Relativity, version 2

[Alunyel]

I was referring to articles in Scientific Journals that have been peer reviewed.

The way I see it, if every legitimate scientists has to submit to peer review standard, then lots of faith is required, because many of the reviewers over there believe in a lot of science fiction.

Do you even know what peer review is? Scientists present their findings in a paper and submit it to a journal. They'll include observations, predictions, test results and conclusions. Other scientists may then review their work, and try to replicate their results, and draw their own conclusions from it. There's absolutely no faith required.

Smeg sake, I really wish people would stop claiming science requires faith, to try and reduce science to the level of their petty religious beliefs. SCIENCE DOES NOT INVOLVE FAITH.

I clearly don't believe evolution.

You don't even understand it. You think because other apes still exist, that we didn't evolve from them? That's stupid. Us and other apes share a common ancestor. They followed their paths of evolution from that common ancestor, and we followed ours.

I guess the theory has been modified again. That's the problem with flawed theories, you have to keep modifying them to make sense of them but they never makes sense, so you modify them again and again and again. Eventually, you end up with a big bang without a bang.
Then why not just call it the "big expansion"?

The theory never stated there was a physical "bang", it was the media that gave it the name.

It has been modified, though. It gets modified and made more accurate with each piece of new evidence we find. Unlike you creationists, we draw a conclusion based off of the evidence, whereas you start with the conclusion "Goddidit!" and try to ram the evidence in to try fit the conclusion. When it doesn't fit, you have to bend the evidence to make it fit, or have to make up evidence altogether.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I often wonder when one ask to demonstrate a cosmic phenomenon what do they really mean.

It means substantiate your claims. It means cite data and explain how it supports your argument. It means present evidence and reasoning that justify your position.

Can you demonstrate big bang?

Can you demonstrate redshift equals distant/velocity?

No, because redshift doesn't correlate with either quantities in all cases. The Andromeda galaxy displays blueshift, does it not?

I'm still waiting for you to justify your two assumptions (namely, that all the objects are equidistant to Earth, and that they all lie within the bridge).

 

[Cabal]

If you know an apple is red and someone told you it‘s blue, would that change the fact that it is red? It will still be red, and will continue to be red even though you may not have the faintest notion what blue is.

That's nice. Too bad that's not how science works. It doesn't run on speculative opinion, it runs on facts, and they back GR. So far what you have put forward to support your alternative is flat-out wrong. So, you lose.

Unless there's other empirical evidence you can put forward, of course.

Since you know the apple is red, then, to you, anyone who says it is blue would be talking fiction.

This works both ways, y'know. Why should we accept what you say merely because you claim it? A scientist is not made on dissent alone, so to speak.

I’ve seen strawmen before. There's plenty of evidence for them.

Only in the minds of those constructing them.

Have you ever seen space or time in a bent position?

Not personally, but the evidence for it exists and it has been independently verified. Did you know you can't see atoms either? Go figure....

Have you ever seen peer review being done? I notice you didn't need to to slander the work of those involved in that area.

The basic knowledge of the theory is that there is no first place.

Completely incorrect.

Can you explain what led to the expansion of the universe?

No, but that isn't part of the remit of GR. It's like how evolution doesn't explain how life started, but how it developed over time.

Well, I don’t like it, but it still happens. I just ignore them.

Then maybe you should be grateful some of us have deigned to talk to you, consider the slander you have put forward on how scientists operate.

I do appreciate science. I am fascinated by science, just not flawed science. And I know of many people who work in flawed science. Some of them are my friends, and I do appreciate them, but not their science.

Yes, you appreciate it so much you slander the methods they use and insist on your way being right despite having no evidence. Typical "Christian" behaviour I've come to expect on this board....

Then what is it?

Bottom Xi hadron.

Xi baryon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why, what did you think it meant?

 

[sfs]

The theory never stated there was a physical "bang", it was the media that gave it the name.

Supposedly it was the astronomer Fred Hoyle who gave it the name Big Bang, to mock it. He didn't like the theory.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you even know what peer review is? Scientists present their findings in a paper and submit it to a journal. They'll include observations, predictions, test results and conclusions. Other scientists may then review[/i] their work, and try to replicate their results, and draw their own conclusions from it. There's absolutely no faith required.

Smeg sake, I really wish people would stop claiming science requires faith, to try and reduce science to the level of their petty religious beliefs. SCIENCE DOES NOT INVOLVE FAITH.

