Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
From: Info Plumber (infoplmr_at_nb.sympatico.ca)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Spaceman: "Re: spacetime and the jokes it has created"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Why do rubber bands perish?"
- In reply to: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Next in thread: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Reply: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:04:36 GMT
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40FFF0F7.60707@verizon.net...
>
> Info Plumber:
>
> If you set the maximum number of characters in your email program for
> your writings to not exceed 75 characters, or, 72 characters, your posts
> won't display in the chopped up form that they now have.
>
> That refinement will give your posts the appearance of some measure of
> typographical justification.
>
Thanks for the tip, how is this?
> .......
>
> "Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:40FCC49D.2050105@verizon.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The universe is eternal. Every scientific discovery, demonstration,
> and proof done in all of history validates the existence of the
> existents being examined in the observations and experiments, and taken
> together by the use of inductive logic, the fact of continuity can be
> inferred and then validated.<<
I believe that is an unsupportable claim.
>
> [you say:]
>
> > My intuition says that anything that is expanding at a more-or-less
> constant rate (or accelerating rate) must have been a singularity at
> some time in the past. Your statement above seems more like existential
> philosophy than hard science. There are few things in cosmology that
> have as much hard, scientific validation as the "big bang".<
>
> Intuition is not science, it is projection and wishing, just to mention
> some of the possible notions.
I was not the first person to mention "intuition" in this thread, but I made
it crystal clear (I thought) that my position was based on science, not
intuition.
>
> The inference of a mathematical origin point for the claimed expansion
> of the universe seemed plausible based of the application of the Doppler
> Effect to the data of the Apparent Red Shift. It did seem that the
> emitters of light were moving away from Earth and, by deduction, from
> one another. The Hubble 'balloon' theory was offered.
>
> The corresponding dots on successive balloons when the dots are
> connected via, would you believe, Euclidean, straight lines, and the
> lines extended toward a common point [as a an Aristotelian Formal Cause]
> seemed to imply a common origin point. That is an example of the fallacy
> of application. and the 'balloon' physics that has resulted in the worst
> conceptual machinations ever created in physics.
>
> The Doppler-Hubble theory was a convenient way for the "must have-ist"
> religionist creationists to shore up there Biblical creation theory.
> That is not science - the 'balloon' theory is religion. The
> creationist-religionists have made it a point that cause and effect, and
> that means facts and logic, will not be operative in that area of science.
>
> What the discoverers of the Apparent Red Shift did accomplish was to
> identify and measure a unique phenomenon in the universe. They were wise
> enough to not immediately conjecture any guesswork causes. Any Ancient
> Greek concepts, i.e., a straight line, or the extension of a straight
> line, Circular Motion, Rectilinear Motion, or dimensional locomotion,
> were simply insufficient to explain the physical cause of the phenomenon
> of the Apparent Red Shift of light photons.
>
> The 'balloon' theory and the application of the acoustic Doppler Effect
> did not provide a causal explanation of the shifts of the frequencies of
> photons traveling from the more distant objects. The nature of light
> wasn't known, and the actual physical cause(s) that modified the
> photon-waves in some way was not at all known.
>
> The interposition of the 'Balloon' and BB theory so enamored the
> religionist-creationists that those scientists failed to ask the
> appropriate questions that would have been, and still are, necessary to
> ask in order to identify the causes of the Apparent Red Shift data.
>
> All except Lord Rayleigh, that is. That is a chapter of science that the
> religionist-creationists are hiding under the complexities of a rug of
> mysticism. He found a truly scientific cause and effect relationship
> between photons, hydrogen atoms, and the Apparent Red Shift. He found in
> controlled laboratory experiments that the energy level of photons was
> decreased upon collisions with hydrogen atoms. The frequency of the
> photons was proportionately lowered.
>
> Those experiments can be redone, and they are perfect problems for
> college level experimentation. The designs of the experiments can be
> improved and modern apparatus and measuring equipment may be used.
>
> The causes of the Apparent Red Shift can be rediscovered and
> demonstrated right in the laboratory, and true scientific theories can
> be checked, validated, and refined.
>
> Only religious and politically correct obstructionism can prevent the
> tradition of facts and logic in science to be advanced.
>
> Scientists may ask what is it in the hydrogen atom that causes the
> reduction of the photon energy level discovered by Rayleigh? Is it the
> electron? The emissions of gravitons previously absorbed by the atom?
> Or of some other effect that in some way at that time and conditions is
> related to the hydrogen atom?
>
> Forget the Euclidean geometric origin point that the
> religionist-creationists have foisted upon us.
>
> Instead, ask the real questions: what happens to photons in their
> travels through space to cause the lowering of their energy levels. If
> collisions or the intercession of other causes are at work, it may be
> found that the universe is not at all expanding, that there was no BB,
> that the Apparent Red Shift will have been explained in terms of
> physical cause and effect, that the cause of gravity may also be
> explained as an integral cause, that the red shift varies due to the
> differences of densities of hydrogen atoms or the different flux
> densities of radiant gravitons in space, and that the universe is
> considerably smaller than previously estimated.
wait just a minute, how can a "continually existant" universe be anything
other than infinite in size while at the same time being "smaller than
previously estimated"?
with respect to "the flux densities of radiant gravitons in space", are you
referring to the hypothesized effect of a "Mitchell star" or other
significant gravity well, namely the indirect result of uni-directional
gravitons causing localized Elysium density increases which result in the
refraction and ultimate red-shifting of photons? this idea seems to me to
have some fatal logical weaknesses, so perhaps he has something else in
mind? Has he subjected this option to experimentation?
>
> Due to religion the theory that no physicist seems to be advancing is
> that the universe continually exists as plurality, and that it is made
> of a myriad of parts.
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
this is a very interesting theory and one that I have not seen before. I
will enjoy very much giving this idea some serious consideration, but for
now just a few questions and comments:
1. Where can I obtain more information on Lord Raleigh and his work?
2. Does he extrapolate his findings with estimates of ?
a) stellar and intergalactic distances.
b) the size of the currently visible portion of the universe.
3. Where does he stand on General Relativity?
4. What are his positions on dark matter and dark energy?
5. What is his position on multiple universes and string theory?
The majority of today's physicists who are atheists are also "Big Bang"ists,
so your final comment does not hold water. From the general tone of your
post, I get the distinct impression that you harbor an irrational hostility
towards any theory that would lend credence to the Creationist point of
view.
IP
- Next message: Spaceman: "Re: spacetime and the jokes it has created"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Why do rubber bands perish?"
- In reply to: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Next in thread: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Reply: Ralph Hertle: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
