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.
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And the basis of his theory is based only on seen evidence also. In fact all we know of the universe is based off seen evidence.
Did the OP ask you to field questions for him?
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
1) More "begging the question" fallacy.
2) Light gets dimmer as it travels.
Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy –since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by trace_the_truth
Gee, more ad hom, wonder what I did save disagree and wish to discuss this to warrant these responses. Shall we kindly leave the subject of myself out of what is supposed to be a scientific conversation?
So Edgar Allen Poe *I do enjoy his literary works but that is neither here nor there* is a credible scientific source? And no, the scenario you describe would not be the case.
You assume that light can push light into the visible spectrum creating what you claim. Remember distant stars are harder to see *read dimmer* than closer stars and whether or not space is infinite doesn't even factor in.
You concentrate on an anecdote? It shows your transparency.
As Edgar Allen Poe has said on the subject:
Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy –since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all.
lol. Do you understand anything about the electromagnetic spectrum?
"Dimmer" is not a scientific term. You are no scientist, that much is clear.
Photons do not lose energy as they travel.
I'm sorry. You are going to have to present me with someone more worthwhile in your next post to have me take you seriously. As of now, I am viewing you as a joke.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Ridhya
Isn't that how advance in science is achieved?
Originally posted by thehumbleone
Trace the truth is actually correct in his reasoning.
I dont understand how someone is unable to grasp the logic he is presenting.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Very interesting. Does your theory of an infinite age and size universe also have an explanation for the chemical composition of the universe?
The Age of the Chemical Elements
Age of the Universe