Radioactive dating

[dad]

He already admitted that our solar system does not violate any laws of physics, so he already demonstrated that his violation of the conservation of energy laws was an *optional choice* that he's making, it's not a *requirement* in GR. His violation presumably occurs somewhere out in deep space, between galaxy superclusters were humans could never hope to go to ever actually 'test' his claim. That must be where his empirical conservation of energy fish bowl ends, and his metaphysical, conservation of energy defying fish bowl begins.

Ah...I see.

 

[dad]

By the way dad, the sides of sjastro's energy conservation fishbowl end at the edge of our local supercluster. His "energy conservation be damned" fishbowl begins at that same location, and it eventually ends at a mythical "surface of last scattering" that he thinks that he sees in the CMB. He's swimming in at least two fishbowls, not just one, and only one of them (the closest one) is actually consistent with empirical physics and the laws of empirical physics. In his bigger fish bowl the laws of physics go flying out the window and anything goes.

He seemed to miss the point that I use the term to describe what man know, where man has been, including even his space craft. That limit so far is less than one light day away. Thus far, and no further will I allow their claims of knowing about reality.

 

[Michael]

He seemed to miss the point that I use the term to describe what man know, where man has been, including even his space craft. That limit so far is less than one light day away. Thus far, and no further will I allow their claims of knowing about reality.

I'm cool with that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why are you evoking it with respect to tired light proposals to attempt to justify the the LCDM model?

Quote me doing so, and I'll retract.

Why do they believe that when there aren't even any published papers that ever "tested" such a claim?

Perhaps the papers published in the course of research into astronomical phenomena made it obvious. If a hypothesis has a low ranking it's quite likely to be falsified by work on higher ranked hypotheses before it ever gets to be tested itself. But that's just my speculation.

The difference is that I have used *published materials* to point out the flaws in the LCDM model, whereas you can't do that with respect to a static universe/tired light model. I don't even need to have a preferred alternative model to reject the LCDM model based on host of problems related to that specific model.

The 'burden of proof' is on you. The static universe was once (a long time ago) the mainstream model and the tired light idea was taken seriously. They were both rejected by the expert community because they failed to match some unexpected observations. Further observations since then have consolidated a quite different model. That was one of Kuhn's paradigm changes.

If the published papers supporting the models you prefer have any credibility, they'll have a chance of being re-examined if the mainstream model fails catastrophically; but even if those unlikely events occur, according to Kuhn, it's unlikely to happen for another generation - and given the number of generations already passed since they were rejected, I don't rate the chances.

I'll add that you have yet to show me *any* published materials that explain why you believe that there are "flaws" in a static universe interpretation of redshift.

I don't have to. The mainstream expert community have already rejected those ideas as unworkable.

 

[Michael]

Quote me doing so, and I'll retract.

Well, this was one comment that came to mind:

That's fine; but as far as the cosmological & astronomic community are concerned, it's been considered and rejected as incompatible with various observations, i.e. falsified ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As I read it again however, it might just be a kind of handwavy argument devoid any published support I could actually respond to.

Perhaps the papers published in the course of research into astronomical phenomena made it obvious. If a hypothesis has a low ranking it's quite likely to be falsified by work on higher ranked hypotheses before it ever gets to be tested itself. But that's just my speculation.

The problem is that whenever I ask to see such research, I never get it. I get a link to Ned Wright's unpublished website instead, consistently I might add. If the material actually exists, nobody has ever cited it for me that I can recall. I vaguely remember one paper on a very obscure topic involving tons of questionable assumptions, but it certainly wasn't definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

The thing about 'ranking' hypotheses is that the "ranking" tends to be rather subjective in my experience. How can it be that a *known and demonstrated* cause of redshift is ranked lower than a so called 'explanation' involving three different metaphysical claims? That seems more than a tad arbitrary.

The 'burden of proof' is on you. The static universe was once (a long time ago) the mainstream model and the tired light idea was taken seriously.

As far as I know, of 'mainstream' astronomers only Fritz Zwicky and Edwin Hubble ever took it seriously enough to publish papers on the topic or that referred to tired light as a probable solution. The "big bang" concept got most of the attention. I presume it might be related to the fact that a creation story is attractive, it was written by a Priest, and it had the Pope's seal of approval.

They were both rejected by the expert community because they failed to match some unexpected observations.

Like what?
Search | arXiv e-print repository
Search | arXiv e-print repository
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/96/meta

Further observations since then have consolidated a quite different model. That was one of Kuhn's paradigm changes.

That was really more of a popularity "choice" as far as I can tell, certainly not a 'scientific' one involving any sort of preference for laboratory demonstrated processes.

If the published papers supporting the models you prefer have any credibility, they'll have a chance of being re-examined if the mainstream model fails catastrophically; but even if those unlikely events occur, according to Kuhn, it's unlikely to happen for another generation - and given the number of generations already passed since they were rejected, I don't rate the chances.

I could be dead by the time the mainstream gets around to reading or responding to any tired light models, or any of Lerner's work. I therefore have to have my own preferences that aren't limited by "popularity".

I don't have to. The mainstream expert community have already rejected those ideas as unworkable.

Yet you've been unable to cite even a single paper written in the last 4 decades that explains why it's been rejected. Even Zwicky's published paper didn't reject the tired light model, he simply made up his own tired light model that he preferred over Compton scattering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, this was one comment that came to mind:


As I read it again however, it might just be a kind of handwavy argument devoid any published support I could actually respond to.

Whatever you call it, it's certainly not 'whataboutism'. Try again.

The thing about 'ranking' hypotheses is that the "ranking" tends to be rather subjective in my experience. How can it be that a *known and demonstrated* cause of redshift is ranked lower than a so called 'explanation' involving three different metaphysical claims? That seems more than a tad arbitrary.

Expert opinion clearly differs from yours.

 

[Michael]

Whatever you call it, it's certainly not 'whataboutism'. Try again.

Well what is it then? You didn't even provide any published support for your claim.

Expert opinion clearly differs from yours.

The concept of expertise rings a little hollow I'm afraid, particularly after failing to correctly predict those quasar results and striking out three times on their dark matter claims this week alone. They don't seem to have enough expertise to correctly predict the outcome of various observational and experimental tests.

 

[dad]

The maths behind GR is a “language” based on logic and physical insights which explains unambiguously why energy is conserved in some cases and not others; or why the Universe behaves very differently in the radiation dominated era as opposed to when it becomes mass dominated..

Have we both that we now can see?

 

[SelfSim]

Have we both that we now can see?

Why don't you go and read up on it ... rather than take the lazy way out?
We all know that answering you will be a complete waste of time .. so why not at least be consistent by not asking questions where you will totally ignore the answers?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Closed for Review
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed due to chronic flaming, goading, and disruptive posting.
MOD HAT OFF​