Jump to content
Science Forums

Spacetime And Sr. Are Interesting But Unsupported Viewpoints.


Recommended Posts

This is the Strange claims forum, where we can discuss ideas that are :outside the bounds of real science: and can consist of unsupported irrational claims"

 

Special Relativity, Spacetime, Minkowski, Expanding Universe, 13 billion year old universe, Evolution, General Relativity, Particle Physics, are all prime examples of weird unscientific claims, that are chock a block full of contradictory claims.

 

To accept these ideas as if they could possibly be correct, would make one a "Reality Denier". (the worst type of Denier, according to the irrational claim that "to deny something" is some sort of crime anyway)

 

This means that its correct to say that universities are teaching errors, not Physics.

Its not hard to imagine this being possible.

 

Yes, and even people who are supposed to be "brilliant" can be easily fooled by fantasy.

 

Because all these concepts are just one big fantasy story, like Harry Potter stories.

 

The real "crime" is to push bizarre, irrational  ideas with the power of trusted authority, claiming that "this is REAL Science, and anyone who disagrees is therefore a crank, because we say so, not because of any sensible hypothesis"

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK what is none scientific about "Special Relativity, Spacetime, Minkowski, Expanding Universe, 13.8 billion year old universe, Evolution, General Relativity, Particle Physics"

 

They give reasonable results, when used within the limits of the theory, that match what happens on most things. Except perhaps dark stuff which you missed :)

 

Theories, that exist are best guesses new theories can always improve on, or disprove old ones. 

 

A Dr of medicine might have a theory based on science, how to cure a life threatening illness you have. Would you trust the doctors opinion based on science, or would you trust some witch doctor in a hut in the backstreets of some getto, or even a politician. A Health minister in South Africa who was growing beetroot claimed it cured Aids. She sold a lot of beetroot, but the clientele did not get cured.  

 

I agree intelligent people can be idiots, but would you trust an idiot to fly a plane.

 

The film Harry potter, was filmed and transmitted globally by devices developed by engineers and scientists, you would never have heard of it without them. 

 

Putting forward interesting ideas that can easily shown to be wrong can be a good way of learning or improving on an existing wrong theory. Accepting your own idea as fact, without entertaining the idea it could be wrong, might be a sign of Autism or some other mental disorder. Interestingly Autism of various degrees is very common amongst Scientists, Engineers, and technically minded people.

 

Can you focus on a subject and block out all other thoughts noises etc. Do you think everyone is idiot that fails to agree with you, or tries to correct you?  https://www.additudemag.com/autism-spectrum-disorder-in-adults/

 

Do you think everyone is idiot that fails to agree with you, or tries to correct you?"

 

Not at all, but this attitude is prevalent in the Universities.  The University educated mind is going to behave this way, then accuse others of the very same attitude.

 

People go to a University with an open mind, and come out believing everything they have been told. Not a single gap is left open for any new developments. (in the areas of cherished beliefs, as listed) University educated people think that anyone that does NOT agree with them ARE idiots.

University people who decide AFTER they get their Degree, that Big Bang or Spacetime is wrong, are immediately labeled as "cranks".

 

Its been stated by Professors that "Relativity (or whatever) is the best explanation for such and such, and it just works, so it will NEVER be proved wrong, on'y unproved on with better understanding".  Quote from Neit DeGrassse Tyson. That leaves NO room for any future claim that Einstein was totally wrong does it? Yet in the next breath, Scientists claim that a theory can be replaced.... yes, but not these core, cherished "articles of Faith" that I have listed.

 

I'm not talking about ALL physics or ALL Cosmology. Nothing is black and white. I'm only talking bout the areas of Physics that involves bizarre concepts yet is accepted as if it were all totally correct.

 

My little list is not complete, it did not include the Dark Matter or Dark Energy as you say.

 

All the things on my list are just rather irrational flights of fantasy, NONE of them are science fact or even close to it.

Ill also add, CMB, and Gravitational Waves as per LIGO.   These are poor interpretations of practically meaningless data to prop up someones nonsensical  preexisting belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People go to a University with an open mind, and come out believing everything they have been told. Not a single gap is left open for any new developments. (in the areas of cherished beliefs, as listed) University educated people think that anyone that does NOT agree with them ARE idiots.

University people who decide AFTER they get their Degree, that Big Bang or Spacetime is wrong, are immediately labeled as "cranks"..

 

 

That's often true, and beyond that, they reject empirical evidence if it doesn't fit their paradigm. Then they actively suppress further pursuit of that evidence.  The following video illustrates an example of this.  It's about an hour long, but interesting even apart from the point being made here.

 

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add, they claim something is evidence for their theory when clearly it is not, and when questioned or pointed to additional empirical evidence that contradicts their theory they ignore it and can get a bit tetchy. :)

 

 

Yeah, that's what's happened with the redshift question the video talks about.   The mainstream view has managed to claim that the redshifts of quasars actually support their theory.  They say they are quite distant, which implies unbelievable amounts of energy.  No matter how absurd the consequences, they will interpret the evidence as supporting them it seems:

 

Although the observations and redshifts themselves were not doubted, their correct interpretation was heavily debated, and Bolton's suggestion that the radiation detected from quasars were ordinary spectral lines from distant highly redshifted sources with extreme velocity was not widely accepted at the time.

 

Schmidt's explanation for the high redshift was not widely accepted at the time. A major concern was the enormous amount of energy these objects would have to be radiating, if they were distant. In the 1960s no commonly-accepted mechanism could account for this.

 

The uncertainty was such that even as late as 1984, it was stated that "one of the few statements [about Active Galactic Nuclei] to command general agreement has been that the power supply is primarily gravitational",[26] with the cosmological origin of the redshift being taken as given.

 

It is now known that quasars are distant but extremely luminous objects, so any light which reaches the Earth is redshifted due to the metric expansion of space.

 

The highest redshift quasar known (as of June 2011) is ULAS J1120+0641, with a redshift of 7.085, which corresponds to a comoving distance of approximately 29 billion light-years from Earth (these distances are much larger than the distance light could travel in the universe's 13.8 billion year history because space itself has also been expanding).

 

The brightest quasar in the sky is 3C 273 in the constellation of Virgo. It has an average apparent magnitude of 12.8 (bright enough to be seen through a medium-size amateur telescope), but it has an absolute magnitude of −26.7.[41] From a distance of about 33 light-years, this object would shine in the sky about as brightly as our sun. This quasar's luminosity is, therefore, about 4 trillion (4 × 1012) times that of the Sun, or about 100 times that of the total light of giant galaxies like the Milky Way.

 

As of January 2019, J043947.08+163415.7 is the most luminous quasar known to man[42], it shines with light equivalent to 600 trillion suns, across a light-travel distance of 12.8 billion "years ago"; in comparison, Type Ia supernovae shine no brighter than 5 trillion Suns

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

 

So, rather than conclude that Quasars could be closer than would be indicated by their redshifts, they said they were quite far away.

 

In that way the protected the notion that redshift could ONLY be caused by receding speed (which leaves the Big Bang theory intact), but at what expense?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think Halton Arps observations were pushed under the carpet, they are a active field of research, just google the galaxies mentioned in the video. There is nothing I can find that suggests Halton Arp thought the universe is not expanding, what he is questioning is why seemingly connected galaxies and nebulae have such huge differences in red shift. 

 

 

As I understand it, the big bangers were threatened by the suggestion that redshift could possibly be associated with anything other than receding motion

 

For that reason, they wanted to claim that the redshifts observed in quasars could be nothing other than a function of huge distance at great speed.  But that of course raised questions about how they could still be so bright.

 

Alp had evidence that they were not located at great distances.  I know nothing about astronomy, but I gather from the excerpts I quoted that the mainstream view remains that redshifts are a function of motion only.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing I can find that suggests Halton Arp thought the universe is not expanding, what he is questioning is why seemingly connected galaxies and nebulae have such huge differences in red shift.

 

 

I see that some of Alp's papers were co-authored by Burbridge (who is also in the video).  Burbridge and Hoyle (also in the video) have proposed a "quasi-steady state" alternative to the big bang theory.

 

So it appears likely that Alp also questioned the BBT.

 

But I agree that this was not the subject of the paper which was summarily rejected.  It was simply giving evidence that quasars were not as distant as the big bangers insisted that they HAD to be.

 

P.S.:  I just checked the wiki page on Arps.  It says:

 

Arp was also known as a critic of the Big Bang theory and for advocating a non-standard cosmology incorporating intrinsic redshift.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, a paper with the title below was published in 2006

 

Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model

 

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169

 

Alp's theory was apparently somewhat different that Burbidge's.  His theory was is referred to as the "redshift quantization" theory, which is also called the "Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model" referred to in the title of this paper.  It too stands in opposition to the BBT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

If science is considered as a combination of facts, theories and methods collected in the textbooks in circulation, then scientists are people who more or less successfully contribute to the creation of this collection. The development of science with this approach is a gradual process in which facts, theories, and methods are compiled into an ever-increasing stock of achievements, which is a scientific methodology and knowledge. At the same time, the history of science becomes such a discipline that captures both this sequential increase and the difficulties that prevented the accumulation of knowledge. It follows that the historian, who is interested in the development of science, sets himself two main tasks. On the one hand, he must determine who and when discovered or invented every scientific fact, law, and theory. On the other hand, it should describe and explain the presence of a mass of errors, myths, and prejudices that prevented the early accumulation of the components of modern scientific knowledge. 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

But with the help of expert writers, I will get a research paper written each time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...