the universe is not expanding!!! ? ? ? - Page 2

Cougar · #31 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

But sometimes it happens that the scholarly opinion is wrong despite being informed. A good example is this thread in which most informed citizens (possibly including you) assume uncritically that the universe is expanding, while there is no scientifically motivated reason to think so....

When you assume something, you take it as true without any supporting evidence, and you see where it takes you. (If it leads directly to a contradiction, then the assumption is probably faulty.)

But universal expansion is clearly NOT an "uncritical assumption." There are multiple lines of evidence that lead to this conclusion. This doesn't mean that expansion must be absolutely true. It means it is well supported by observations.

HypothesisTesting · #32 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

Why do you think it is expanding at all? The astronomers don't know any reason for this expansion except the pressure from mathematicians to assume such scenario so they have something "scientific" to work on.

The mathematicians keep for themselves the knowledge that if one calculates the redshift in any light in the universe it comes out with the so called Hubble redshift approximately exponentially depending on the distance (which also gives the illusion of accelerating expansion). I'm a little bit tired of this mistification and that's why I wonder why do you believe it and don't just calculate for yourself that the universe is not expanding? It's just a high school math only. Luckily we may tell truth in ATM thread and we won't be fired from our positions as it happened to Halton Arp for publishing his discoveries contradicting the Big Bang

I guess I'm just in the "anti-Arp" school of thought on this one, which I think is the mainstream view. To me, the standard model makes sense because I can envisage a hot "explosion" creating space-time, but like a rocket motor, this would give momentum to all objects. It would take billions of years to slow down this initial momentum by the gravity of the universe. Imagine throwing an object upward, it decelerates for a while but is still going up.

JimJast · #33 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerocold

BB has many patch solutions, and one of them seems that "momentenergy" thingy, BUT...static universe could be even more complicated since it needs to explain how all the things have become as are now (w/o that "is eternal" thingy), i think that is the reason why modern cosmology dont want to know about static universe -im not saying that BB or staticU are wrong-

They can't admit that the universe is static after so many years of pretending that they didn't know that, and that energy is actually conserved while it is only a high school math and physics. They are supposed to be very sophisticated mathematicians, way smarter than Einstein

Neverfly · #34 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

They can't admit that the universe is static after so many years of pretending that they didn't know that, and that energy is actually conserved while it is only a high school math and physics. They are supposed to be very sophisticated mathematicians, way smarter than Einstein

Or maybe you, one person, cannot admit to being wrong, instead you think EVERYONE else is wrong...

In spite of the excellent refutations you have received- it seems they were blocked by your ego before reaching your eyes and ears.

JimJast · #35 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

But universal expansion is clearly NOT an "uncritical assumption." There are multiple lines of evidence that lead to this conclusion. This doesn't mean that expansion must be absolutely true. It means it is well supported by observations.

What evidence? You already know that Hubble redshift is a feature of static universe, What else is there as an evidence of the expansion after Hubble redshift is taken away?

JimJast · #36 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Or maybe you, one person, cannot admit to being wrong, instead you think EVERYONE else is wrong...

In spite of the excellent refutations you have received- it seems they were blocked by your ego before reaching your eyes and ears.

In science it is not enough to tell "maybe you are wrong" since it means nothing. It has to be demonstrated with evidence. I presented the the evidence based on the mainstream physics that the universe is not expanding. Their "excellent refutations", as you call them, were allegations that mainstream physics may be wrong, and energy may be not conserved.

Or you are thinking about something else that I missed?

CodeSlinger · #37 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:50 PM

In addition to cosmological redshift, there are quite a few other lines of evidence for BB's expanding universe:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#evidence

And no, we don't "know" that Hubble redshift is a feature of static universe. Your arguments have already been addressed in your own ATM thread. In accordance to the forum rules, please do not try to revive the argument in another ATM thread.

Neverfly · #38 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

In science it is not enough to tell "maybe you are wrong" since it means nothing. It has to be demonstrated with evidence. I presented the the evidence based on the mainstream physics that the universe is not expanding. Their "excellent refutations", as you call them, were allegations that mainstream physics may be wrong, and energy may be not conserved.

Or you are thinking about something else that I missed?

