|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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:{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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It appears you haven't read anything by proponents of the mainstream theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Son Goku,
It is conventionally held that the "fabric" of something we call "SpaceTime" is actually warped by gravity. Trou.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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?)? MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos is from 2002 and my other two links now have 404 errors. I googled the names and came up with'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory from 2001 and Evil Genius • View topic - 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory 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? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Got to go to dinner. Later.
Trou
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024