• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There was never a Biggie Bangie.

soylentgreen said:
What a good example of you not having even the remotest clue as to what you are talking about.

Brillouin scattering, refers to the interaction of light and material waves within a medium. Some mediums suggested are, a solid crystal, a macromolecular chain condensate or a viscous liquid or gas.

Where as redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

two different types of ways of measuring light waves. Or are you suggesting that space is actually a solid crystal or viscous liquid?
Click to expand...


well, space is filled with gasses and what have you. Maybe even liquids (water?) Plasma etc.why not?

You are assuming space is empty. It is not. So the argument is still valid.
 
Pin dÁr said:
well, space is filled with gasses and what have you. Maybe even liquids (water?) Plasma etc.why not?

You are assuming space is empty. It is not. So the argument is still valid.
Click to expand...

Space isn't empty, but the trace amounts of gases and particulate matter are not enough to achieve a level of Brillouin scattering that approximates the red shift that we are seeing. To get that level of it, space would have to be a solid state crystal or a substance that is having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid.

Think tar, molten lava, honey...that sort of thing. And if Space was like that...none of our probes could have gotten where they are now without using some form of on-board motive power.

So far, the only thing that does explain the red shifting is Doppler Shift.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Space isn't empty, but the trace amounts of gases and particulate matter are not enough to achieve a level of Brillouin scattering that approximates the red shift that we are seeing. To get that level of it, space would have to be a solid state crystal or a substance that is having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid.

Think tar, molten lava, honey...that sort of thing. And if Space was like that...none of our probes could have gotten where they are now without using some form of on-board motive power.

So far, the only thing that does explain the red shifting is Doppler Shift.
Click to expand...


this is what we call: circular reasoning.
 
Hypnotoad said:
So far, the only thing that does explain the red shifting is Doppler Shift.
Click to expand...

At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity
Click to expand...

The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
Click to expand...

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
 
Pin dÁr said:
this is what we call: circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

I would be using Circular Reasoning if I claimed "Universal Doppler Red Shift is an accurate scientific theory because Science is infallible and Science says that Universal Doppler Red Shift is an accurate scientific theory."

That's circular reasoning.

I'm saying that "The Red Shift of the universe has been studied and the only explanation that we have found so far that fits the facts and has stood up to the scrutiny of the researchers. All other theories submitted thus far have not."

Your hypothesis that Brillouin scattering is the reason for the red shift while may be a good hypothesis...falls flat because we know what the empty bits of space are and what they are not. They do contain trace gases and particles, but not at the levels needed to achieve Brillouin scattering. They however are not crystalline solids, nor are the thick, viscous fluids needed to achieve Brillouin scattering.

So it's not circular reasoning to say that it's not going to work. I'm not using the current theories of Doppler Red Shift to defend my argument and to dismiss your hypothesis. I am using the phenomenon you are describing and what science's current understanding of it is to say that it's not the likely answer because it is lacking the things it needs to manifest as the phenomenon of Brillouin scattering.
 
Hypnotoad said:
So far, the only thing that does explain the red shifting is Doppler Shift.
Click to expand...


The Redshift.

A large number of redshift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue". Many other papers indicate that non-velocity produced redshifts have been observed.
A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations, as shown below.
Click to expand...

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
 
Last edited:
Hypnotoad said:
I'm saying that "The Red Shift of the universe has been studied and the only explanation that we have found so far that fits the facts and has stood up to the scrutiny of the researchers. All other theories submitted thus far have not."
Click to expand...

I am showing very clearly that that is not the case at all.
Do you even really read my postings?
 
Pin dÁr said:
I am showing very clearly that that is not the case at all.
Click to expand...

No...all you did was suggest another theory. Brillouin scattering. Nothing you have said to this point has explained why Doppler isn't the answer.

Do you even really read my postings?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. And in some cases I asked you to explain your side of the argument better. I have asked "Well if your theory of "X" is correct, then could you explain "Y" and how it fits into "X"?"

The fact that those questions are ignored leads me to wonder if you really read mine.
 
Hypnotoad said:
No...all you did was suggest another theory. Brillouin scattering. Nothing you have said to this point has explained why Doppler isn't the answer.
Click to expand...


