Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marius

  2. If space has mass then Ether exists. If Ether exists then Einstein is an idiot, because he removed the ether from space. And then ether would explain why light would loose energy - because light travels through a medium of etherium. Not because space itself expands.
  3. But that formula does not apply to Dark Energy, Einstein. Because no one knows what a dark energy is. That's why its called Dark.
  4. In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with mass with respect to time. In physical reality, since F=ma, only objects with mass can accelerate, and objects without mass can't, because there is no mass to accelerate. In cosmology, however, SPACE ITSELF has ACCELERATION (attributed to the expansion rate of space itself). If space is not an actual object with mass (but a mere geometrical concept, which expands for no explainable reason), then WHAT exactly in this 'expanding space' is accelerated, and by what ? Let me guess, it's dark, it's mysterious, and it's everywhere in space. And it's having a really bad day at physics. Space accelerates to in excess of light speed because something dark and mysterious, allegedly called the DARK ENERGY (because the DARK FORCE was already taken by STAR WARS copyright) is possesing space and makes it accelerate faster and faster and faster. Are we sure this is science and not pseudo-science, and an extremelly bad one at that ? I've heard dark age theories which make more sense. Like rats being spontaneously created by satan to spread the plague. Ok, not entirely scientific, but it didnt even pretend to be a scientific theory, and otherwise the theory made perfect sense given what we know about satan. He is dark, he is evil, and doesnt like humans very much. So that was to be expected from a dark medieval era. But this dark science, this is not expected from this Enlightened era and it is simply ridiculous, and atrocius at the same time, that the scientific community is not only coming up with such theories, but it is actually claiming that this utter non-sense is actually 'proven by observations'. Because they simply observe a redshift of light, i.e. a loss of energy of light proportional to distance. So that means space expands with incredible acceleration in excess of the speed of light, because they can't explain it otherwise. But they can't explain why space itself expands with such incredible acceleration either. So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it ? Because Vatican, who actually invented this big-bang abortion of a theory, as 'scientific evidence' for the creation myth, and money, that's why.
  5. And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency. Galactic redshift is nothing more but a direct consequence of the photon model, IF we agree that photons can loose energy over vast distances, due to interactions with other particles or some unknown process, without being blurred. You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with ALL POSSIBLE PARTICLES (which include unknown particles) on its course of millions or billions light-years, in which light has to travel through plasma clouds, gas clouds, free electrons, neutrinos, and so on, and that all these processes are well known and lead to a scattering of light which would cause light to appear blurred. But we know for a fact that light does indeed travel through those mediums, not just in a pure vacuum, and that it reaches us without being noticebly blurred. For example, each galaxy has an immense halo of electrically charged gas (or plasma), which spreads for millions of light years, and yet we see the galaxies very clearly ! It is extremely unlikely that light somehow manages to travel through these mediums for millions of light years without interacting with other particles and loosing energy in this process. This means that it is extremely likely that light does indeed loose energy, which implies that it is shifted to red, without being blurred, even if you pretend to know for a fact that this is not possible. So here is your model. Now what is your model for space expansion, I mean what do you think that happens in a space that stretches space with this immense acceleration, as though space would be an actual physical object that can somehow change its shape and expand/curve and so on ? Also how do you measure the expansion of a space, if say there are no galaxies in said expanding space, and no galactic redshift to interpret as space expansion ? And finally, what is the experimental evidence for expanding space ? What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ? If you cant answer this questions is becase your expanding space is a total bs with no logical consistency or actual proof, other than galactic redshift, which is a circular argument because you conclude space expands because you presume redshift is caused by space expansion. Your presumption is also the conclusion, circular logical fallacy.
  6. Because they didnt invent Dark Something to make it consistent with data, like they do in other cases with Dark Energy, or Dark Matter. But I invented it, and trust me, it solves the whole problem ! This is why the scientific community is in a perpetual CRISYS. And will never get out of it because it refuses to see the (tired) LIGHT.
  7. History Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[3] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general relativity. Einstein reportedly referred to his failure to accept the validation of his equations—when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological redshift—as his "biggest blunder". [WIKIPEDIA] @beecee But you see, Einstein never predicted the expansion with his theory. He predicted the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION, and initially rejected an expansion (proposed by Friddman ), because he was too occupied to doctor his theory in order to comply with a static universe, -which was the belief of the time. That is not a scientific aproach, it is a totally pseudo-scientific aproach. And that is not a scientific theory, because it obviously contradicts itself. As, depending on the man who is solving the equations, it gives opposite results ! And btw, makes Einstein look a bit silly not being able so solve his own equations ! This is not the genius that I had in mind. It is important to note that someone else predicted an expansion based on his theory, expansion which he rejected, and only after Hubble saw the redlight accepted. But this was his THIRD TRY. I wonder how many scientists are given so many shots to 'prove' their theories. In the end Einsteins GR 'predicted' all possible states of the universe: contracting, static, and expanding ! So whatever state the universe was in, his theory could not be wrong ! Because Einstein simply changed the theory's outcome according to 'the beliefs of the time'.
