Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lerner said:In a non-expanding universe surface brightness is independent of distance or redshift, while in an expanding universe it decreases rapidly with both.
You are a fool and a coward as your posts demonstrate.
If I showed no cause they are personal attacks.
For example this latest pathetic attempt at keeping the thread going instead of admitting failure by insisting I have to show an error in the Arxiv paper.
As I have explained the paper does not use an inverse square law to refute the paradox.
You are the fool for wanting to have a fight at any cost including over a paper which contradicts your rebuttal!!!
Your cowardly behaviour speaks for itself.
The fact you have confessed your rebuttal is wrong by capitulating on finding supporting evidence yet you want to continue this nonsense because you are too spineless to admit it.
Running off to Tbolts where the long arm of moderation doesn’t apply
so you can engage in spiteful personal attacks knowing the right of reply is missing as none of the individuals attacked are members;
while being aided and abetted by your local moderators who conveniently turn a blind eye is another example of your cowardly behaviour.
To stupidly state you have had no moderator issues at Tbolts as if this proves your posts are non offensive then why don’t you post your thread “Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze” here.
As far as the ends justifying the means who are you trying to kid by legitimizing calling individuals sleazebags, scumbags and “mass murderers”?
One of the biggest lies you perpetrate with this “justification” which also includes accusing individuals as being unethical, liars or “EU/PC haters” is in the pretext itself where you have to vilify the individual or group in order to justify your personal attacks.
Brian Koberlein is a prime example and incidentally if you think mentioning his name is a form of entrapment you are paranoid as well.
You have the absolute gall of portraying yourself as the innocent victim while you spout cowardly libellous rhetoric at Tbolts.
And the humour continues ... Lerner has apparently been permitted to make an appearance at physicsforums to discuss his recent paper:
So the hilarity for us in this CFs thread, comes in with his very opening sentence (see the Abstract):
In a non-expanding universe surface brightness is independent of distance or redshift, while in an expanding universe it decreases rapidly with both.
Didn't you even read the Lerner quote I posted, or didn't you comprehend it?Hey cool! Thanks for the link.
...
You folks abuse the term 'surface brightness' as your missing 200 billion stars and 100,000 missing galaxies so clearly demonstrates. While 'surface brightness' might remain 'constant' to some limited distance related to the limitation of human eyesight, eventually it becomes so small, and so few photons reach the human eye that the eye sees a 'dark' surface, not a "bright" one!
The term surface brightness may have some useful meaning as it relates to telescopes and long duration CCD images but it's *meaningless* to Olber's paradox. Olber didn't have CCD images and long exposure images to work with, and contrary to his claim, we're looking at 200 billion stellar 'surfaces' at night, none of which are "bright" to the human eye. Once the "flux" drops below the threshold of human eyesight, it's just a "dark" surface, not a "bright" surface. Those missing 200 billion stellar surfaces are *not* as bright as the surface of our sun during the day! That's an *absurdly* wrong claim made by Olber. You've abusing terms and concepts right and left, just like your bait (stars) and switch (galaxies) routine. Olber didn't have a clue that other galaxies even existed when he dreamed up *and solved* his own so called 'paradox'. He also had *no* idea about distances, and the distances are so large that when we look up at the night sky we can't even see the surfaces of 200 billion stars in our own galaxy.
Didn't you even read the Lerner quote I posted, or didn't you comprehend it?
Lerner himself makes it abundantly clear in the abstract that constant surface brightness applies to the entire (non expanding) Universe, and not some finite distance, as you continue to parrot!
Also, since your linked Alcock-Paczynski cosmological test included Lerner’s model (static universe with a linear Hubble law) and it failed that test, why are you still interested in it, even in the slightest way?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?