I'm thinking you missed quite a lot.
Einstein's universe
Your entire thread.

You claimed to have evidence that the Universe is static. That doesn't mean you actually presented evidence that holds up (It didn't hold up) under scrutiney.

CodeSlinger · #39 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:53 PM

Neverfly, I propose that we do not help JimJast drag that argument into yet another ATM thread.

Neverfly · #40 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Neverfly, I propose that we do not help JimJast drag that argument into yet another ATM thread.

<puts away his jar of Troll Food.>

Awwwwww... Shucks!

JimJast · #41 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You claimed to have evidence that the Universe is static. That doesn't mean you actually presented evidence that holds up (It didn't hold up) under scrutiney.

Which part didn't hold up? (Why didn't you asked then for the explanation?)

Neverfly · #42 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

Which part didn't hold up? (Why didn't you asked then for the explanation?)

It has all been addressed in the other thread, but I'll go through the thread, find key posts and PM you the links to those posts.

zerocold · #43 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 04:25 PM

I think that the JJ thread should be re-open, werent disscusions of the main issues on there, and you guys are messing this thread

The main JJ argument for his "JJ universe"...........was the "photon dynafriction" thingy, that wasnt even well debated , the main mistake JJ did was how he presented his idea, instead to present only his photon behavior theory (or hypothesis) he aimed to the big fish (staticU)....not good idea

JimJast · #44 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

When you assume something, you take it as true without any supporting evidence, and you see where it takes you. (If it leads directly to a contradiction, then the assumption is probably faulty.)

That's right. Only you shouldn't maintain that it is a fact but only an assumption. That the universe is static is a fact since otherwise we would see a redshift bigger than the Hubble redshift and we don't. That a lot of applied mathematicians ignore physics is a sociological problem and not something we need to be concerned with here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

But universal expansion is clearly NOT an "uncritical assumption." There are multiple lines of evidence that lead to this conclusion. This doesn't mean that expansion must be absolutely true. It means it is well supported by observations.

You may only say this when you don't know that the Hubble redshift is a standard stuff in a static universe. Once you know that, you are kidding yourself beliving in the Big Bang cosmology. And I don't care whether the universe is static or not (I'm not even an astronomer) but I don't want to kid myself where evidence is already there and consistent with all observations up to date.

Thanks for turning my atention to this forum. I met a guy who knew what he was talking about (Fortis) and I learned about galaxies angular diameter problem which I'm going to work on now (it turned out to lead to a differential equation that I can't solve yet analitically, but I just started). It'll look good in my PhD when I solve it and if not I don't need to do this PhD

To bad they closed my thread before I manged to solve the problem. But I doubt they are interested in science anyway. So long, Cougar.

tommac · #45 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 05:11 PM

Can I ask an even more ATM question here?

If matter also had a tendency to expand along with space-time ( which it clearly does although the expansion is counteracted by the gravitational pull of the matter ( which in turn contracts the matter )).

Then wouldnt we end in a box, inside of a box, inside of a box ( not sure if this is really zeno here ) kind of deal.

Like if matter and energy expand with space time, which would also could produce the hubble redshift. then at one point everything was smaller ... and now everything is larger and in the future everything is larger ... and really the compression is just a factor ( or a dimension ). ( Note: The expansion of space could be an illusion here )

Then as you extrapolate back in time instead of coming to a singularity of very dense energy you go back to a singularity of very weak energy ( proportionately as dense as the average energy in the universe today ).

If the compression can be taken as a mere illusion or other effect then you would end up in steady state rather than BB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

That's right. Only you shouldn't maintain that it is a fact but only an assumption. That the universe is static is a fact since otherwise we would see a redshift bigger than the Hubble redshift and we don't. That a lot of applied mathematicians ignore physics is a sociological problem and not something we need to be concerned with here.

You may only say this when you don't know that the Hubble redshift is a standard stuff in a static universe. Once you know that, you are kidding yourself beliving in the Big Bang cosmology. And I don't care whether the universe is static or not (I'm not even an astronomer) but I don't want to kid myself where evidence is already there and consistent with all observations up to date.