  8. Supported by what ?! By mere assumptions such as redshift is caused by space expansion, and by self-contradicting theories which predict contracting, then static, then expanding universes as time goes by ? I dont understand the mechanism that drives tired light either. But I have to explain in front of you, while you dont have to explain anything. No, Einstein ! I am simply asking you to respect your own standards which you impose to others. You asked me to give a mechanism for the tired light (or energy loss of light over vast distance) and closed the thread because I couldn't ! Now I ask you to give a mechanism for space expansion/big bang ! What is it so hard to understand ?? You really get it do you ?
  9. I agree. But that doesnt adress my point. You ask me to give a mechanism for the tired light theory, but on the other hand you don't give any mechanism for your space expansion/big-bang theory. Or you simply say its caused by a mysterious dark energy and that's it. No it is not ! Because Einstein's equations innitially predicted a contracting universe. Only after Hubble saw the redlight he changed the prediction. Which was a postdiction. And again this doesnt adress my point ! Those are all based on ASSUMPTIONS. Hubbles law is based on the assumption that space expands. This is not proven by anything, it is taken for granted, and after more than 100 years there is still no mechanism to explain how exactly this space expansion works. Thats your ideea of a bang. Based on the assumption that space expands. Which is based on Einsteins relativity, which predicted the universe should contract. Contraction is not expansion, it is the exact opposite. And I didnt ask how did you arrive at the IDEEA of your big bang, but what is the mechanism for the big-bang. What caused the bang ? No. It doesnt many any sense. Because Einstein's equations don't make any sense. Even for him. At first when he solved his equations he came to the result that the universe should contract because of gravity. Then he added a cosmological constant to make it static. And then, after Hubble saw the redlight, he removed the constant and somehow the universe was expanding ! That is serious pseudo-science and post-diction. And that is not what I asked on this and the other thread. I asked to give a mechanism for the Big Bang and the space expansion. If you dont have a mechanism for space expansion, but take this space expansion for granted, then why do you require me to have a mechanism for tired light ? Why can't I just take this tired light for granted, like you take space expansion for granted, without having to explain it ? Or say that a dark something is causing the light to loose energy and drop in frequency, like you say that a dark energy causes space itself to expand ?
  10. Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory, and not just an ideea, then I think you too are required to respect your own standards and give a mechanism for the theories that you support. So what is the mechanism that you propose for the Big-Bang ?
  11. Its called Dark Light. Dark Light in a mysterious light which chases bright light until it tires and looses energy, causing it to drop it's cadence (or frequency) and shift to red. This is sooo going Mainstream. No, it's not a joke. It's SCIENCE.
  12. Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion', which was immediately moved to Speculation by a moderator and closed on the basis that I could not explain the MECHANISM which makes light to loose energy over vast distances, and therefore my whole theory (which is actually based on Fritz Zwicky's tired light) was unsupported and not worthy of consideration because of this. Actually I tried to explain it by saying that the mechanism is Dark Something, a mysterious phenomenon which science has not yet discovered, as I understand from Mainstream Science this a very good and entirely plausible explanation for Space Expansion, which relies on a yet to be discovered DARK ENERGY to explain the mechanism for this space expansion, which in the current BIG BANG Cosmological Model has no scientific explanation what so ever. And for a yet to be discovered DARK MATTER to explain the inconsistency between Einsteins relativity theory and the way galaxies form and spin at huge velocities, which neither Newton's law or Einstein's general relativity explains. This is what caused the moderator to get angry and close the thread. But I only used the same ridiculous explanation that Mainstream uses to explain the mechanism of space expansion, and galaxy formation. If the moderator would be impartial and correct, he should move ALL threads involving space expansion which are based on unexplained mechanisms and unproven entities such as DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER to SPECULATION, and close them.
  13. The first two explained Einsteins theory of gravity using Newton's law of universal attraction. Why didnt they use Einsteins theory ? Because they comprehend it, or because they dont comprehend it ? And only comprehend Newton instead ? And you comprehend it ? If so, then can you make a calculation of the orbit of planets Jupiter and Saturn around the sun using Einsteins General Relativity gravity equations, and prove that they orbit in the same plane ? Not Newton, Einstein !!! And for the Matrix guy: Einsteins theory literally says that space is curved by mass and that this curvature of space is causing matter to move in an circular/eliptical path and light to bend as it passes through that space. This actual curvature of space is what in his and the mainstream opinion causes the light of stars to be bend near the sun (gravitational lensing), and the planets to orbit around the sun.