Duh????? I answered these in the above postings. It now really seems like you don't read them!

Or it is filtered out by cognitive dissonance. I adressed the issue very very clearly!
 
Pin dÁr said:
Duh????? I answered these in the above postings. It now really seems like you don't read them!
Click to expand...

You posted a link to a scientific paper that explains why that one scientist didn't believe the current theory.

I can do the same and post a paper that explains why another does believe.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2005.pdf

Both are based on science, both cite the works of other scientists who agree with them...what makes yours better or worse than mine? What makes mine better or worse than yours?
 
Hypnotoad said:
You posted a link to a scientific paper that explains why that one scientist didn't believe the current theory.

I can do the same and post a paper that explains why another does believe.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2005.pdf

Both are based on science, both cite the works of other scientists who agree with them...what makes yours better or worse than mine? What makes mine better or worse than yours?
Click to expand...

well, I have to read it and check the arguments, I will do that. have you checked what I linked?

So, now we are in a position to understand that the "Big Bang" and the redshift bla bla isn't cast in stone. It isn't that clear at all.

If scientist disagree then the issue is cleary far from being settled.

And the arguments I have seen and read so far is that for me the Biggie Bangie could never have occured.

The whole "Biggie Bangie" thing has huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge holes in it amd it is all very very illogical.



But what I am wondering about is, are you a scientists or something?
 
Last edited:
Then there is this:

The Compton Effect

Compton explained and modeled the data by assuming a particle (photon) nature for light and applying conservation of energy and conservation of momentum to the collision between the photon and the electron. The scattered photon has lower energy and therefore a longer wavelength according to the Planck relationship.
Click to expand...


So no motion is necessary to explain the redshift.


Compton Scattering


to conclude form redshift that there must be a big bang is a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Pin dÁr said:
well, I have to read it and check the arguments, I will do that. have you checked what I linked?

So, now we are in a position to understand that the "Big Bang" and the redshift bla bla isn't cast in stone. It isn't that clear at all.

If scientist disagree then the issue is cleary far from being settled.

And the arguments I have seen and read so far is that for me the Biggie Bangie could never have occured.

The whole "Biggie Bangie" thing has huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge holes in it amd it is all very very illogical.
Click to expand...

Illogical to whom?

The problem that I see quite often (and I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but it does appear to me as such) is that many people seem to have this misconception that science must agree with itself for it to be valid. That if someone disagrees with accepted theory...that the accepted theory must therefore be wrong.

But disagreements are an important part of the scientific process. You may be correct and the Big Bang never happened. Right now...the widely accepted theory is The Big Bang. Someone might tomorrow come out and say "I've disagreed with this for years and now finally I have some evidence!"

Science will examine that new evidence and if it's widely agreed upon...well then we'll tear down TBB and go with whatever becomes the best theory that fits the facts and explains the phenomenon and becomes widely accepted as such.

It's also possible that a week next Tuesday that someone will come out with the evidence that it's impossible for it to have been anything but TBB.

Science is a progressing process. We ask questions and seek answers. Those answers may be right and they may be wrong, but they help us ask better questions. Sometimes we take two steps forward only to take a step back and find a new way forward.

But that's how it all works.

What you are doing is working on a confirmational bias. That you don't believe that the big bang happened and so anything that it could possibly be, you're finding and flinging it into our faces. I look at your findings and see if it applies. In the case of your last theory, it didn't apply since it needs for there to be something that doesn't exist in space at the quantity required. That theory is a good one to look at...but it doesn't fit the facts at hand.

But what I am wondering about is, are you a scientists or something?
Click to expand...

Are you?
 
Last edited:
Pin dÁr said:
Then there is this:




So no motion is necessary to explain the redshift.


Compton Scattering


to conclude form redshift that there must be a big bang is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

But nobody concludes from Red Shift that there was a big bang. Red Shift is just one part of the data gathered that led us to believe that the universe is expanding from some event. There are many many more bits of data that add up.

It's like the tale of the three blindfolded men who find an elephant. One touches the tail and thinks "This is a rope." Another touches the trunk and thinks "This is a snake." The third touches a leg and thinks "This is a tree."

Looking at a single piece of the puzzle is not going to give you the answer. You need to gather these bits. One end is like a rope, another end is like a tree, another like a snake. Now if those three feel around more, they'll find other bits that when added up would make them guess that they're dealing with an elephant.

That's how we came up with the Big Bang Theory. We found bits. We made a guess. We've found more bits which have refined what we believe the Big Bang to be. But nothing yet has come along and explained how the universe came to be in its current state better than what we have now.

So for now, we keep looking, testing, guessing, and refining. That's the Scientific Method.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Illogical to whom?

The problem that I see quite often (and I'm not saying that this is the case with you, but it does appear to me as such) is that many people seem to have this misconception that science must agree with itself for it to be valid. That if someone disagrees with accepted theory...that the accepted theory must therefore be wrong.

But disagreements are an important part of the scientific process. You may be correct and the Big Bang never happened. Right now...the widely accepted theory is The Big Bang. Someone might tomorrow come out and say "I've disagreed with this for years and now finally I have some evidence!"

Science will examine that new evidence and if it's widely agreed upon...well then we'll tear down TBB and go with whatever becomes the best theory that fits the facts and explains the phenomenon and becomes widely accepted as such.

It's also possible that a week next Tuesday that someone will come out with the evidence that it's impossible for it to have been anything but TBB.

Science is a progressing process. We ask questions and seek answers. Those answers may be right and they may be wrong, but they help us ask better questions. Sometimes we take two steps forward only to take a step back and find a new way forward.

But that's how it all works.

What you are doing is working on a confirmational bias. That you don't believe that the big bang happened and so anything that it could possibly be, you're finding and flinging it into our faces. I look at your findings and see if it applies. In the case of your last theory, it didn't apply since it needs for there to be something that doesn't exist in space at the quantity required. That theory is a good one to look at...but it doesn't fit the facts at hand.

But what I am wondering about is, are you a scientists or something?

Are you?
Click to expand...

Why not answering the question?

btw lots of words for one very simple thing,


Answer me this:

If there was a big bang there must be a redshift.

There is a redshift.

So, there was a big bang,


Now, is this a logical fallacy or not?
 
Pin dÁr said:
Why not answering the question?

btw lots of words for one very simple thing,
Click to expand...

Would you rather me use your tactics? Simply say "You believe this? My oh my!" and toddle off as you so often do?

Because if you want me to be that sort of person in a discussion group then I certainly can. Worse even.


Answer me this:

If there was a big bang there must be a redshift.

There is a redshift.

So, there was a big bang,


Now, is this a logical fallacy or not?
Click to expand...

What you are saying...yes it is a logical fallacy.

But that's not what Science is saying. I only have a 10 minute break so you'll have to be patient until I can get home in roughly 3 hours before I can explain the rest.

See? Isn't that much better than simply dropping off the boards with a "Nuh-uh! You're wrong!"
 
Pin dÁr said:
well, space is filled with gasses and what have you. Maybe even liquids (water?) Plasma etc.why not?

You are assuming space is empty. It is not. So the argument is still valid.
Click to expand...

The temperature of deep space is at 2.7 kelvin. And your suggesting water exists there?

Nor does your answer cover the fact that there are two different measurements going on here. One the wavelength travelling through a medium and the other measuring the wave length as its source travels further away.
So no, your argument is invalid and a great display of the ignorance you have on this subject.
 
Pin dÁr said:
Or can someone explain how nothing exploded into a lot of something?!


And people really believe the big bang ****e? unbelievable!
Click to expand...

The Big Bang theory isn't that something was created out of nothing, it's that everything was squeezed into a really small area and until it exploded into what we now know as the universe (WAY over-simplified, but that's the gist of it). I don't where you got the dumb idea that the Big Bang theory was that everything came from nothing... Maybe you could provide with the source of that assumption so that in this time of great division, we could all join together on at least one thing and have a big laugh together.
 
soylentgreen said:
What a good example of you not having even the remotest clue as to what you are talking about.

Brillouin scattering, refers to the interaction of light and material waves within a medium. Some mediums suggested are, a solid crystal, a macromolecular chain condensate or a viscous liquid or gas.

Where as redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

two different types of ways of measuring light waves. Or are you suggesting that space is actually a solid crystal or viscous liquid?
Click to expand...

Space is eather (or possible aether, but definitely not ether).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom