jeff Mitchel Posted August 17, 2008 Author Posted August 17, 2008 Okay, okay. I've recieved a level of verbal abuse that should last me for awhile. Look, I didn't start this post, I was only replying to the thread that asked if the universe would keep on expanding. The administrator sent me here as a new post. That was fine, it was nice to hear old friends again. I put my theory out there , and I heard the same arguments I heard before. You don't believe my reasoning and I certainly don't believe in yours. The thing is; I won't disappear into the woodwork. The only thing that would cause me to do that would be the "Eureka" of finding the dark matter and dark energy, and that's not going to happen. Not in a hundred million years. So every few months or so I will be back. It will give you time; hopefully, of thinking up some new arguments to why we can't detect all that matter and all that energy. No A. No B. No C. Love Ya! Jeff
Edtharan Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Each galaxy has its own orbit. Those on an inside orbit are going faster than us, so there light is red shifted. Those on the outside orbits are going slower than us and so their light is red shifted. The galaxies are not traveling out to beyond infinity. Ok at first I thought this was a mistype, but it appears that it is what you mean. If the galaxies were orbiting as you say, then there would be an equal number of galaxies red shifted and an equal number blue shifted. This is because the galaxies on the inner orbit would be going faster. This means that any galaxy that was then ahead of us would be getting further away, and hence red shifted. But, for those galaxies that were behind us, these would be getting closer to us and so blue shifted. The same would be with the outer galaxies. As these are travelling slower than us, then the ones ahead of us would be getting closer and so be blue shifted. The ones behind us would be getting further away and so be red shifted. Assuming an even spread of galaxies around the orbits, then there wold be an equal number of red shifted and blue shifted galaxies. BUT, you said their were more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted galaxies (and as observation confirms). This means that the galaxies can't be in an orbit as if they were in an orbit, then we should see roughly an equal number of blue and red shifted galaxies (but we don't see it) So observation and claims made by you disprove your theory. You disproved it yourself when you stated that there are more red shifted galaxies. This equal number of red/blue shift is testable. We are in orbit around the centre of our own galaxy. So we should be able to test this with the stars of our own galaxy. And guess what, they are equally red and blue shifted. Sorry, the fact that if all the galaxies were in orbit around something, then this should produce an equal number of red and blue shifted galaxies completely disproves your theory. 1
Sayonara Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Okay, okay. I've recieved a level of verbal abuse that should last me for awhile. Look, I didn't start this post, I was only replying to the thread that asked if the universe would keep on expanding. The administrator sent me here as a new post. That was fine, it was nice to hear old friends again. I put my theory out there , and I heard the same arguments I heard before. You don't believe my reasoning and I certainly don't believe in yours. The thing is; I won't disappear into the woodwork. The only thing that would cause me to do that would be the "Eureka" of finding the dark matter and dark energy, and that's not going to happen. Not in a hundred million years. So every few months or so I will be back. It will give you time; hopefully, of thinking up some new arguments to why we can't detect all that matter and all that energy. No A. No B. No C. Love Ya! Jeff So basically, you are going to cut and run, being incapable of or unwilling to demonstrate your argument in any rational and logically constructed fashion. You then plan to come back in a short time, when we have all forgotten the mundane blip on the radar that was your undemonstrated proclamation, and cite the lack of replies to this thread as some kind of ultimate "prooooof!!!!!!!1112" that you are right, whereas the cold harsh reality is that nobody here has the inclination to reply to a topic which doesn't make any scientific or even pseudoscientific proposals, and where there is no requirement for refutation. I have to say that is a tremendous plan. It must make you feel very intelligent coming up with that. Certainly it has put all of modern science to shame, the fools.
jeff Mitchel Posted August 17, 2008 Author Posted August 17, 2008 "So basically, you are going to cut and run, being incapable of or unwilling to demonstrate your argument in any rational and logically constructed fashion." Sayonara I don't see this as the case. Quite the opposite. How do you argue rationally and logically argue with someone who believes 90% of matter is undetectable and 70% of energy. You guys have been spoon-fed the big bang from grade school on. You seem either incapable or afraid to take a step back and look at the big bang logically. Something starts expanding from a "singularity". Gee, what's that? Where did it come from? What made it expand? What's making it go faster? Well it's all true because Stephie says it is. It's all trash. It doesn't matter to me obviously who believes otherwise; be it scientist or preacher.
iNow Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Nice. I was wondering if the Galileo gambit would be added to your routine. You've just raised your start value to a 6.7!
insane_alien Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 90% of matter is undetectable get your facts straight. dark matter IS detectable as it interacts via gravity. whats more, it already HAS been detected.
mooeypoo Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 There's a difference between undetectable and unseen, and between undetectable and unidentified.
jeff Mitchel Posted August 17, 2008 Author Posted August 17, 2008 The tiny amount of dark matter they claimed to have found does not nearly account for the observations. That's why they waste millions of dollars digging down in copper mines looking for wimps. Without wimps your big bang wimpers out. Hey, I ought to write a poem. Not with a bang but a whimper. Oops sorry, it's already been done. My bad.
insane_alien Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 The tiny amount of dark matter they claimed to have found does not nearly account for the observations. err, it was actually a massive amount in a relatively tiny space. to do more mapping we would need thousands more telescopes and a lot of computing power. That's why they waste millions of dollars digging down in copper mines looking for wimps. 1/ WIMPs may not be darkmatter. we do not know yet. 2/ at least we are looking for stuff rather than labelling it all bullsh*t Without wimps your big bang wimpers out. Hey, I ought to write a poem. please, for the love of the english language, and all languages everywhere, don't. 1
MrGamma Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 The universe is not expanding or contracting, it stays the same. You would probably be interested in researching plasma universe theories which lean towards a steady state universe... the history of the big bang... NGC 7603 Quasar which contests the red-shift theory... ect ect... Also... They are trying to find dark matter with bigger and better particle accelerators... They might do it... They might not... Peopleare also contesting the Galelio Gravity theories... http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm It's essentially your task to prove everybody wrong... which will be impossible for the most part since science subscribes to a maintstream belief... everyone else being a crackpot ( when really they are the ying to the yang )... so it goes... There are other people exploring the possibilities of the steady state universe with matter generation at the earths core, "Expanding Earth" and "Growing Earth" There are people contesting the volcanic level extinction events throughout history vs comet meteor collisions... Something worth looking into to see how mathematical constructs can compete with physical evidence...
Sayonara Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 I don't see this as the case. Quite the opposite. How do you argue rationally and logically argue with someone who believes 90% of matter is undetectable and 70% of energy. You guys have been spoon-fed the big bang from grade school on. You seem either incapable or afraid to take a step back and look at the big bang logically. Something starts expanding from a "singularity". Gee, what's that? Where did it come from? What made it expand? What's making it go faster? Well it's all true because Stephie says it is. It's all trash. It doesn't matter to me obviously who believes otherwise; be it scientist or preacher. So basically, what you are saying is that you have made your point, and that you don't have anything scientific to bring to the table. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts