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.
What is this supposed to mean?@Michael Corbett
Even their claims of merely being a choice of coordinates fails. Since they are not trying to calculate this co-ordinates decay rate, but the decay rate in the past when the co-ordinates were in a completely separate area of space and are not the same and at a whole different velocity.
Really? And what was this measurement of time based on before anything existed?Not always, we base our measurements of time on the rotation of the earth however time existed before creation when there was no movement. There was a time before anything was created.
Facts don’t matter.Indeed.
The LCDM model of cosmology fails another important test
I don't know if you caught that recent paper on quasar studies that was published recently, but it's definitely not good news for expansion proponents. Their expansion interpretation of redshift fails at higher redshifts. That's now the second time in as many decades that the expansion interpretation of redshift has failed to correctly predict the outcome of observations at larger distances.
When the SN1A data didn't jive with their predictions of a *decelerating* universe, they loaded up their expansion model with a hypothetical new form of energy that defies the conservation laws of physics. It was bad enough that dark energy needed to remain at a constant density throughout the expansion process to explain the SN1A data, but to explain the new quasar observations, dark energy would actually have to *increase* in density per unit volume throughout multiple exponential increases in volume.
It can't even be associated with a "constant" in a GR formula anymore, it would have to be an *increasing variable* now. Dark energy is the ultimate free energy machine. Imagine if I told you that the more dark energy that I used to fill up a piston to produce power, the more dark energy I had leftover after filling it up? Would you believe me? Science routinely rejects free energy machines for violating conservation of energy laws, but somehow dark energy gets a free pass. It's getting even more unbelievable by the decade.
On top of all that, the dark matter claim struck out three more times in three different and unique DM experiments just this week alone:
Three strikes for dark matter theory this week, and it's only Tuesday.
Between the quasar study and the DM experiments, the LCDM model is literally falling apart of the seams now, and they simply do not wish to discuss it.
I really don't think that the LCDM cosmology model will survive the JWST telescope era. Assuming it keeps finding 'mature' galaxies at even higher redshifts like Hubble, there just won't be anywhere left to hide anymore. The lack of useful predictions and the incorrect predictions are killing the LCDM model as it is. I certainly don't see it getting any better once the JWST comes online. JWST will probably see mature galaxies for as far as it can see too.
The "bait and switch'/equivocation fallacy routine related to Doppler shift isn't the only slight of hand being used to promote the LCDM model. Edwin Hubble personally preferred a static universe and tired light solution to explain redshift in space later in his life, yet astronomers, astronomy papers, and astronomy shows on TV routinely (falsely) claim that "Hubble proved that the universe is expanding", a claim that Hubble himself didn't even believe to be true. They also assert that GR theory predicts singularity type black holes when in fact Einstein rejected that idea. Hannes Alfven referred to magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience' too, but you'd never know that by listening to the mainstream or reading their papers. There seems to be quite a few ethically 'questionable' statements which are used by the mainstream when promoting the LCDM model, and the Doppler shift equivocation fallacy is just one of them.
That really shouldn't be the case. LCDM proponents should be able to sell their model based on real empirical physics, but unfortunately they don't have a lot of real empirical physics to offer.
IMO the worst part of the whole redshift problem relates to the way that the mainstream handles the 'tired light' alternative explanation of redshift which Hubble preferred. They actually have no published papers to offer (well one by Fritz Zwicky when he was promoting his own tired light model 50+ years ago) on the topic of tired light alternative explanations of photon redshift. Instead, they constantly cite an unpublished website by one guy (Ned Wright) who in turn only references one actual published paper on the topic, that one and only one tired light model paper by Fritz Zwicky from more than 50 years ago. When promoting his own tired light model, Fritz Zwicky pointed out that one type of inelastic scattering, specifically Compton scattering, probably wouldn't fully explain cosmological redshift without "blurring" the images at higher redshifts. Never once did Zwicky mention any other known mechanisms of redshift, just Compton scattering, and Zwicky only did that much so that he could try to justify and promote his *own tired light explanation* for redshift. The astronomy industry has *never* done an exhaustive study of all the known types of inelastic scattering to find out if they would or could explain cosmological redshift. They simply handwave away tired light alternatives, and cite unpublished references to try to support their handwavy arguments. Keep in mind that tired light explanations of redshift do *not* violate conservation of energy laws like dark energy. Any loss of momentum by the photon is simply transferred to the plasma medium and all energy is conserved just as we would expect. If you read that quasar thread, I cited Chen's empirical lab work with plasma where he showed an empirical correlation between the number of free electrons present in the plasma and the amount of plasma redshift that he observed. There is a simple empirical explanation for photon redshift which A) works in the lab unlike the "space expansion" claim as to cause, and B) violates no laws of physics like the expansion explanation does.
