Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tired Light
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 309 (191821)
03-15-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Halton Arp
I can't remember whether we've discussed Dr. Halton Arp, noted physicist and cosmologist who rebuts spatial expansion in previous threads. He wrote "Seeing Red" among much more.
He made the following statement in "Seeing Red.":
An enormous amount of modern telescope time and staff is devoted to measuring redshifts of faint smudges on the sky. It is called "probing the universe." So much time is consumed, in fact, that there is no time at all available to investigate the many crucial objects which disprove the assumption that redshift measures distance. (p. 69) Halton Arp
He, like Lyndon Ashmore has an interesting website as follows. I'm wondering what both Sylas and Lyndon think about his arguments.
Halton Arp's official website

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 9:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 309 (191838)
03-15-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sylas
03-15-2005 9:54 PM


Re: Halton Arp
OK, Sylas. I thought the name rang a bell. Thanks for the link.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 9:54 PM Sylas has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 309 (192577)
03-19-2005 6:01 PM


Hi Lyndon. Now you are likely beginning to see why we are so unbalanced here at EvC as to debate counterparts and why so few counterparts to the majority view remain for long. I know, having endured it for two years now. This's the treatment you get for your debut in this town You get the whole pack going at you, expecting more of you than they require of themselves in interpreting the forum guidelines.
The thread topic is "tired light." Now you're being required to have an answer to every dang thing they can think up, whether it makes sense or not, or you, every source you cite, your journals and your website hypothesis are considered "crank" nonscience by the loud majority, {as if the majority haven't been wrong before in history}. Likewise, anyone associated with your views are so labeled.
Now, if the topic were, "does space expand," with one of the best of these, your counterparts debating a forum packed with you and your ideological friends, likely you and yours would have a whole lot of problems with expanding space to throw at your lone counterpart who has five or six posters to keep up with.
I apologize for the manner in which a few of my forum colleagues here have treated you as a junior member. I should think that they, and some admin, in particular, would be more greatful for someone as apprised and able as you are to even debate science and physics so intelligently and efficiently as you do, regardless of whether every question has been answered to their suiting.
I appreciate your ability to endure this, all the while keeping your cool so well. Hopefully you're thick skinned enough to hang in here. What has kept me here so long is the confidence that truth will prevail in the end when you keep on keeping on with the truth. Your signature says a lot, i.e. bringing science down to earth.
On the otherhand, you'll find this cite to be efficiently set up and that the more you get to know these folks, (Even Eta) the harder you'll find it to leave them. They are, for the most part, of above average intelligence and between them all, they leave no stone unturned as to challenges that can be thrown at the minority view posters. Thus they serve to keep us honest and each new challenge presents an opportunity for us to learn as well as to finetune our own thinking so as to arrive at the ultimate truth.
I have immensely enjoyed the robust and informative contribution you've brought to EvC in the short time you've been here and I'm sure a host of our readers have also. Regardless of your faith or lack of same, may God bless you and yours for the time and effort you're expending for the advancement of truth via debate and interaction. "Iron is sharpening iron" here for the good of all of us.
I'm also grateful as a non-degreed debater who until your arrival has had to rely a lot on logic and common sense (forbid the thought!)to receive some support for much of what I've been admonished as non-science; this support from one so able as you are to provide a science argument to these who are so adamantly allegeging that the expanding space concept is now an open and shut case.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-19-2005 06:22 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 6:39 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 131 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 7:43 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 160 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 10:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 309 (192604)
03-19-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Sylas
03-19-2005 6:39 PM


That is false. The problem is simply that Lyndon's physics is wrong, and nearly everyone can see some really trivial errors. Except you, of course.
I have to disagree that my statement is false, my friend, but if I address it further, I'll take it to the proper place for comment, so as not to disrupt this most interesting and informative thread. Thanks, btw, for your contribution to it.
Thanks also for the watchful eye of EvC town judge Minnemoosis, who appears to keep us all fairly in tow to the extent of his authority.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 6:39 PM Sylas has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 309 (192610)
03-19-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Eta_Carinae
03-19-2005 7:43 PM


Re: What????????????????????????
The problem is that he is not providing information BUT disinformation. His physics is WRONG. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Regardless of your assessment of Lyndon's views, Eta, I had hoped that you and others would show more respect and hospitality for someone so able to even discuss the science of cosmology to the extent that this obviously brilliant poster has been able to do, single handedly debating a host of counterparts in scientific terms, my point being that it is folks like Lyndon who are able to debate the things we all like to read and learn about who are sadly lacking here doing what our new friend is doing for the good of the board and it's readers.
I say, go at your opponent with all your mental might, but do so in a nicer and more congenial way so he will sense a welcome and so good posters like him will be more inclined to participate on our board.
The EvC forum name implies an invitation for guests and members of all ideologies. Therefore, may we all show hospitality, especially for quality new members, able to intelligently debate the issues we all want to discuss.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-19-2005 7:43 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 10:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 309 (192686)
03-19-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Sylas
03-19-2005 8:27 PM