You don't even understand it. You think because other apes still exist, that we didn't evolve from them? That's stupid. Us and other apes share a common ancestor. They followed their paths of evolution from that common ancestor, and we followed ours.

The theory never stated there was a physical "bang", it was the media that gave it the name.

It has been modified, though. It gets modified and made more accurate with each piece of new evidence we find. Unlike you creationists, we draw a conclusion based off of the evidence, whereas you start with the conclusion "Goddidit!" and try to ram the evidence in to try fit the conclusion. When it doesn't fit, you have to bend the evidence to make it fit, or have to make up evidence altogether.

I am not a creationists. I believe in dinosaurs and apes. The really old ones.

Regarding "evidence", often times what is considered to be evidence is usually just a personal interpretation of what is being observed.

If you believe in the Big Bang Universe, then CMBR may be considered evidence of radiation from the big bang.

If you believe in the Electric Universe, then CMBR may be considered evidence of radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma.

The only way to determined which theory more accurately predicts what is being observed is to allow for a closer examination of both theories, but peer review doesn't allow that.

Makes you wonder what they are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to be proven wrong.

"Peer Review" Makes Mockery of Science

 

[Doveaman]

Then maybe you should be grateful some of us have deigned to talk to you, consider the slander you have put forward on how scientists operate.

Consider the fiction scientists have put forward on how the universe operate.

That's nice. Too bad that's not how science works. It doesn't run on speculative opinion, it runs on facts

And as far as you are concern the big bang is a fact?

Not personally, but the evidence for it exists and it has been independently verified. Did you know you can't see atoms either? Go figure....

Can't see God either, so you might have a point here...you don't have to see to believe.

Bottom Xi hadron.

Xi baryon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why, what did you think it meant?

I guess I misunderstood you earlier. I thought you mentioned this particle as evidence for the cause of the big bang. I was beginning to think you were about to prove yourself right. Oh, well...

 

[Doveaman]

No, because redshift doesn't correlate with either quantities in all cases. The Andromeda galaxy displays blueshift, does it not?

Then why is redshift used as the primary evidence for universal expansion and big bang?

There are other theories out there, you know. You can at least give them a glancing look.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why is redshift used as the primary evidence for universal expansion and big bang?

Aside from the local anomaly where gravity is particularly strong, galaxies aren't moving very much (relative to other, distant galaxies). Redshift, then, is a measure of how far space has expanded during the time it takes for light to travel from a distant galaxy to us. That's why it's such powerful evidence for the Big Bang theory: it directly shows that space is expanding.

It is tempting to misrepresent the redshift we see in distant galaxies as a Doppler shift from relative movement, but that isn't the case.

 

[Doveaman]

Aside from the local anomaly where gravity is particularly strong, galaxies aren't moving very much (relative to other, distant galaxies). Redshift, then, is a measure of how far space has expanded during the time it takes for light to travel from a distant galaxy to us. That's why it's such powerful evidence for the Big Bang theory: it directly shows that space is expanding.

It is tempting to misrepresent the redshift we see in distant galaxies as a Doppler shift from relative movement, but that isn't the case.

Your explanation isn't consistent with observations: The Picture that Won’t Go Away

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your explanation isn't consistent with observations: The Picture that Won’t Go Away

Do elaborate.

 

[Doveaman]

Do elaborate.

Why? Did ya read the article?

"The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."

Higher redshift quasar in front of a lower redshift galactic core dense enough to obstruct all objects behind it. This places the higher redshift quasar in front of a lower redshift core. According to big bang expansion theory the higher redshift quasar should be behind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why? Did ya read the article?

"The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."

Higher redshift quasar in front of a lower redshift galactic core dense enough to obstruct all objects behind it. This places the higher redshift quasar in front of a lower redshift core. According to big bang expansion theory the higher redshift quasar should be behind.

The quasar is not in front the galaxy. The special property of a quasar is that it gives off high-energy radiation. This would easily travel through the 'opaque' galaxy.

Can you demonstrate that the quasar is indeed in front of the galaxy?

 

[Cabal]

Consider the fiction scientists have put forward on how the universe operate.

First prove that it is fiction first, or retract your slander. False witness is a sin, last time I checked.

And as far as you are concern the big bang is a fact?

It is a fact, and would be even if I believed it or not.

Can't see God either

Not empirically, you can't.

so you might have a point here...you don't have to see to believe.

Spacetime being curved has nothing to do with belief, its effects can be observed.

I guess I misunderstood you earlier. I thought you mentioned this particle as evidence for the cause of the big bang. I was beginning to think you were about to prove yourself right. Oh, well...

