Re: Explanation of why expansion redshift optical illusion of a different kind of redshift

On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

The evidence is the cosmological red shift.

f = 1 / t

In the expansion model, the space and time involved a long journey for
light expand together.

So it satisfies the red shift.

But it could also be just the time that is expanding.

All that means is in v = d / t, if the distance is static, then v
decreases. It's a deceleration.

and still you have no proof.... it could be, but it just as easily
might not, and your not a scientist so... what would you know? what
you think its convincing that you toss in a little science jargon here
and their? Try this on for size...

DiracDelta[Subscript[x, 1], Subscript[x, 2], \[Ellipsis]] == (1/Pi)
Limit[\[CurlyEpsilon]/(\[CurlyEpsilon]^2 + Subscript[x, 1]^2 +
Subscript[x, 2]^2 + \[Ellipsis]), \[CurlyEpsilon] -> 0] /;
Element[Subscript[x, k], Reals]

You know what it is? Can you solve it? If you were a scientist you'd
know....

Oh... right no an no....

Wow this jargon thing is fun... I like string random things together
and say they prove something...

My little graphs prove beyond a doubt that data of a decelerating body
can be charted over a grid that "zooms" in over to give the illusion
that the body is traveling at a constant speed.

no they prove that you can fool yourself into believing you have a
point... since chart zooming has nothing to do with nature...

<snip> crap


<snip>

Your graphs prove that your imaginative they have nothing to do with
what happens in science.

The world would be so unfair to you if my graphs had any meaning in
them.

no not really.... your graphs have no meaning so thats not even a
valid concern... and I happen to be perfectly successful as a
scientist thanks.... so unlike you I actually know what I am talking
about....

You can't bring yourself to even look and see.

I looked I saw, they are meaning less.. they are spew....

<snip>

I know enough to know that if the big bang never happened and space
wasn't expanding, that would solve every problem that the big bang
faces.

I know that if you stopped posting the quality of this group would
increase 100% what's your point? Just like I know that if you're
really as dumb as your posts make you look, evolution would have seen
to it that you never came about.


<snip>

<snip>

See in the subject where it says expansion is an illusion?

According to that speculative paper, sure, according to your argument
your knowledge of science is an illusion. And mike the argument you
make never proves expansion is an illusion, in fact the only argument
I can detect is for tired light and the rest is spew, which I didn't
bother to read...


If you would have taken a minute to read my posts and understand my
charts, you'd probably have a clue about what it is I'm saying.

If you learned anything about science you'd understand why everyone is
so mean to you, and why you such a complete imbecile.

Cheers
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... Depends on what the criteria for candidates are. ... How about we just teach science in science class? ... As long as the policy is entirely secular (and biology ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... >in court, which was aso made quite clear. ... They can easily decide that science, ... School boards decide on curricula based on (to be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... as a statement of empirical fact. ... separate from the methodology of science. ... they do not come to these beliefs by way of science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Life after people
    ... He wants to control nature. ... My point is mankind is the higest order of creatures on earth. ... But the point is we should know this without science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > of science and philosophy. ... *as implemented in laws and policies* have purpose and effect. ... Why do you think that SETI isn't science? ...
    (talk.origins)