Conclusion. These points are not given as questions for Ashmore to answer. Going on past experience, I expect him to have some comments that tell me my physics is all wet; while most of the substance simply ignored or "refuted" with more errors.
"Most of" appears to imply that some are not as you say. One would expect for there to be differences in concepts about things billions of lightyears distant and concepts about things which one alleges to have happened billions of years ago concerning a supposed singularity in which a particle of space began expanding to eventually effect all that exists. My problem with some of you people is that you arrogantly act as though you were were right there on the spot as eye witnesses, (gods, if you will) observing exactly how it was and how it is by doing your math and assembling your formulas.
I say when you can explain the before the singularity which allegedly caused it, compatible with TD law 1, how there was no area allegedly existing for it to expand into, and when you can allege on the one hand that space consists of nothing, yet allegedly expands and a host of other unknowns like what space's alleged boundary properties are so as to be identified, then maybe you can begin to justify your claim to have an absolute corner on cosmology as to origins and ever so limited present observations of whatever amount of the universe which is within our ability to observe.
I guess I am trying to point out why there is so much of a pile-on effect happening here. Ashmore's physics is trivially wrong, and as you dig into it the errors merely multiply. It can be refuted at any almost any level; there are errors here than even a beginner could pick up, and other errors that require a more sophisticated analysis than I can manage at short notice. So we are bound to get a pile of people jumping in to point out the various errors.
Yah, and I'm inclined to think that if you, Sylas, were to find yourself alone, debating a board full of Lyndon's ideological fellows, defending your expanding space views, they would come up with some stuff you would be hard pressed to refute, including some stuff which remains a mystery to all by your own admission, stuff like particles which allegedly come and go in and out of existence, about some aspects of black holes, as well as aspects of gravity, et al.
Demanding Ashmore respond to various criticisms is a waste of time. As one guy against the whole of modern physics, he can't hope to address all the concerns.
Mmm...."one man?".....Mmm......"the whole of modern physics?" Wouldn't "majority of" be a more fit and accurate phrase?
What ideology do you expect to be in the majority when 99% of the money and effort are expended on the BB ideology and when every student of secularist schools has that ideology programmed into them from preschool through post graduate?
If you really want to help, try looking for errors made by the people who are being critical of Ashmore. This is how people who are capable of learning can actually learn. For example, I will be very grateful for any credible criticisms of the comments I have made in this post. Hint, hint.
.....And who here in town, besides Ashmore is able and willing to even attempt to articulate the physics in scientific debate so as to be considered by you and yours as credible? Given the reception Lyndon has received here in his first thread, do you expect anyone to care to sign in and give their argument a shot?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 8:27 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Sylas, posted 03-19-2005 11:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 309 (192872)
03-20-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Parasomnium
03-20-2005 5:18 PM


Re: Ashmore's Real Paradox
As we have all realised by now, "H = hr/m bla bla" isn't Ashmore's paradox. It's Ashmore's delusion. We can live with that.
.....Who appointed you spokesman for the board, Parasomnium?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Parasomnium, posted 03-20-2005 5:18 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 03-20-2005 8:10 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 184 by Parasomnium, posted 03-21-2005 1:48 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 309 (192894)
03-20-2005 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
03-20-2005 8:10 PM


Re: Ashmore's Real Paradox
The problem with Ashmore's Paradox is that his constant, the one that is supposedly equal to the Hubble Constant, is not actually a constant. The value of Ashmore's constant changes according to the units of distance used. This has been explained several times in posts by Sylas and Eta, and the precise math illustrating the problem is given in Message 123. That Ashmore is wrong isn't ambiguous - there's no doubt. Go through the math yourself.
Parasomnium does not speak for me on anything, Percy.
Both Ashmore, you, and the others are the astute physics folks here and certainly not me. I've debated on the basis of an unbounded static space as you know for a long time from a more logical viewpoint, but one which I have shown to be thermodynamically compatible and one which imo has a more difinitive space than the expansionist view. I do understand some fundamental basics of science such as the thermodynamic laws to the extent that I can use them some to debate the science of my arguments.
I'm not astute enough to judge Asmore or his opponents as to the math, et al. Nevertheless his paradox makes more logical sense to me than the counterparts and that's what I need to go with, given the knowledge I have about it until something more sensible comes up.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 03-20-2005 8:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 10:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 03-21-2005 12:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 309 (193044)
03-21-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Eta_Carinae
03-21-2005 12:00 PM