Nope, I mentioned it to make a point about names in science not always being literal, as indicated by:

And names aren't always literal descriptions in science - there's a particle whose quark content is "up-strange-bottom", but don't worry, it's not what you think.

 

[The Gregorian]

Spacetime being curved has nothing to do with belief, its effects can be observed.

Nope. The conventional newtonian understanding can be observed. Therefore it's right, and spacetime do not curve.

(See! I can make statements without any supporting evidence as well!)

Also... the earth is flat... Is everything down hill? No! If we lived on a giant ball, we'd constantly consider ourselves on the "top"... everything would be down hill, and we could ride a bicycle everywhere with no peddling! Therefore the earth can be observed to be flat! (from one perspective... if you ignore... you know... reality.)

 

[Cabal]

Nope. The conventional newtonian understanding can be observed. Therefore it's right, and spacetime do not curve.

(See! I can make statements without any supporting evidence as well!)

Also... the earth is flat... Is everything down hill? No! If we lived on a giant ball, we'd constantly consider ourselves on the "top"... everything would be down hill, and we could ride a bicycle everywhere with no peddling! Therefore the earth can be observed to be flat! (from one perspective... if you ignore... you know... reality.)

Burden of proof fail. And remember what people keep saying about reading up on the topic first? Still got to do that.

Also, if you think people aren't debating the issue properly, maybe try setting an example instead of whining.

 

[Doveaman]

The quasar is not in front the galaxy.

Why not? Because it doesn't fit the big bang model?

The special property of a quasar is that it gives off high-energy radiation.

Yes, but not as much as mainstream theory suggest.

This would easily travel through the 'opaque' galaxy.

Can you demonstrate that this is indeed the case with NGC 7319?

Can you demonstrate that the quasar is indeed in front of the galaxy?

It has already been demonstrated by credible scientists. You just have to follow their work:

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift.

I would fly you to NGC 7319 to have a closer look if I could, but I don’t have the time.

 

[Alunyel]

"www.electric-cosmos.org"

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified.[/FONT]"

Well, no it hasn't, because if it had, it'd be published in journals left right and centre. Nothing on that site is sourced to any peer reviewed work, or any journal publications to back it up.

That's clearly not a credible, or reputable site. Link me to a peer reviewed journal publication, such as the American Journal of Physics, or Advances in Physics, Astrophysical Journal or Baltic Astronomy. Or at the very least another article that sources its claims with journal publications.

 

[The Gregorian]

Burden of proof fail. And remember what people keep saying about reading up on the topic first? Still got to do that.

Sorry, but special relativity went against accepted science at it's time. IT had the burdon of proof, and showed a few flashy, yet flawed experiments about "ooO look, the atomic clocks are wrong, therefore we can stretch time!"

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest any actual reasonable experiments supporting the concept of time dilation. People have referenced a few examples of experiments not supporting the existance of an aether... which has nothing to do with time dilation. And a couple people have referenced particles decaying less rapidly at high speed. They gave no explanation as to why this must be TIME changing, and not simply the particle's rate of decay. Just the assumption that the rate cannot be changed.

One cannot "prove" a hypothesis which has no basis in reality false.

Can you PROVE Santa does not exist? No. It would be up to me to find evidence for santa existing. Likewise, it's up to einstein (or those who follow his theory) to find actual proof of time dilation or light's infallible speed limit... which is simply disproved by the Doppler affect, and further by the event horizon of black holes. Light trapped at the Event horizon can neither escape, nor is sucked in, therefore is not moving relative to the black hole. Thus, light moving through a vacuum at a relative velocity of 0. Inherently, anything moving at a given speed relative to that black hole, would be moving at that same speed relative to all things stationary (relative to the black hole). Thus, an object moving 40 MPH relative to the black hole would be moving 40 MPH relative to all light trapped in the event horizon. And, thus, not "C."

Also, if you think people aren't debating the issue properly, maybe try setting an example instead of whining.

Can't help it if you're projecting. I've calmly, and rationally pointed out weaknesses in the SR theory. You've gotten defensive and declared me a scientific blasphemer for questioning your doctrine.

Yet, you've still not given any proof that isn't based on circular reasoning. Your best argument so far is "Well, you probably don't understand all the math, do you?"

... which is no argument at all. First, the math is an assumption written in algebraic form... it's not "evidence" of anything. Second, show me a problem you assume others don't grasp? Math is a simple language... as long as the variables are identified properly.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why not? Because it doesn't fit the big bang model?