The amount of mental gymnastics required to support the LCDM model of cosmology is simply off scale. Not only does the LCDM model violate conservation of energy laws, it fails large redshift observations galore. and it's failed every laboratory test of the exotic matter claim to date.
I think that's why we end up with equivocation fallacies being misused to support the model. It just doesn't have any empirical support to offer.
Really? And what was this measurement of time based on before anything existed?
I’m saying there was no time until something existed to measure. Which is why God is timeless..... Only the creation is subject to time....The time between when nothing was created then something was. Are you saying this time period didn’t exist?
I’m saying there was no time until something existed to measure. Which is why God is timeless..... Only the creation is subject to time....
I challenge anyone to explain what that^^^ means.....God is timeless....
No more confusing than science claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so is in effect timeless as it always existed and will always exist.....I challenge anyone to explain what that^^^ means.
I havent examined the scientific claim you cite.No more confusing than science claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so is in effect timeless as it always existed and will always exist.....
Why, do you have a problem with the scientific claim that energy is not subject to time?????
i) 'Physics' is how we make sense of observations. All observations (even those in thought experiments) don't alter the need to make sense of them .. and that's regardless of where and how they occur, (in our minds, via spectra, etc). 'Physics' therefore persists wherever there's something to make sense of (or explain).... Dad claims physics is different outside our fishbowl. You claim physics is different outside our fishbowl..... while arguing against Dad that the physics is the same everywhere....
'Fairie Dust' is imaginary .. observations aren't.Justatruthseeker said:95% of cosmology is Fairie Dust, you should know....
'Nothing' is not nothing. You use the term as a cover up for not understanding the meaning of the concept being referred to.Justatruthseeker said:You just keep believing energy is continuing to be created out of nothing......
Explain your understanding of the context of Noether's theorem in this, (its a proof what's more!), in your own words.Justatruthseeker said:You just keep believing space can expand apart an infinite dense point, but can’t do anything to a solar system..... That’s what Fairie Dust does, blinds with its glitter.....
I could stuff a chicken into a shoebox and succeed in not demonstrating how one can fly across the yard. The exercise is completely useless.Justatruthseeker said:Show me where expansion in the lab has been correlated to any actual redshift? In fact, show me any expansion in the lab at all... Or are you just throwing in math to make your numbers add up without any actual verification?????
Once again, don't criticise valid Physics applied in unexpected testable ways .. that's how human understanding moves forward.Justatruthseeker said:Or are you going to start incorrectly claiming Doppler too, so you can bait and switch people into believing you have a correlation, even when they tell you not to confuse it as a real velocity????
Just told you.I havent examined the scientific claim you cite.
I want to know how you (or anyone) can understand the claim you made.
i) 'Physics' is how we make sense of observations. All observations (even those in thought experiments) don't alter the need to make sense of them .. and that's regardless of where and how they occur, (in our minds, via spectra, etc). 'Physics' therefore persists wherever there's something to make sense of (or explain).
ii) 'Fishbowls' are bounded .. our senses and perceptions extend over cosmological scales. The boundaries of 'fishbowls' can thus be specified over that same same scale and we take our need to make sense, (aka: 'Physics'), along with those 'boundaries' .. and even beyond them.
Except the observations have alternate explanations without invoking new physics outside of our fishbowl.....'Fairie Dust' is imaginary .. observations aren't.
Then what is this nothing made of? No idea, right?????'Nothing' is not nothing. You use the term as a cover up for not understanding the meaning of the concept being referred to.
Oh please, 95% of your cosmology is made up of unknown Fairie Dust.... Who you trying to convince with your rants, yourself????Don't criticise others who do understand it.
A proof that every system has a conservation law for physical space, which you don’t mind violating by creating energy out of nothing....Explain your understanding of the context of Noether's theorem in this, (its a proof what's more!), in your own words.
I got no problem understanding every system has a conservation law. What is your excuse for not understanding?If you find you can't, then don't criticise those who can.
Useless distractions don’t work, try an actual argument in favor of your Fairie Dust....I could stuff a chicken into a shoebox and succeed in not demonstrating how one can fly across the yard. The exercise is completely useless.
