red shift and the not expanding universe

[Riemann]

@MANTRAPHILTER

…So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind.

I think you left out the word “sheeple” here.

@MANTRAPHILTER

…how big of a dumb ass you think I am…

Not so much a big dumb ass, more a crackpot. Since this is GQ, here is the cite:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

From memory, I’m pretty sure you have scored with #2,3,4,5,6,15,18,24,27,28,34,36 & 37.

@MANTRAPHILTER

…referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.

Yes, that would be close to #15; although rejecting mathematics altogether is novel. Shall we describe the behavior of the universe using the medium of song?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Riemann

Not so much a big dumb ass, more a crackpot. Since this is GQ, here is the cite:

Crackpot index

From memory, I’m pretty sure you have scored with #2,3,4,5,6,15,18,24,27,28,34,36 & 37.

I was going to add up how many points were scored, but these stumped me:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

There are so many of each that counting becomes tedious. And do we have to go through every post or can we just limit the scoring to the most recent one? Besides, I think that the scoring system is broken by sentences that are pure gibberish. Are those vacuous, false, or higher point value?

[Francis_Vaughan]

Science asks this of you. Propose an experiment that your theory predicts one answer to that existing theories predict a different answer to.

Now you are suggesting that the manner in which space is warped is due to the volume of the mass, and not any other aspect. You will need to define what you mean by a mass’s volume, as clearly a cloud of gas has a different mass to a lump of rock of the same size. But you have already made a prediction that is not that made by relativity. (Actually you have made a prediction that pretty much contradicts relativity.) Relativity bends space by the mass-energy tensor. Not just the mass. Relativity says that in addition to the mass, you need to add in all the other energy in the object to work out the total curvature of space-time.

Anyway, before you can get further, you need to work though a few simple predictions your theory makes. You can start with gravity. Since you are bending space, you are clearly defining the gravitational forces via this, and you should thus be able to come up with a way of explaining gravitational attraction in the same manner as Relativity does, but via the way your mass’s volume bends space. Minimally you should be able to come up with a way of deriving an expression for the attraction between two objects based upon the volume of the two objects. You can test it by predicting the orbital paths of planets. Rocky ones, gas giants, and Mercury. Especially Mercury.

Now, given the different way you define the way space is warped, you should have a different prediction to that of Relativity. Or, alternatively, you handwave it away, and say that your theory, ab-initio comes up with the same predictions as Relativity. In this case you don’t have a theory. It is just navel gazing.

But, and this is key, you need to get your idea to the point where it makes predictions. You minimally have to say how much and in what manner your theory bends space. And, that is going to require mathematics. Maybe simple stuff to start with, but unless you have some way of quantifying what you are suggesting it also remains navel gazing.

It isn’t up to us to work out what you mean, and given the tiny amount of content there is, it isn’t possible to anyway. Minimally, define the volume of a mass. (Hint, it is going to be a lot harder than you imagine.) And do so in a manner that isn’t essentially a way of re-using Relativity with different words, but actually comes up with new science.

[Colibri]

@MANTRAPHILTER

My theory is that a mass takes up the space that would otherwise occupy the same area that the mass does. This is how the space is warped. this warping of space is, to some extent, opposite of the density of the mass. We all agree that the light of a star changes its position as it travels by a mass. Also that it radiates out in all directions from its mass. My theory says that the sunlight would be entering less space as it travels farther from the mass of the sun. When you look up at the sun, when it is high in the sky on a bright day, notice how the light all pools around the sun, making it very hard to look directly at the surface of the sun, and as you look farther away the effect becomes less. This effect is caused by the compression of the light wave as they are entering the less space farther out. The light waves appear opposite of the way they appear to expand as they enter the space that is being warped by our planet. I suppose you are going to tell me that this effect is also just perspective, like the train tracks moving away from you but opposite. Only thing is we know that the light is traveling towards us. So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind. If I am right, think of a way to prove or disprove, instead of making snide comments about how big of a dumb ass you think I am, or referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.

Moderating

You’ve been given many factual answers to your questions, which you refuse to accept as valid. What you consider “bullshit mathematical nonsense” is actually science. Since you do not accept the factual answers to your questions, I see little point in continuing this discussion. This is closed. Enough is enough.

Do not start addition threads in this forum unless you are prepared to accept factual and scientific responses to your questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator