Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 70437191" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>That "authority" is the very same individual that discovered the distance/redshift relationship, and the same individual that you use to built your "space expansion" claims around, and yet</p><p>he personally *rejected* the notion of a single possible explanation! Furthermore you run around using *unpublished website rants* from Ned Wright as your "argument from authority". At least Hubble's opinions were published for goodness sake.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962" target="_blank">http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-8592</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're the single sleaziest debater of topics on the internet.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only thing that Zwicky "ruled out" was Compton scattering as the *exclusive* cause, but Zwicky himself did that *so he could submit one of his own* concepts of "tired light". Hubble didn't rule it out, he came up with a Tolman brightness test to try out both ideas.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, your own quote shows that he *did* include the option of "tired light", but he didn't try to define the specific mechanism whereby photons lose momentum to the medium. He never "ruled out" tired light alternatives as you keep erroneously claiming.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't have any "enormous evidence" for an expanding universe that doesn't first begin with a pure affirming the consequent fallacy, and an *act of faith* in "space expansion".</p><p></p><p>As the paper I cited earlier demonstrates, tired light models "explain" the same data sets that "space expansion" models explain.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ya, but not Hubble himself. Funny how that worked out, eh? Same deal with Einstein when he called your dark energy maths a "blunder" theory, and with Alfven when he called mainstream "reconnection" models pure "pseudoscience" over 7 times in a single speech. The mainstream has a bad habit of *kludging* the work of it's own "authorities" apparently.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only thing he was convinced of for certain is that his constant should be set to zero, advice that you simply ignore.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The CMB temp was predicted by Eddington based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, long before BB theory ever got "popular". Eddington calculated the background temp to within 1/2 a degree of the correct number too on his first attempt, whereas early BB "guestimates" were more than an order of magnitude *wrong* about that background temperature!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 70437191, member: 627"] That "authority" is the very same individual that discovered the distance/redshift relationship, and the same individual that you use to built your "space expansion" claims around, and yet he personally *rejected* the notion of a single possible explanation! Furthermore you run around using *unpublished website rants* from Ned Wright as your "argument from authority". At least Hubble's opinions were published for goodness sake. [URL='http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962']http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-8592[/URL] You're the single sleaziest debater of topics on the internet. The only thing that Zwicky "ruled out" was Compton scattering as the *exclusive* cause, but Zwicky himself did that *so he could submit one of his own* concepts of "tired light". Hubble didn't rule it out, he came up with a Tolman brightness test to try out both ideas. Um, your own quote shows that he *did* include the option of "tired light", but he didn't try to define the specific mechanism whereby photons lose momentum to the medium. He never "ruled out" tired light alternatives as you keep erroneously claiming. You don't have any "enormous evidence" for an expanding universe that doesn't first begin with a pure affirming the consequent fallacy, and an *act of faith* in "space expansion". As the paper I cited earlier demonstrates, tired light models "explain" the same data sets that "space expansion" models explain. Ya, but not Hubble himself. Funny how that worked out, eh? Same deal with Einstein when he called your dark energy maths a "blunder" theory, and with Alfven when he called mainstream "reconnection" models pure "pseudoscience" over 7 times in a single speech. The mainstream has a bad habit of *kludging* the work of it's own "authorities" apparently. The only thing he was convinced of for certain is that his constant should be set to zero, advice that you simply ignore. The CMB temp was predicted by Eddington based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, long before BB theory ever got "popular". Eddington calculated the background temp to within 1/2 a degree of the correct number too on his first attempt, whereas early BB "guestimates" were more than an order of magnitude *wrong* about that background temperature! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
Top
Bottom