come on, quit the bullshit. You're a creationist.

I recent years however I have been disturbed by what I see as an ideological "group think" as invulnerable to new information as any fundamentalist wackjob.

And this "new information" is from a paper written in 1935 by people who have been dead for over half a century?

In response to what I've seen as disturbing eveidence of this I've recently read a number of books and articles by scientists who themselves are protesting everything from the mainstream tenets of modern Big Bang cosmology which ignores evidence to the contrary of their cherished "beliefs;" to the referee process where so-called peers reject any new ideas, (or data), that don't fit the worshiped paradigm.

Ah, now it's the Expelled conspiracy theory. And this new evidence comes from over half a century ago. Would you like to give some names to these scientists and books and articles?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:18 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 29 of 181 (672510)
09-08-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:35 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space.

Gravity doesn't bend space. Mass distorts space/time, and this affects the trajectory that objects follow within space/time. We call our perception of this effect gravity.

Nikola Tesla thought so too so you may place me in the same catagory of "what"?

And Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman disagreed with Tesla's take on general relativity. However should we settle this? Should we have a long discussion about the relative merits of Tesla, Einstein and Feynman as both scientists and people? Or should we perhaps assess the evidence and see which model fits best? The latter is what scientists do, creationists not so much.

Even further, I believe several well known scietists also published around the time of the starlight refraction event predicted by Einstien that jumping to the conclusion that space itself was bent by gravity was a bridge too far when the light itself being bent could just as easily be the explanation. Do you want me to cite those publications?

Sure, go ahead, cite them. Can I assume they were published in the 1920's and 1930's?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:35 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 30 of 181 (672511)
09-08-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:44 PM


But while you're preening about how up to date you are; why don't you wow us with your brilliant explanation of the "Pioneer Maser Effect, (Blueshifting)," observed by JPL in the 80's regarding the Pioneer and other spacecraft.

Pioneer anomaly solved. I'm surprised you missed this, it was widely reported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019