Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Okay, look, can the meta-discussion stop and let us move on to the more important question of booker's hypothesis? booker, if you could answer my question maybe we could get somewhere here. As mooeypoo has pointed out, your posts have been quite lacking of any substantive explanations or evidence, and we have every reason to think you just another crackpot until you decide to provide them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booker Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 (edited) The red shift of distant galaxies is not due to the relativistic Doppler effect, as commonly believed, but the metric of spacetime. The metric, after a couple derivatives obtains the connections that tell us how vectors are to be compared over distances. It is the intervening metrics of an expanding spacetime that cause the red shift. Yeah, the universe really is expanding, but the red shift isn't Doppler in origin. You can read about it here http://http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/ beginning on page 63. It's interesting that a partial, illiterate explanation of this prompted a hostile response. Edit: My posts got scrambled. But anyway, thanks for playing. This is your temporary crackpot, comming clean. And the Universe really is expanding for all I know--just not due to the relativistic Doppler Effect. Edited August 25, 2008 by booker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 The link you supplied speaks of General relativity.. could you please give us a bit more specific substantiation to your claim that there's no expansion? Specific page out of the multi-page site you posted, perhaps? Please try to understand that the purpose of peer review is to criticize a theory. If it stands the review, it's valid. If it fails, it's invalid. That's the entire point of the process, and it's also the process that makes sure we are not accepting crackpot theories that have no basis in reality into mainstream science. For your theory to be valid, it needs substantiation; we are vigorous because we're supposed to be. It's not personal, it's not against you, it's not supposed to be hostile. We were reacting to what seemed to be a negative and evasive attitude on your part. We asked you for substantiation, and you either ignored or outright refused us. Peer review is part of science. It's supposed to be vigorous. It's supposed to try and invalidate your theory. That's the only way to make sure only truly valid ones enter mainstream science. The right thing for you to do now is explain all our counter-points in such a way that your theory survives our criticism. Then, well, then you might win a Nobel prize for changing the face of physics. And I meant what I said about the good luck. Change in science is exciting. Good luck achieving it. You have a bit of proving to do, though, still. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booker Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 (edited) The link you supplied speaks of General relativity.. could you please give us a bit more specific substantiation to your claim that there's no expansion? Specific page out of the multi-page site you posted, perhaps?... Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity is a renowned text, available in an unfinished version online, and well worth the purchase. Reread my edited, previous post. My intent was to see how an element of a mainstream theory--in this case General Relativity--presented in bad language, would be torn up by those taking the role of skeptics. But I flubbed it. I'd recalled erroniously, it seems, that size of the universe, or at least an increase in it, is well defined, rather than observer dependent. Edited August 25, 2008 by booker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Okay.. I officially completely lost you. What is the purpose of this thread? Are you recanting your hypothesis? I'm.. at a loss here... I thought we were discussing universe expansion and the doppler effect. ...are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booker Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Okay.. I officially completely lost you. What is the purpose of this thread? Are you recanting your hypothesis? I'm.. at a loss here... I thought we were discussing universe expansion and the doppler effect. ...are we? No. I'm a fraud. Not to mention, obnoxious, combative and egotistical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I can hardly believe this thread got so much attention in the past few hours. Booker, there is a very apt saying: put up or shut up. http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lolcat-funny-picture-moderator1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts