Re: The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]



William McHale wrote:
> Ralph Hertle <ralph.hertle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Brian:
>
>
> > Brian Tung wrote:
> >> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> > [clip]
> >>>There is another theory that better explains the RS, and, that uses almost
> >>>the same set of original empirical facts and identifications of properties
> >>>and consequences as the Doppler-Euclid-Hubble explanation.
> >>
> >>
> >> It has nothing at all to do with Euclid,
>
>
>
> > That's a direct lie. In science lies are not valid forms of refutation or
> > proof. Proof is reserved for identification of the facts and logic.
>
> > The cosmological Red Shift concludes that everything, on balance, is moving
> > away from everything else. By projecting lines from all said moving
> > entities to an origin point, it was necessary to use the Euclidean proved
> > concepts of the extension of a straight line, and that the ends of a line
> > are points, for example.
>
> Except you can't use Euclidean Geometry in the Universe. Euclidean geometry
> only applies to space that is flat; Einstein showed that the Universe is
> curved such that parrallel lines might converge or diverge. Further
> Euclidean geometry only deals with space; the Big Bang theory deals with
> space time.
>

Space has no geometry ( even hard up cataloguers know that) hence there
is nothing to curve,that being just silliness of mathematical theorists
who know no better.

In 1920 Albert thought it was a shame that light leaving stars was
going to waste so he 'bent space' to get this insane idea to work
*.When galaxies or the motion of stars around a common axis was
discovered in the mid 1920's ,'warped space' should have been laughed
off but theorists and their cataloguing cronies changed Albert's fixed
stars everywhere to galaxies everywhere and kept the relativistic
homocentric corpse dancing where it now stands as an embarrassing
homocentric mess.

Whatever pleasure you cretins derive from being anti-astronomy while
calling yourselves astronomers I do not know but the solution to all of
these difficulties are not relativistic but Newtonian in origin.I
could'nt care less whether you believe in warped space or not,humanity
is being denied a heritage which was mangled by Newton and his
disciples and supported by cataloguers who dare to award themselves the
noble title of 'astronomers' without merit.

The Roemerian insight of finite light distance preceded Newton's
'gravitational' agenda by decades and it is purely geometric in
content and character yet Newton made a complete balls of it as he
comments on the insight for Io is Jupiter's innermost moon,gravity has
nothing to do with discernment of finite light distance hence that
Einstein clown was misled by Newton into believing light and gravity
can be associated. -

"Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of the
Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no respect to
the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites is
insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their Gravity."

http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html


Ultimately you all live in a cartoon world of your own making and the
world no longer cares to be part of your insane perversion of the noble
discipline of astronomy.The cataloguers are too timid,lazy or just too
stupid to call you on your relativistic conceptual excesses but then
again it does not get any worse than 'every point is the valid center
of the universe' !.












"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html





> > Try to explain the BB origin point without the use of straight lines. It
> > cannot be done. Unless the lines to the origin point are not straight, and
> > in that case the projection of the universe would appear to be similar to a
> > plate of linguine - all curvy.
>
>
> Or the Universe would be curved; of course there would be local deformations
> in the curve due to masses such as planets, stars and galaxies, but by and
> large they would be gentle curves in space time.
>
> > since every indication shows
> >> that space is non-Euclidean, and yet the BB theory survives.
> >>
> >>
>
> > The term "non-Euclidean" is an anti-Euclidean terms that carries with it a
> > specific anti-reason implication. "Non-Euclidean" is a term that denies the
> > use of identifications, facts, and logic. Note the the same authors have
> > been equally vehement against the metaphysics (existents, facts,
> > properties, functionings, consequences, and cause and effect relationships
> > of existents), and the epistemology (inductive and deductive logic, proof,
> > validation of concepts, genus and differentia definitions, and the
> > hierarchy of knowledge) of Aristotle.
>
> The term non-Euclidean generally applies to geometry and has no anti-reason
> implication; rather it applies to any geometry that exists outside the perfect
> 2 and 3 dimensional spaces that Euclidean geometry depends on.
>
> > Your Platonism is showing.
>
> > The BB theory is untenable now that physics has proved that the
> > cosmological Red Shift is caused by the energy reduction of photons in
> > inelastic collisions with hydrogen molecules in cosmological space. Do the
> > math: the universe need not be expanding to explain and demonstrate the
> > cosmological Red Shift. Hence, the BB theory is history.
>
> 1. Physics has not proved that nearly enough energy can be reduced through
> inter-galactic space to produce the red-shifts that are seen.
> 2. Both Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity show that the Universe must be
> either expanding or contracting; it cannot exist in a state of equilibrium.
> Therefore since the evidence suggests that the Universe is expanding it
> makes sense to conclude that it does.
>
> > The Christian Platonists wanted a non-physically existing "ideal" cause for
> > the universe, and Plato's ideas were perfect for them. They also discarded
> > Aristotle's, objective reality, proof, validation of concepts, and accurate
> > scientific measurement.
>
> > Aristotle first explained that the causes for the continued existence of
> > the plurality of existents in the universe are the existence, properties,
> > functionings, and potentials of the existents in the universe. Aristotle
> > said that the cause and effect relationships of the properties of things
> > function and are conserved, and the plurality of the universe continues to
> > exist.
>
> What does Christian Platonists have to do with the Big Bang? Western
> Christianity has been firmly in the Aristotilian camp since the 12th century.
> In either case science has rejected both in favor of scientific method.
>
> --
> Bill

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast