No Big Bang

[Ned]

Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Leifmk


This right here demonstrates that the authors haven't got much of a clue about the established theory they're trying to argue against.

No doubt.

But they, the tired light advocate, were supposing that the conventional Hubble theory was that redshifting was only caused by movement away from Earth, a doppler shift. That is why they came up with tired light which was supposed to explain how redshifting is caused by distance.

Well, it turns out, the authors were right about light redshifting based on distance, but for the wrong reasons. But no one, at least that I can recall. every bothered to address the tired light theory directly. They simply tried to explain the redshifting of light of the universe in terms of movement, which is Doppler in nature, thus tending to confirm the cranks rather than to defeat them.

[KrazyHorse]

which is why I ask "questions" instead of making statements

Horse. ****.

Red shifting caused by motion works only if the Earth is the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us

The distances from the Earth to the various star systems would very as a cosine function and not lineraliy.

I thought there was no gravity in the General Theory, just curved space time. If this is true, then you have to agree that redshifting as one moves through curved space time is predicted by Einstein.

These are all massively incorrect assertions you have made in this very thread.

Do not presume that you have the understanding to take the oversimplifications you have been fed and draw meaningful conclusions from them.

Instead of asking questions about the balloon analogy you made a bald assertion about distances varying as a cosine, which demonstrates that you have zero comprehension of what it means to live on an embedded manifold rather than in the larger space. You took some crank's arguments as gospel because you thought they made sense. This disrespects those of us who do understand topology and general relativity at a deep level, because it presumes we're so stupid as to have missed basic objections like the expanding Universe hypothesis not actually explaining Hubble data, despite having the last 80 years to think about it. In fact, that is a classic demonstration, which every undergraduate studying GR works through for himself. I first personally did it 6 years ago. It is a rather trivial piece of work...if you understand everything which has gone before that. Idiots on the internet don't get to publish their work in real journals because they're so ****ing stupid that their work isn't worth commenting on, not because there's some conspiracy keeping them out.

Simply accept that what we tell you is the truth. Giving you the impression that you've gained a real understanding would be lying to you, which is what most science popularisers do. They make so many generalisations, and reduce so many complex mathematical statements to simple linguistic ones that the work they put out in the end is virtually sense-free.

[KrazyHorse]

Most physics cranks remind me of sophomore physics undergraduates who have read a text which is far too complicated for them.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Simply accept that what we tell you is the truth.

I implicitly trust your expertise when it comes to physics and have no illusions that that my comphrension of the subject is anywhere near being comparable to yours. That said, as a skeptic, a statement like yours immediately causes me to distrust whatever you're about to say.

It's statements like those that cause whacko christian fundies to claim that science is the new religion and that the scientific community is pulling the wool over our eyes.

An effort by the scientific community to get the general populace to actually understand the science that runs our world to any degree would decrease the amount of crackpot theorists who think they've discovered something that all the rest of you geniuses haven't.

[Ned]

Come on KH, the so-called statements I make about something are basic rehashes from the cranks or other articles I read on the web. If you read the cited article in the OP, it was all about cosines and the like that, to them, disproved Hubble. They seemed reasonable when I read them, which is why I repeated them in the thread.

As I said in the OP, I was looking for the topic of "anti-light" when I hit upon the "tired light" bit.

Do you have any opinions or insights about anti-light?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Come on KH, the so-called statements I make about something are basic rehashes from the cranks or other articles I read on the web. If you read the cited article in the OP, it was all about cosines and the like that, to them, disproved Hubble. They seemed reasonable when I read them, which is why I repeated them in the thread.

As I said in the OP, I was looking for the topic of "anti-light" when I hit upon the "tired light" bit.

Do you have any opinions or insights about anti-light?

what is supposed to be "anti" about this "anti-light"?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I implicitly trust your expertise when it comes to physics and have no illusions that that my comphrension of the subject is anywhere near being comparable to yours. That said, as a skeptic, a statement like yours immediately causes me to distrust whatever you're about to say.

It's statements like those that cause whacko christian fundies to claim that science is the new religion and that the scientific community is pulling the wool over our eyes.

An effort by the scientific community to get the general populace to actually understand the science that runs our world to any degree would decrease the amount of crackpot theorists who think they've discovered something that all the rest of you geniuses haven't.

The problem is that regular people will never understand what we do. They don't have the tools to judge for themselves.

[KrazyHorse]

Regular people have a hard enough time learning Newtonian mechanics on any meaningful level.

I'm not being facetious. The average science undergraduate at Johns Hopkins graduates without a real understanding of it. It's frightening how bad most people are at physics.

And these are the people you want to be able to discern between cosmological models?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


what is supposed to be "anti" about this "anti-light"?

Well, every particle seems to have an anti-particle. This suggests that there be an anti-photon as well, does it not.

So, if an anti-photon exists how is it created and where does it go? Could it be dark energy?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Do you have any opinions or insights about anti-light?

Yes. There are no indications that light has a distinct antiparticle. And there are several reasons why it shouldn't.

And no, I can't explain those reasons to you in any meaningful way either.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Mathematicians are the only ones who stand a chance against us...

That's doubtful. Chemists, geologists, computer scientists, engineers, and scads of others also use lots of advanced science. Really, it is ignorant to claim that physicists are the smartest or even the most useful. Sure, they're useful and I'm sure they're smart but the reason there are only 40,000 pure physists in the world (as opposed to geophysicists, biophysicists, or other mixed use physists) is because there is such low market demand for that skill. Lots and lots of intelligent people move into the other sciences or into engineering or into computer science because they can make more money or feel like their contributions in those areas will have a bigger impact upon society.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, every particle seems to have an anti-particle.

Photons are their own antiparticles.

[KrazyHorse]

Really, it is ignorant to claim that physicists are the smartest or even the most useful.

Oerdin, you might note that I'm deliberately being a bit of an *******.

[Ned]

I see. So even anti-matter gives off ordinary light and is visible?

[Dinner]

An experienced senior physicist does get paid well but not to far off from other senior scientists. Also you need to understand that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of senior people in fields such as biology, chemistry, and geology.

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html

Summary (for 75th percentile, meaning senior people):
Astronomer $101,004
Biologist $94,668
Chemist $101,330
Clinical Researcher $85,699
Geologist $102,156
Physicist $115,372
Academic Researcher $77,999
Zoologist $71,656

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html

The moral of the story is there are a lot of dumb asses with very little education who are making far more money. Among educated people doctors and lawyers often do better and with much less experience. MBAs and stock brokers have less education yet still make more money as do huge numbers of small business people. The moral of the story is don't get to cocky because the guy with fewer creditials just might be smarter then you since he works less and makes more.