  14. Its not, they are actually observed to be in the same plane. This contradicts the aberration that gravity is caused by a curvature of space-time and planets orbit on the curved space. As does the flat geometry of the universe in general. There is nothing curved or bent. You are not getting the point, Einstein. This is exactly where Einsteins theory is applicable in our solar system, and it is exactly where it fails to explain the orbits off all the planets, which are all in the same flat plane- which makes no sense if SPACE IS CURVED. So now you explain Einstein's gravity with Newton's law, are you fucking joking ? Einstein contradicts Newton, he says gravity is not a force but a curvature of space-time, while Newton says gravity is a force in a flat space ! There is no problem between Newtons theory and the planets orbiting in a flat plane, like you mention it is perfectly explainable using Newton's law, but there is a huge problem in the case of Einsteins theory, which cannot explain why the planets orbit in the same flat plane if the space in which they orbit is curved. If its not an actual bending of anything then why do mainstream scientists keep pretending that it is ('matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move'), and keep giving the same fabric sheet example over and over ? And how is the aberration in the video an accurate description of reality ? Do you seriously think that it has anything to do with reality ? Where do you think you are, the Matrix ?
  15. And I am questioning your mechanism for 'expanding space'. Which you don't even bother to describe. At least I gave a couple examples of what may cause light to loose energy. Maybe there are other causes, like dark...something. Here you go, I explained it ! Happy now ? But why is your assertion that space expands, because of something that you dont know, more reasonable than my assertion that light looses energy over vast distances, because of something that I don't know ? Even if I cant say exactly what is the mechanism, I can easily imagine that it does. While I cant imagine how space itself expands, or what can be possibly expanding in an empty space, because its pushed by some mysterious dark energy which no one explains.
  16. You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does. Did I mention scattering in the OP ? I said light looses energy as it travels vast distances of space, due to interactions with other particles, such as free electrons, plasma, gas clouds. I dont know what scattering will occur after trillions and trillions of such interactions and neither do you. It is absurd to pretend that I should somehow know or calculate this scattering, while you dont have to explain how space expands and just assert it as a fact that is somehow not needing any explanation.
  17. And what exactly is unsupported ? That a light wave looses energy over vast distances, or that a loss in energy translates to a lower frequency and hence a redshift ? If E=hf then that is exactly what would happen. I do not understand what is your objection, you just say my OP is unsupported, when in fact it is supported by the equation of the light wave, but your post is supported by what ?!
  18. Of course it doesnt have a valid rest frame, thats why Genady's analogy with the car at rest is extremely counter intuitive and doesnt explain anything at all for how light's energy is frame dependent. Can you give me a better example, so I can understand what frames of reference are you talking about, and what is the math which you are applying to calculate the Energy of light for each frame ?
  19. Why ? Because he says 'that's incorrect', when I make a perfectly correct statement, and 'almost correct', when I make another perfectly correct statement ? Which he contradicts by making a weak/incorrect analogy with a car, ignoring the fact that a photon has no mass and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference, while the car has mass and its speed IS dependent on the frame of reference ? But a car is not a photon, and his 'explanation' is disregarding basic physics. It leads to galaxies traveling much faster than light speed, because space itself expands at warp speeds faster than Jean Luke Piccard's Enterprise, which makes him unable to boldly go where no man has gone before, because space flies faster than his ship. But I guess that is much more reasonable to believe than that the universe is static and light looses energy as it travels billions of light years. It also leads to Cosmological Crysis after Cosmological Crysis, but I guess that is also a much better alternative- so stick with it. So the speed of light is frame dependent too ? Or just its energy ? Enlighten me, please. Because in the car analogy the speed of the car was frame dependent, and the kinetic energy difference was based on this very fact.
  20. Except it does, according to the formula E=hf. A drop in frequency (associated with redshift) means a drop in energy too. And why would I assume such non-sense that 'space itself expands' ? When I can explain the galactic redshift in static space with a simple formula that relates energy to frequency ? And as far as I know light doesnt care about 'local frames of reference', according to modern physics it is not affected by the frame of reference at all. This is a very weak anology because a photon doesnt have mass like a car, and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference. The energy of light will be the same regardless of what frame of reference you are in.
  21. I don't agree that space expands. That is the conclusion of my OP, that space doesnt expand and there is no need for such illogical and unproven assumptions in order to explain the cosmological redshift. My explanation for cosmological redshift implies that the universe is static, and you can't use Hubble's assumptions based on space expansion to convince me that a light wave cannot loose energy, because the physics formula for a light wave implies that it will loose energy when its frequency decreases, and vice-versa. And that formula does not apply in an expanding space, but in a static space, because we dont live in an expanding space and no one has actually made an experiment in an expanding space to know how light behaves there. These are just opinions and speculations, mostly science-fiction like worm-wholes, dark energy and other non-proven non-sense.
  22. If a photon particle/light wave cant loose energy, then it means it cant change its frequency either. It is forever fixed and therefore no redshift is possible.
  23. Because of the particle-wave duality, one photon IS one light wave, and the frequency of this light wave will shift to red as it looses energy. A single photon particle-light wave will still loose energy as it hits other particles such as free electrons, as some of its cinetic energy is transfered to those particles. So the frequency of one photon particle-light wave will still drop with energy loss and shift to red.
  24. Why ? If E=h* frequency, and E decreases, while h remains constant, then frequency must decrease too. Its basic maths.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.