Re: My God man....
Put it this way - if the metre had never been invented you would never have seen this contrived equivalence because it is just that - contrived!
......and if the BB had never been invented an alleged expanding space would likely not have been concocted up, because the BB is just that - contrived.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-21-2005 12:00 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 309 (193051)
03-21-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Parasomnium
03-21-2005 1:48 AM


Re: Ashmore's Real Paradox
My apologies for including you with those who understand Ashmore's error. I should have known better.
Thanks Parsominium, but apologies are nicer when given in a better smelling container.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Parasomnium, posted 03-21-2005 1:48 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Parasomnium, posted 03-21-2005 6:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 309 (193060)
03-21-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
03-21-2005 12:29 PM


Re: Ashmore's Real Paradox
Please let me know if I can help you out getting through any of the steps.
Thanks very much for going to all that work, Percy, but I don't think either of us has the time for you to educate me to the point of comprehending all this math, not that it couldn't be done.
I don't think your time has been wasted though. Since it's Ashmore's I'll let him be my advocate if he cares to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 03-21-2005 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-21-2005 1:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 309 (193779)
03-23-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sylas
03-23-2005 5:23 PM


Re: Clarification on forum conventions for long threads
Sylas is right, Lyndon. That 300 limit policy has been in effect for some time now. On some topics a new thread has been opened such as (Tired Light II) if the key participants agree that there's enough more significant stuff to cover on the topic. That's how I understand the policy. Admins can clarify, if needed. At any rate, though the math has been over my head, having you here has benefited us all, so as for all to see the pros and cons of this and to watch this most interesting match of the scientific minds from different perspectives from the benches.
I'm getting the impression as I read it all that you are introducing some logic into the foray so as to "bring cosmology down to earth" --logic, the stuff modern physics so despises, especially BBers, who've got to rely on this notion of expanding space or they're dead.
At any rate, I DO HOPE that you will stay logged in and bless us all with some more interesting science from a different perspective, be it on tired light or other stuff when you can fit it into your busy schedule. I would be interested in some comment from your perspective in the ongoing thread of the "fabric of space."
This thread has some more space yet. Get your share of it.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sylas, posted 03-23-2005 5:23 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 9:15 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 261 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-23-2005 10:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 309 (193854)
03-24-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eta_Carinae
03-23-2005 9:15 PM


Re: This is an example of why cranks are dangerous..
Some people, of course with no skill set to discern otherwise, believe that the cranks in society might be on to something.
buz, how is he introducing logic when by his analogy a computer monitor would be powered by electrons a metre apart in a vacuum. Ya think that would work??
I don't think so, Eta, but then I didn't understand the physics of the exchange of debate on that post which three of you responded to enough to make a judgement as to whether it was completely refuted. I doubt it made any less sense than the balloon expansion model you people use for expanding space though, with everything expanding but the space between the photons and electrons of atoms of the matter the dots on the balloon represent. You needn't explain that though, as I do understand Sylas's and Percy's arguments about that. it's just not logical enough for me to accept and of course, off topic here.
Having said that, I must say that I am highly impressed with the intelligence and acquired knowledge of you, Sylas, Percy, Razd and others as well as Lyndon having read it as it progressed along. You've all got to be commended for the keen minds and hard work needed to do a thread like this. For this reason, I cringe when any of you, including Lyndon imply that another is stupid, et al.
For me, the logic of tired light makes more sense than an expanding space, given the property of space which is logically as well as difinitively a vacuum, imo, incapable of expansion. Logically it would seem that if there's all these jillions of particles between us and the ultra-distant redshifted galaxy they've gotta do something to that light by the time it runs that gauntlet of billions of lightyears through them. No, I can't begin to do the physics math, et al and I'm not totally convinced about tired light, but logically, it appears to be the best yet. It wouldn't surprise me if you're all wrong on the physics and somebody will come up with something better.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-23-2005 9:15 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-24-2005 1:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 309 (193858)
03-24-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Funkaloyd
03-23-2005 10:00 PM


Re: Clarification on forum conventions for long threads
It would be interesting to know whether Ashmore believes the supposedly crazy and illogical idea that space is made of nothing and yet is non-Euclidean (curved).
From what I gather, if space is nothing but geometry, given the definition of geometry, you've all got a Euclidean space, whether you want to admit it or not. You're all trying to make space do something a vacuum can't do. That's my 2cts worth of logic that, imo, will buy what it would take a hundred dollars worth of geometric math to buy.
{ AdminSylas notes: gentle reminder to all contributors; me, Eta, buz, Funkaloyd, Lyndon. This thread is for tired light; not geometry of space. Buz has answered the question; let's not debate it further in this thread. No responses to this message, please. Thanks. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 03-24-2005 12:56 AM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-23-2005 10:00 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024