It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Universe expanding faster than at the big bang

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


From your own source my friend.


In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[15] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.


This is what we are talking about when referring to the expansion of the universe. I thought even the FAITHFUL knew this.


Even Edwin Hubble renounced the original hypothesis before his death, favoring the tired light theory instead.
I'm not particularly partial to that one either.

Learn something indeed. The picture I posted is referred to as an anomaly by conventional astronomy, there are lots. They are not anomalies they are falsifications of the red shift hypothesis.

Oh, and I never said I was an expert at anything.
Of course your most welcome to believe the fantasies of dark matter, dark energy, big bang, black holes, neutron stars and on and on.... I have no problem with that.

Peace.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by squiz]




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Well, if you won't learn English, you're not likely to learn anything else, are you?

Definitions of equate

Definitions of correlate.

You can spare us the sermon, thanks.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Always was pretty crappy at English, skipped a lot of English classes.
I'm a terrible writer. But I do think most people would know what I was saying. But I'm not sure what your trying to say? I stand by my statement Redshift does not equal distance by the simplest of true science, observation, and Poppers scientific principle of falsification. Can you show me how that image conforms to the standard red shift hypothesis? and then I'll have a dozen more for you.
astronomy.swin.edu.au...

I'm an artist actually, if you must know.
I recognize the tactics, finicky nitpicking of semantics, an act of frustration. You are an angry dinosaur aren't you?
Just kidding.

Nice try brother, amen.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by squiz]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Cosmology quest deals with the expanding universe and the red shift controversy. Know the other side of the story.



Here we go, this part specifically talks about the image I posted. Hear it from some astronomers.
Absolutely excellent and essential documentary.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by squiz]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I recognize the tactics, finicky nitpicking of semantics, an act of frustration.

Mathematics, actuallly, not semantics. Don't forget I agreed with you: red shift does not equate to distance from the observer. But when you have factored out the other causes of red shift in ridiculously faraway astronomical bodies, you are left with a correlation between distance and degree of shift. A correlation, not an equivalence.


You are an angry dinosaur aren't you?
Just kidding.

No, you're right, I am. And a rude one too, when roused.


Nice try brother, amen.

You too, cousin.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Mathematics, actuallly, not semantics. Don't forget I agreed with you: red shift does not equate to distance from the observer. But when you have factored out the other causes of red shift in ridiculously faraway astronomical bodies, you are left with a correlation between distance and degree of shift. A correlation, not an equivalence.


I think I understand where you are coming from, you were picking on my use of words. very nice. Sure sounds like semantics to me. Ok, the correlation is flawed.

If you are agreeing that redshift does not proportional to distance then I'm impressed, and we do actually agree on something. But this is not what is being taught. Are you stepping out of the mainstream?
en.wikipedia.org...

And it is calculated from the observer, that being Earth.
That's how we end up with the "fingers of god" effect.
www.thunderbolts.info...

Here's another one, something just doesn't correlate here

www.thunderbolts.info...

BTW I respect your opinion, I'm just offering the mostly unheard side of the argument for people to consider.

And just to emphasize my point, not that it's really necessary, that one little image alone completely refutes the expanding universe and the big bang, by sciences own rules mind you. No amount of chest beating (that's what silly monkeys do
) or personal attacks can change that.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by squiz]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


There might be something in the electrical universe theories.
Electrical forces are greater than gravity forces when charges
are in effect or generated.

Every time a star is born charges flow from poles to the equator.
Stars exploding will send charges and currents in every direction
which will push other electrified objects away and thus add to the
expansion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join