Nonsense leading to idotic notions

The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...

The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of
nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements'
of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons...

The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase
without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes...

The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion
of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general
relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter...

Nice going, Academia!

Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Aladar wrote:

The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...

The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of
nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements'
of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons...

The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase
without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes...

The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion
of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general
relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter...

Nice going, Academia!

Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com


Aladar, I thought (and hoped) you has taken my advice to retire to
the countryside to paint flowers. General Relativity predicts that
the universe will not be static... and the data does confirm that
it is expanding from many many corners of astronomy and physics.

Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

The Big Bang
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html

Aladar wrote:

The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...

The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of
nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements'
of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons...

The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase
without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes...

The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion
of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general
relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter...

Nice going, Academia!

Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

We only "know" anything about the world on the basis of various
assumptions. If our assumptions turn out to be wrong, our
"knowledge" may turn out to be wrong too. Even worse, our
favorite concepts may turn out to be meaningless, or meaningful
only under some restrictions.

So, when we talk about what happened, say, in the first
microsecond after the Big Bang, we're not claiming absolute
certainty. Instead, we're using various widely accepted
assumptions about physics to guess what happened. Given these
assumptions, the concept of "the first microsecond after the Big
Bang" makes perfect sense. But if these assumptions are wrong,
the whole question could dissolve into meaninglessness. That's
just a risk we have to run.

What are these assumptions, exactly? They include:

1. Einstein's GTR
2. the Standard Model of particle physics

supplemented by

3. some form form are dark energy, in other words a nonzero
cosmological constant, lambda, the same lambda that Albert
Einstein inserted in his equation and later considered it to be
his biggest blunder. If Einstein were alive today, he would have
been thrilled to find that his cosmological constant appears to
be a necessary ingredient in the way the universe works. And
Einstein's "biggest blunder" has instantly become the greatest
mystery in science.

4. some form of "cold dark matter", unseen matter whose
gravitational effects are observed in the motions galaxies and
clusters of galaxies.

Assumptions 3 and 4 are the ones most people like to worry
about, because our only evidence for them comes from cosmological
observations, and if they're true, they probably require some
sort of modification of the Standard Model. But if we don't make
these assumptions, our model of cosmology just doesn't work...
while if we *do*, it seems to work quite well as is shown with
the WMAP data!

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

The Big Bang
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html

General Relativity Tutorial
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

Searched pages from www.aip.org for "big bang" evidence update
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bi...p.or g+update

Aladar wrote:

The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...

The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of
nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements'
of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons...

The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase
without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes...

The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion
of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general
relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter...

Nice going, Academia!

Hey jackass - propose alternative satisfactory interpretations.

To say you know nothing is to give you credit for intellection vastly
beyond your demonstrated capacities.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Aladar wrote:

The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...

The nonsense of interpreting the observed fragments of
nuclei after bombardments as 'constructing elements'
of nuclei - led to the idiotic notions of quarks and gluons...

The nonsense of assuming the possibility of density increase
without limit - led to the idiotic notion of black holes...

The nonsense of assuming extra masses to explain the motion
of stars in galaxies (also forgetting about the general
relativity) - led to the idiotic notion of dark matter...

Nice going, Academia!

Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com

Sounds like academia booted you out, Aladar. Care to tell us what happened?

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...


The type 1a supernova observations would indicate that, even if the universe
is not expanding, it is extremely large. This gives a clear indication that,
even if the universe is not expanding, the distance scale inferred from
redshifts is broadly correct; this in turn validates the inferrence that the
interpretation of redshifts as indicators of velocity is broadly correct,
even if there is an additional non-velocity component.

It may be that if intrinsic redshifts do occur as per Arp et al, then the
distances of *some* objects have been overestimated; however the supernova
data shows that at least *some* objects are at the distances calculated, and
moving away from us at high speed. It would seem that the universe really is
very very big, and expanding.

I say this from a personal POV which is quite cautiously sympathetic to
Arp's observations; I personally think the "fingers of God" effect of
galactic clusters is an indication that at least one should consider the
possibility that something is not quite right with the assumption that all
redshifts are indicators of velocity; it may be that some objects have an
intrinsic redshift.

Nonetheless, the evidence is incontrovertible that the majority of ordinary
galaxies are moving away from us. The universe *is* expanding.

Ian

"Jaxtraw" wrote in message
...
"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...


The type 1a supernova observations would indicate that, even if the
universe
is not expanding, it is extremely large. This gives a clear indication
that,
even if the universe is not expanding, the distance scale inferred from
redshifts is broadly correct; this in turn validates the inferrence that
the
interpretation of redshifts as indicators of velocity is broadly correct,

Not at all. The sane alternative to the 'Big Bang' model is the 'static
infinite' model, as proposed by Newton eh!

even if there is an additional non-velocity component.

If a redshift without recessional velocity is possible, there is then no
reason to ascribe the aystematic Hubble red shifts to velocity, and in
fact no reason to suggest that the universe is expanding at all eh!

It may be that if intrinsic redshifts do occur as per Arp et al, then the
distances of *some* objects have been overestimated; however the supernova
data shows that at least *some* objects are at the distances calculated,
and
moving away from us at high speed.

Whenever a red-shift occurs, for whatever reason, the envelope containing
the packet of red-shifted waves must also be expanded by the same factor
( otherwise the waves won't fit in the envelope eh! ). The expanded time
scale supernova are therefore exactly what would be expected on any
theory of the Hubble Red Shifts. The super nova data do not therefore
indicate that the galaxies are receeding, any more than the Hubble red
shifts do eh!


It would seem that the universe really is
very very big, and expanding.
How long before it's very very very big eh?


I say this from a personal POV which is quite cautiously sympathetic to
Arp's observations; I personally think the "fingers of God" effect of
galactic clusters is an indication that at least one should consider the
possibility that something is not quite right with the assumption that all
redshifts are indicators of velocity; it may be that some objects have an
intrinsic redshift.

It may be that distance has an intrinsic redshift. That's what it looks
like eh!

Nonetheless, the evidence is incontrovertible that the majority of
ordinary
galaxies are moving away from us. The universe *is* expanding.

Ian

The universe is infinite, and you can't get no bigger than that eh!

keith stein

Keith Stein wrote:

The universe is infinite, and you can't get no bigger than that eh!


You don't understand the concept of infinite, Stein. Of course an
infinite universe can expand!

"Keith Stein" wrote in message
...

"Jaxtraw" wrote in message
...
"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
The nonsense of interpreting the Hubble redshift as Doppler
effect - led to the idiotic notions of expanding Universe,
and big bang...


The type 1a supernova observations would indicate that, even if the
universe
is not expanding, it is extremely large. This gives a clear indication
that,
even if the universe is not expanding, the distance scale inferred from
redshifts is broadly correct; this in turn validates the inferrence that
the
interpretation of redshifts as indicators of velocity is broadly
correct,

Not at all. The sane alternative to the 'Big Bang' model is the 'static
infinite' model, as proposed by Newton eh!

The problem there is that an infinite universe must have existed for a
finite amount of time; as per Olbers' Paradox.

even if there is an additional non-velocity component.

If a redshift without recessional velocity is possible, there is then no
reason to ascribe the aystematic Hubble red shifts to velocity, and in
fact no reason to suggest that the universe is expanding at all eh!

Except for the fact that objects which can be shown to be further away (such
as supernovae) have high redshifts. So any non-velocity dependent redshift
must be additonal to a velocity related one; or strictly, to distance, but
the only reasonable explanation for a distance-related redshift is expansion
of space, which of course leads one to conclude that distances between
galaxy clusters are expanding. Unless all matter is expanding, too.

It may be that if intrinsic redshifts do occur as per Arp et al, then
the
distances of *some* objects have been overestimated; however the
supernova
data shows that at least *some* objects are at the distances calculated,
and
moving away from us at high speed.

Whenever a red-shift occurs, for whatever reason, the envelope containing
the packet of red-shifted waves must also be expanded by the same factor
( otherwise the waves won't fit in the envelope eh! ). The expanded time
scale supernova are therefore exactly what would be expected on any
theory of the Hubble Red Shifts. The super nova data do not therefore
indicate that the galaxies are receeding, any more than the Hubble red
shifts do eh!

The data indicates that our distance scale is broadly correct. If the
redshifts do not indicate velocity, then redshift must be proportional to
distance from the Earth. That means the Earth must be in some special place
in the universe; there's no other indication that the unfashionable arm of
our galaxy is in any other way special, so this seems very unlikely.

It would seem that the universe really is
very very big, and expanding.
How long before it's very very very big eh?


I say this from a personal POV which is quite cautiously sympathetic to
Arp's observations; I personally think the "fingers of God" effect of
galactic clusters is an indication that at least one should consider the
possibility that something is not quite right with the assumption that
all
redshifts are indicators of velocity; it may be that some objects have
an
intrinsic redshift.

It may be that distance has an intrinsic redshift. That's what it looks
like eh!

See above. The only other way to have an intrinsic redshift would be to
assume a redshift due to the expansion of space, which is contradictory to a
static infinite model.

Nonetheless, the evidence is incontrovertible that the majority of
ordinary
galaxies are moving away from us. The universe *is* expanding.

Ian

The universe is infinite, and you can't get no bigger than that eh!


See above.

Why all the "eh!"s? Is somebody repeatedly sticking pins in you or
something?

Ian

"Jaxtraw" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Why all the "eh!"s? Is somebody repeatedly sticking pins in you or
something?

Stein is an autistic imbecile:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=a...in+%22eh%21%22
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=a...+%22eh%21%2 2

Dirk Vdm