Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2002-12-24 22:13, ljbrs wrote:
For some unknown reason, most people seem to have remained with ideas which they learned at an earlier age (probably a very early age). From the moment of acceptance, further change becomes virtually impossible for most people. For others, changing one's viewpoint is exciting if faced with new ideas which have been demonstrated to be correct.
I, myself, love change, but only if the facts leading to that change are rock solid (whatever that means).
We can argue about science (in this case -- astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) until we are blue in the face, but a change in viewpoints is highly unlikely and seldom occurs.
Therefore, I think that it is important to be aware that anything which any of us writes is not going to sway anybody else who holds an opposite viewpoint on the particular topic.
I do not see anybody altering his/her/its ideas. For this reason, I dislike joining the fray since I expect nothing to come from it. The only people who can be swayed by any of us are those who have no idea about astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology, etc., and who are willing to learn. However, sadly, they, too, eventually will become entrenched in some viewpoint or another somewhere in the future.
I, myself, love it when something new comes along to force me to change my ideas. However, the facts causing such change in my ideas must be rock solid. "Rock solid" to me could be "flimsy evidence" to another person.
This is not to say that some ideas are much better than others. The better ideas have as much trouble being accepted by the general public as the foolish ideas. Of course, "the foolish ideas" are always those held by the other person... Of course... Naturally...
I will not hold my breath for any great agreement by most of the members of this (or any other) forum. If everyone agreed, then it might be boring indeed. We could all sit in front of our computers and pat ourselves collectively on our backs... ZZZzzzz...
ljbrs ZZZzzz...
_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe
[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 22:16 ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael cyrek replies:
I notice you are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read. That is why I do not believe in the 'big bang interpretation' of the redshift. See below, this is an important issue that could not only change your own mind set but create a revolution in cosmology.
A number of years ago, I had a PhD review my paper on the cause of the redshift. He replied that Maxwell's Equations refuted my idea of the 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cause of the redshift. The following is his explanation of why.
He explained and illustrated that the 'electric field patterns' are produced by VIRTUAL POSITIVE CHARGED PARTICLES moving from the positive charge to the negative charge and they traced out the pattern according to Maxwell's Equations and not due to any expansion as I claimed.
He overlooked one very important LAW OF PHYSICS and that is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER. Therefore, these charged particles, during their transition from the positive to the nagative charge, WILL REPEL EACH OTHER. This is the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to cause the electromagnetic field patterns to spread out in the central regions of these fields. This is why I believe that the lightwavws are the cause of the redshift.
If you look in any physics book, there should be an illustration of the nature of the lightwaves. You will notice that these lightwaves have field lines that are perpendicular to the motion of these lightwaves. Therefore, the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to these field lines expands the lightwaves in the same direction as the motion to cause the redshift.
The establishment astronomers will not accept this idea because it woukd cause a MAJOR REVOLUTION in cosmology that would overthrow their current 'big bang' concept,
MC
|
Mike:
You wrote:
Quote:
|
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read.
|
I received an M.A. at university. Everybody in my nuclear family had university degrees. I read a lot and pay careful attention to the sources of information offered. I see no problem in that.
I was not attempting to sway you in the least. That was the topic of this thread. I simply do not expect that certain people with unconventional ideas can be convinced of certain scientific ideas and that it would be a waste of my time AND THEIRS even to try to do so. So, I don't.
ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 15:28 ]</font>