No, you’re free (and always were) to march in any direction you want. But if you want others to join you, or to get textbooks or laws altered to say that your particular march is as good as any, then yes, you’ll need a replacement theory.
Not to me but if it helps you in some small psychological way please feel free to consider it one.
Thanks Bryan.
Again, Jon, are you going to respond? That’s twice now you’ve ignored my responses that have addressed two bits of your “evidence.”
We agree then particularly on that last statement above.
Would you care to prove in your own words that BBT deserves that frontrunner status?
Citations would be great and in fact I dont care if you pull it off of another website or book or video etc. But I would appreciate it if you would rephrase a good bit of the material. That way I know you understand what you are drawing from.
I disagree. Part of the point of putting theorys out there is to see if they falsified using current observations and data.
I would say that a good bit of BBT does not conform to the scientific method.
Wiki seems to me to have a pretty good handle on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
“To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.” "
The BBT most certainly fits this definition just fine. The BBT is supported by heaps of empirical and measurable evidence that is also highly consistent and predictive to 5±sigma confidence levels, if not more.
Do you have a citation from anyone besides “quasars.org”?
Where is their evidence that the pictured objects are genuinely connected, rather than simply being in aparent proximity, but actually being light years aart?
In my own personal opinion you lost the expectation of a response when you resorted to an ad hominem attack in post 220 of this thread.
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
Then you’re just insane.
[/QUOTE]
Personal attacks are not debate and typically only used when one considers their own argument to be so weak that the only option left is to assassinate the character of their opponent.
However since you have asked twice…
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
- Eddington died in 1944, years before the CMB was discovered.
[/QUOTE]
You are correct but how does this prove that BBT is a viable theory?
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
- Eddington also later became a supporter of the BBT
[/QUOTE]
Correct again and very interesting as well but as with your first point I fail to see the relevance.
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
- What Eddington calculated had nothing to do with the blackbody spectrum of the CMB. He calculated the effective temperature via the energy densities of starlight. The fact that it happened to be close to the CMB temperature is coincidential. The starlight radiations from the Milky Way Galaxy represent such a small fraction of the volume of the universe, whereas the CMB refers to the entire thing.
[/QUOTE]
An excellent point and I will address in my response to CurtC
Also there was a ten minute you tube video offered as evidence.
My response:
Nice vid.
Jon, that’s not ad hominem, nor was it a personal attack. That post just talks about the problems of believing in something unfalsifiable as well as the problems of believing in something that has been shown to be demonstrably false (which is, technically, insane). Please do not twist the words away from their clear and intended meaning.
I believe you’re just dodging the questions because you don’t appeared to be interested in actually addressing the intellectual integrity of your claims. You brought up a piece of evidence about Eddington to which I explained to you was false. I explained why your redshift anomaly example was not necessarily evidence that the BBT was wrong.
I showed you a ten-minute video with evidence for the BBT and yet you still ask why the BBT is a viable theory (you don’t have anything to say about the contents of the video and you act as if no support for its viability has been provided). All you have to say is “nice vid”? Reported.
Sure.
3rd row from the topon the right. Note the photographer calls it an interacting pair.
http://skyserver.sdss.org/edr/en/tools/places/page5.asp
5th pic from the top.
http://homepage.eircom.net/~gracedieu/Observatory.htm
Just an abstract…no pics.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A…390L..15L
“We present new spectroscopic observations of an old case of anomalous redshift - NGC 7603 and its companion. The redshifts of the two galaxies which are apparently connected by a luminous filament are z=0.029 and z=0.057 respectively. We show that in the luminous filament there are two compact emission line objects with z=0.243 and z=0.391. They lie exactly on the line traced by the filament connecting the galaxies. As far as we are aware, this is the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.”
That would be the bridge of material between the two.
Do you have any reason to believe they are not connected?
Very good point Curt but from your own cite:
“The density of radiation at position B would be relevant to the CMB if there were dust grains which could absorb this radiation and if these dust grains were able to radiate efficiently at the millimeter wavelengths of the CMB.”
I certainly dont think there is very much dust in the galactic voids but what about hydrogen?
According to wiki (Under the heading “Intergalactic” halfway down the page) “Present estimates put the average mass density of the Universe at 5.9 protons per cubic meter”
I am assuming that means mostly hydrogen.
And here is the first of my alternative theorys, except, of course its not mine.
It is David Schuster’s Department of Physics, Colorado School of Mines
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2885.pdf
In the interest of disclosure I would like to point out that at the beginning of his paper David writes this:
“The first and most compelling evidence of the universe’s expansion was,
and continues to be, the observed redshift of spectra from distant objects. This
paper plays ”devil’s advocate” by providing an alternative explanation with elementary physics.”
So in spite of coming up with an excellent steady state theory he still agrees with you.
David gives the density of the galatic voids as “one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter” and calls it the intergalactic medium.(IGM).
The IGM acts as a super-low density fluid and he compares that to the way a straw sticking out of a glass looks bent IOW an index of refraction.
This gives us a constant redshift.
To get to a variable redshift we only need to look at what light has to do to get here. It is being pulled this way and that way by the gravity of objects it passes and passing through more and more of the hydrogen and possibly dust.
So the farther the light has to travel through the IGM the more it is redshifted.