That’s the problem. Every time physics changed it was because it was criticized. And no one is challenging physics, just your Fairie Dust that requires different laws of physics never tested or seen in any laboratory inside of our fishbowl........ claims of actual physics is highly overrated.....Once again, don't criticise valid Physics applied in unexpected testable ways .. that's how human understanding moves forward.
You need to apply yourself more .. in order to keep up.
Justathruthseeker said:I got no problem understanding every system has a conservation law. What is your excuse for not understanding?
This is a scientific claim?Why, do you have a problem with the scientific claim that energy is not subject to time?????
Energy is not lost, you just fail to understand what is happening or Bremsstrahlung....Is that so?
Let’s look at a physical system that can be tested in a laboratory; a light source moving away from an observer.
The Doppler shift is measured and since the frequency of the light source decreases, energy is lost which is not converted into any other form.
By your own definition the conservation law for energy has been violated.
You are hopelessly confused; the system has no conservation law because conservation laws don’t apply across frames of references as I explained in a previous post.
No sorry, nothing decreases, that’s why it smacks the floor and releases its energy into the floor.... try again.... and the ball says it’s kinetic energy is zero and that it is the floor instead that is gaining it. But that’s why you fail to understand why light is always c regardless of velocity.... you keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame despite claiming you believe everything is relative.....This is a scientific claim?
Here is another test you should try in a lab; drop a ball.
Before it hits the ground the kinetic energy increases with time while the potential energy decreases with time.
That’s why you don’t understand why light remains c in every frame regardless of velocity. You keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame.While we are at it, I’m still waiting on your explanation if the Earth is accelerating through space resulting in time dilation why does a stationary accelerometer on the Earth’s surface not measure this acceleration?
Its extraordinary that Justatruthseeker can't see that his brain (and its perceptions/observations) are either part of, or external to, the system under consideration here.
No no no. Its easy to say. It is not easy to understand at all.Just told you.
What do you think God is, a physical being?
This is why creation is so easy to understand, He merely transformed part of himself into the material universe. Which is why science agrees it can never be created nor destroyed, but only be transformed.
He is mind, pure Energy. He has always existed and will always exist and is not subject to time. And just like Energy, everything is made from it and at the same time it exists in everything and everything returns to it.
You do realize your thoughts are pulses of energy do you not?
Why not evoke pink unicorns or tooth fairies which are just as relevant given the motivation here is deflection.Energy is not lost, you just fail to understand what is happening or Bremsstrahlung....
Is this the part where you say Doppler is just like sound waves moving through a medium but different????
Apart from the fact you can't read simple English as I made it perfectly clear I was describing what happens before the ball hits the ground, why not explain it via pink unicorns and tooth fairies as once again deflection is the motivation here.No sorry, nothing decreases, that’s why it smacks the floor and releases its energy into the floor.... try again.... and the ball says it’s kinetic energy is zero and that it is the floor instead that is gaining it. But that’s why you fail to understand why light is always c regardless of velocity.... you keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame despite claiming you believe everything is relative.....
That’s why you don’t understand why light remains c in every frame regardless of velocity. You keep thinking of this frame as an absolute frame.
For the same reason that every frame sees itself as stationary.
I’ve explained it many times, you just never paid attention. I’ll gladly do so again if you think you can comprehend....
But let’s get back to your untested claims of different physics outside of our fishbowl.....
Just as easy as science says energy transforms into matter...No no no. Its easy to say. It is not easy to understand at all.
You couldnt even begin to explain in any comprehensible what "transformed part of himself into the material universe" means.
No more than Energy has a definable form.....Do you mean by transformed that he had "form" prior to creation, which gets changed? Did this form exist in space, but not in time? If not in space, how is it "form"?
When science figures that out you’ll have your answer....But then you say he's pure energy. Is the energy "form". What even is the "form" of energy.
So you are saying the scientific definition of energy is meaningless, since it uses that same structure?????My problem here is you throw out a barrage of words that make sense structurally as written English, but appear to dissolve into meaninglessness when examined.
Well if God is part of the material world of matter and energy, that clears up a lot. I mean, yeah there's some mystery as to "what actually happens" when matter/energy convert. But at least its observable and takes place in-time.Just as easy as science says energy transforms into matter...
Are you contesting the science?
No more than Energy has a definable form.....
When science figures that out you’ll have your answer....
So you are saying the scientific definition of energy is meaningless, since it uses that same structure?????
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?