Indeed. If we see a result inconsistent with quantum mechanics, it's most likely an peculiar coincidence or experimental error. If we see many near-identical results inconsistent with quantum mechanics, that would give us pause for thought.
Relativity, the Big Bang theory, evolution, etc, weren't accepted overnight. They were accepted because the evidence outweighed the criticism, and refined techniques showed that what was once evidence to the contrary is nothing of the sort.

So, we have a quasar and a galaxy. How do you propose we determine their distance from Earth? I'm willing to go with the Big Bang theory and that, because redshift is proportional to distance, the quasar lies beyond the galaxy.

Yes, but not as much as mainstream theory suggest.

Care to elaborate?

Can you demonstrate that this is indeed the case with NGC 7319?

It's as valid a possibility as any other. Without looking at the raw data, I can't say one way or the other. However, if the only reason you think the quasar is in front of the galaxy is because the galaxy is 'opaque', well, that's a pretty poor reason.

It has already been demonstrated by credible scientists. You just have to follow their work:

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift.

I would fly you to NGC 7319 to have a closer look if I could, but I don’t have the time.

The article does nothing more than assert that the quasar is in front of the galaxy. Indeed, the entire text that relates to NGC 7319 and the quasar is:

The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy. In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.

I ask you again, can you demonstrate that the quasar is indeed in front of the galaxy?

 

[Cabal]

Sorry, but special relativity went against accepted science at it's time. IT had the burdon of proof, and showed a few flashy, yet flawed experiments about "ooO look, the atomic clocks are wrong, therefore we can stretch time!"

There's a lot more than that.

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest any actual reasonable experiments supporting the concept of time dilation. People have referenced a few examples of experiments not supporting the existance of an aether... which has nothing to do with time dilation.

I hate to say you don't get the math - again - but you do realise that Lorentzian transforms arise specifically when you hold c constant?

And a couple people have referenced particles decaying less rapidly at high speed. They gave no explanation as to why this must be TIME changing, and not simply the particle's rate of decay. Just the assumption that the rate cannot be changed.

And you have repeatedly dodged my question in response - why do all these different independent properties (particles energy state decay, particle disintegration, etc) just HAPPEN to give the same results they do if just one parameter varied - spacetime? It's a toss-up between having multiple parameters change, as opposed to one.

One cannot "prove" a hypothesis which has no basis in reality false.

Except you haven't sufficiently demonstrated that it is false - so as I said, work on that.

Can you PROVE Santa does not exist? No. It would be up to me to find evidence for santa existing. Likewise, it's up to einstein (or those who follow his theory) to find actual proof of time dilation or light's infallible speed limit...

Which has been done and discussed already. As I said - multiple variables altering, or just one?

which is simply disproved by the Doppler affect, and further by the event horizon of black holes. Light trapped at the Event horizon can neither escape, nor is sucked in, therefore is not moving relative to the black hole. Thus, light moving through a vacuum at a relative velocity of 0. Inherently, anything moving at a given speed relative to that black hole, would be moving at that same speed relative to all things stationary (relative to the black hole). Thus, an object moving 40 MPH relative to the black hole would be moving 40 MPH relative to all light trapped in the event horizon. And, thus, not "C."

Are we talking about SR or GR here? SR only holds in weak gravitational fields, btw.

Sure lightspeed can vary in GR - point?

http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf (Second formula on page 9, phi is the gravitational potential)

Can't help it if you're projecting. I've calmly, and rationally pointed out weaknesses in the SR theory. You've gotten defensive and declared me a scientific blasphemer for questioning your doctrine.

Except you haven't - and please quote me specifically where I called you a scientific blasphemer. So much for projection and doctrine....

Yet, you've still not given any proof that isn't based on circular reasoning. Your best argument so far is "Well, you probably don't understand all the math, do you?"

Incorrect. You have been dodging my questions in response. And people HAVE been raising counterpoints to your objections but you'd rather turn this into a playground fight, from your second post here onwards.

If you want to at least attempt to take the high ground here, you might want to try a little harder.

And no offence, but when my sophomore level SR knowledge is able to pick holes in your understanding of even the basics, why in the world should I give you any credence?

... which is no argument at all. First, the math is an assumption written in algebraic form

Boy, you really can't stop making this mistake.

It was based on the results of experiment. You may think it was wrong, you may think the results are wrong, you may think the setup was useless - but it was not based entirely on assumption only.

... it's not "evidence" of anything.

Again, noone has claimed that it is.