Thanks for turning my atention to this forum. I met a guy who knew what he was talking about (Fortis) and I learned about galaxies angular diameter problem which I'm going to work on now (it turned out to lead to a differential equation that I can't solve yet analitically, but I just started). It'll look good in my PhD when I solve it and if not I don't need to do this PhD

To bad they closed my thread before I manged to solve the problem. But I doubt they are interested in science anyway. So long, Cougar.

JimJast · #46 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerocold

The main JJ argument for his "JJ universe"...........was the "photon dynafriction" thingy, that wasnt even well debated , the main mistake JJ did was how he presented his idea, instead to present only his photon behavior theory (or hypothesis) he aimed to the big fish (staticU)....not good idea

They can't discuss photons since they don't have arguments. The only way the BB folks can protect their cosmology is not to discuss it and not let to publish the relevant facts. Pretend it to be too sophisticated to be even understood by regular physicists with their primitive principle of conservation of energy and momentum, who can't even comprehend the meaning of "momenergy" and how it allows to create energy form nothing due to GR.

Neverfly · #47 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

They can't discuss photons since they don't have arguments.

Is this a conspiracy theory?

Maybe you should start a thread SOLELY on Photon dynamic friction to get it the 'proper' attention.
JimJast, just because your thread bounced all over the place doesn't mean no one had arguments- NOR does it mean you are automatically correct, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

The only way the BB folks can protect their cosmology is not to discuss it and not let to publish the relevant facts.

Poor you, beaten down by the Evil Mainstream. Another Conspiracy theory to support your woe begone claims...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

Pretend it to be too sophisticated to be even understood by regular physicists with their primitive principle of conservation of energy and momentum, who can't even comprehend the meaning of "momenergy" and how it allows to create energy form nothing due to GR.

You ad homs against the general physicist crowd does nothing to alleviate any tension caused by your ego, conspiracy claims or blatant disregard for people that understand better than you do what you are confused about.

It's amazing how this one poor genius has been tormented so by the Ignorant Physics community. No one else understands physics only you. It must be so lonely at the top.

You must be feeling so victimized.

Would you like a hug?

HypothesisTesting · #48 (**permalink**) 23-April-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Then as you extrapolate back in time instead of coming to a singularity of very dense energy you go back to a singularity of very weak energy ( proportionately as dense as the average energy in the universe today ).

If the compression can be taken as a mere illusion or other effect then you would end up in steady state rather than BB.

Except that then, how is the 3 K microwave background radiation explained? After this discovery, in 1960s, there was no longer any mainstream scientific doubt that the universe started in big bang versus steady state. Think of the background radiation as the "fire" of the big bang; steady state wouldn't have this fire.

And if the universe is steady state, it seems like it would be infinitely old. But then we'd have that ridiculous "Olber's paradox" which states that if you looked in any direction, the angular density of stars would be infinite and the universe would be as hot as stars instead of the cold 3 kelvins it really is.

When all the evidence is totalled up, it is much more consistent with (a) big bang origin (b) subsequent expansion of universe.
This was all hashed out since 1960s, I really don't think there is any doubt about it. Scientists are much more interested now in identifying the nature of the dark matter/energy.

tommac · #49 (**permalink**) 24-April-2008, 02:25 AM

maybe it comes from the loss of energy from the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands light travelling in a vacuum looses energy ... maybe that is what we are seeing. Who knows ... again ... just because there is not a current alternative answer to the 3K microwave background doesnt allow one to skip all logic and say that it is from the big bang.

Maybe steady state is not the right terminology. I think there can be an expanding universe that is continuous. basically similar to the big bang just without the bang ... just a steady state version of constant expansion or maybe a fluxuation or maybe the expansion is illusionary somehow and that as things move to infinite expansion it recycles itself as infinitely dense.

In any case I have a hard time with the leap of faith that the universe started out as a singularity and that there was no time or existance before the big bang.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HypothesisTesting

Except that then, how is the 3 K microwave background radiation explained? After this discovery, in 1960s, there was no longer any mainstream scientific doubt that the universe started in big bang versus steady state. Think of the background radiation as the "fire" of the big bang; steady state wouldn't have this fire.

And if the universe is steady state, it seems like it would be infinitely old. But then we'd have that ridiculous "Olber's pa