David concludes with this:
“This model describes an alternate explanation for cosmological redshift and
the supposed relationship between radial velocity and distance. The wavelength
shifts observed are postulated to occur not from a Doppler effect, but rather
from an overall, variable index of refraction for an infinite steady-state universe.”
The article is a rather short read I hope you will check it out.
Thank you. This appears to be a relatively neutral “observer” site that seems to support at least part of your claim.
I neither believe nor disbelieve the connection, but your original link to a blogger with his own agenda was not persuasive. The “bridge” of material could be an optical illusion, although with more support from neutral sites, I am willing to accept the claim that the larger objects are connected.
If you want good reason to kill your NGC 7603 theory:
Long story short, there are pieces of evidence you’d expect to see if the two objects really were connected… that aren’t present.
More generally, there is all sorts of evidence to support our current conception of redshift. It’s consistent. You can look at closer objects and use other metrics of timing (supernovae, pulsars, etc) and they all agree with observed redshifts. Not only that, but the ideas behind redshift make sense and are consistent with our understanding of those mechanics which work just fine in practice/in the lab/in the field/etc. In other words, you’d need something huge to turn over the current understanding of redshift.
So what do you think’s more likely? On one side of the fence, you’ve got untold piles of redshift data that support the current model and yield consistent results across the board with respect to any other metric of observation you care to invoke. On the other side of the fence, you’ve got an anomaly that MIGHT not fit the model IF you assume the model is bogus in the first place AND you make relatively weak, unsupported assumptions about what it is you’re observing AND you disregard the fact that the evidence we DO have does not support the claim fully. Like I said earlier, odds are you’re simply looking at an anomaly that still fits within the model but merely *looks *like it doesn’t at first glance.
I can’t believe I’m getting sucked back into this.
Schuster ignores the fact that hydrogen atoms only absorb and emit light within a few narrow frequency bands. Therefore repeated absorption and emission events by hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium could not account for the broad spectrum redshifts that are observed.
Plus, the fact that he refers to the redshift of distant objects as a “Doppler redshift” suggests that he doesn’t even have a firm understanding of the theory he’s critiquing. The redshift of distant objects is caused by the metric expansion of space during the flight time of the light to Earth, not Doppler effects.
The spectral lines are set when the atom is converted to energy (light) and it is shifted into the red more and more as it passes throught the intergalactic medium.
David seems to use the terms cosmological and doppler shift interchangably and so do I sometimes. But OTOH he gets paid for this and I dont.
I read that and I see Jon you are insane because you believe in a God whose existence has been proven false.
If that is not what you meant please clarify.
Please provide an example of a question I have dodged and I will rectify that.
Just because I dont respond directly to you does not mean your have been ignored. I specifically told you that I would respond to the one relevant point you made in my response to CurtC.
Lets see there was a cool graphic at the start and a guy talking in monotone (glad it was only ten minutes I almost fell asleep) and then there was Bill O’Reilly (who knew he was there at t=0) and there was an ostrich or maybe it was an emu also there was a donkey later…donkeys are cool.
The best parts of the video were some of the graphics and the fact that it covered the standard model pretty thoroughly and pretty quickly. But the narrator could have put a little inflection in his voice and some Pink Floyd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DODKTN3O2s would have made it so much better.
^^^What the heck does this mean?
I just liked the pics better on the first link.
I am working on finding some more examples and have found loads of them but mostly on “suspect” sites. However I have found a few scientists willing to work on this subject matter.
More on this in my reply to FixMyIgnorance…
Did you read your own cite?
Selected (by me) quotes:
“… no firm conclusion can be reached”
And
" No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift."
Astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe used NGC 7603 along with several other redshift anomalies in his paper A Review of Anomalous Redshift Data in which he concluded.
“The signs indicating that the standard redshift/distance relationship model is critically flawed are numerous and varied, and only one piece of evidence speaks in favour: The Hubble Law itself. Whether we continue to pursue the mysteries of the larger-scale cosmos with our eyes wide shut, or instead with due circumspection take notice of the measurable reality surrounding us, time will tell.”
http://vixra.org/pdf/0907.0003v1.pdf
David G Russell states in his paper Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies that he has found “individual
galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a smooth Hubble flow.”
He also uses NGC 7603 as an example.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0408/0408348.pdf
I sure did. Did you? Because you cherry-picked a quote that outright clashes against your point:
“No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift.”
Cosmological redshift = our current understanding of redshift via the expansion of space. In other words, there aren’t any strong anomalies that would seriously lead one to accept that redshift is somehow seriously impacted/caused by something else other than the expansion of space. lol.
Regardless, you continue to dodge the point. You’re looking at one bit of sketchy evidence at best and assuming it’s somehow conclusive support against the countless piles of evidence that support cosmological redshift. Your “evidence,” as explained by the paper, is circumstantial and isn’t consistent with what we’d expect if they really WERE connected.
In other words, it’s a chance alignment. The objects are really quite far apart.
Also, the author of your citation:
Also, if you Google around, you’ll find he’s not exactly a highly-respected scientist. The fact that he claims to “base everything he does on observation rather than ‘esoteric’ theories” is enough to set off the crackpot alarms, as this is a huge misunderstanding of science. This is the same guy who advocates the “electric universe” and thinks black holes don’t exist.