Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 207 of 207
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: The real nature of the universe

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Exactly.
    Because it is the logical conclusion given the observational evidence and there is more than just redshift.
    You are clear that you prefer a static model. But I think it is also clear that you prefer it above all else and you think that since you are that way, others must also be that way.
    But that is not necessarily the case. Others may examine the evidence regardless of any personal preference and accept the evidence without allowing preferential bias to overcome them.

    Your talk of "Limitless space" accounting for redshift still makes no sense at all. It is not rational; it is not sound. It has no supportive evidence. You cannot even explain it at all... you ask that others do that for you. It makes No Sense.
    Everybody should prefer the static model if possible. It is not good to abandon it lightly. Somehow we know that the universe is eternal and infinite (limitless). And always big. As big as now. It must be really hard facts, pure evidence to abandon that. Redshift is fact, expansion is interpretation. This logic is logic.

    If the limitless space makes not sense at all, an better view of the universe might make. In fact you are saying that you already know that your lambda view is the right view of the universe. It is not. It is a disputable model, a model with expanding universe.

    We have made our points. No use for further discussion.

  2. #202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Evidence is the red shift. Expansion is an interpretation of it in the context of a theory.
    Redshift makes no sense in an eternal infinite universe, in such you would have redshift and blueshift in all directions and not a uniform redshift in every direction.

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Everybody should prefer the static model if possible. It is not good to abandon it lightly. Somehow we know that the universe is eternal and infinite (limitless). And always big. As big as now. It must be really hard facts, pure evidence to abandon that. Redshift is fact, expansion is interpretation. This logic is logic.

    If the limitless space makes not sense at all, an better view of the universe might make. In fact you are saying that you already know that your lambda view is the right view of the universe. It is not. It is a disputable model, a model with expanding universe.

    We have made our points. No use for further discussion.
    What we have is Neverfly and I making scientific reasoning and you just crying like a baby and cannot use logic.

    Static universe is not prefered and should not be prefered, the one with most evidentiary support is to be prefered which is big bang theory!

    All our findings fit it, MBR, Redshift, etc.

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorzelos View Post
    What we have is Neverfly and I making scientific reasoning and you just crying like a baby and cannot use logic.

    Static universe is not prefered and should not be prefered, the one with most evidentiary support is to be prefered which is big bang theory!

    All our findings fit it, MBR, Redshift, etc.
    Lets look the things 10-20 years later. Then we see who is childish, who has logic and who is shouting alone in a corner. It is not the first time when the scientific community has been wrong. One time it was childish for the doctors to wash their hands.

    It is so stupid to conclude that the whole big universe has sometimes been in a little point!!! If anybody has such a conclusion, there is something wrong in the foundations of his theory. There is nothing wrong in this logic. The wrong things are here: you can better than the GR and BB state that the whole universe, its space has no time-space, only the space- dimensions, and that the universe has no beginning and no expansion. These terms have no meaning in this level. And the BB can not popularize its meanings, when it is right in some things.

    All findings fit with Ptolemaios too. The sun rises from the east and goes down to the west. So it must go round the earth. Somehow it goes. But this is not the whole story. The galaxies go farther. So the universe must expand. Somehow it does. But this is not the whole story.

    But it is inutile to proceed, we have made our points totally explicites.

  5. #205
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,782

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Lets look the things 10-20 years later. Then we see who is childish, who has logic and who is shouting alone in a corner. It is not the first time when the scientific community has been wrong. One time it was childish for the doctors to wash their hands.
    This is one of those common myths, like saying that Scientists used to believe the Earth was flat... which really gets to me.
    The scientific method was only developed and really applied rather recently in human history. Before that, many discoveries and postulates were performed by religious institutions, philosophers and the like.
    As far as those who operated closer to the mark on the Scientific Method goes, the Earth being a sphere goes back thousands of years. As far as Cleanliness in medicine, the same applies. But there have been unscientific societies in the meantime, as well.
    Aristotle --- was NOT a scientist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It is so stupid to conclude that the whole big universe has sometimes been in a little point!!!
    This is the crux of your problem with BB theory.
    I think you should be more willing to discuss it than to immediately reject it because it seems counter-intuitive to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    All findings fit with Ptolemaios too. The sun rises from the east and goes down to the west. So it must go round the earth. Somehow it goes. But this is not the whole story. The galaxies go farther. So the universe must expand. Somehow it does. But this is not the whole story.
    Ptolomy was not a scientist. And such observations of these are in sharp contradiction of the evidence.
    Ancient astronomers were well aware that the Earth went around the Sun, including the Anasazi, Mayans and Aztecs. Also India and there is some evidence the ancient Polynesians suspected it, as well.
    The Anasazi had build an Observatory, of sorts, that measured the Suns relative position to the Earth, through out the year, accurately. The Mayan Dresen Codex follows a Heliocentric view and accurately positions lunar and Venusian cycles.
    Observations included the Curvature of the Earth, the motions of the other naked eye planets and lunar orbit. Most detailed astronomical observations show that the motion of the Earth is responsible for solar motions in the sky.
    In fact, it appears as though only the ancient European cultures still retained the Geocentric model strongly in history, during a time when religious dominance in government made it a bit dangerous to ones career to speak of heliocentrism. There were bold ones who dared, but those ones also tended to rather boldly make other, more damning statements as well. For example, questioning the Virginity of Mary by Giodorno Bruno got him in a lot more trouble with the Inquisition than his astronomical views did.
    But it was still unhealthy for ones career to not adopt a geocentric position, back in the day, due to a lack of scientific methodology at the time.

    To a common layman, the untrained and uneducated observer, it could appear that the Earth was center of the Sol System. But to any trained and educated eye, it becomes clear that the Earth is in motion. Once Science got involved, using the scientific method to offset human bias, answers became more forthcoming. Along with rational understanding of observations.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioc..._Islamic_world
    http://www.denverastrosociety.org/df...coanPueblo.pdf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabh...e_solar_system
    emperorzelos likes this.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    563

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    Lets look the things 10-20 years later. Then we see who is childish, who has logic and who is shouting alone in a corner. It is not the first time when the scientific community has been wrong. One time it was childish for the doctors to wash their hands.
    Gallileo complex, nice going. Your idiocy here is not going to get that based on your shit because that does not follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olli S View Post
    It is so stupid to conclude that the whole big universe has sometimes been in a little point!!! If anybody has such a conclusion, there is something wrong in the foundations of his theory. There is nothing wrong in this logic. The wrong things are here: you can better than the GR and BB state that the whole universe, its space has no time-space, only the space- dimensions, and that the universe has no beginning and no expansion. These terms have no meaning in this level. And the BB can not popularize its meanings, when it is right in some things.
    Why is that so stupid? People much more knowledgable than you and smarter and more intelligent conclude it from evidence. From the evidence itself it follows logically. You start with your conclusion and try to lead the evidence, we follow the evidence.

  7. #207
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,782

    Default Re: The real nature of the universe

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorzelos View Post
    You start with your conclusion and try to lead the evidence, we follow the evidence.
    Nailed it in these words.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •