criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu May 30, 2019 12:23 pm

20190525 excerpt

Thunderbolts doesn't understand either. They talk way too much just like their fake-science opponents, stop playing their game.
Pay attention. All the cosmology documentaries say these 3 things:
The farther the distance, the further back in time we see.
The farther the distance, the faster the velocity away from the observer.
The galaxies are moving faster over time, accelerating.

As an engineer, i ask them to please graph their data over time instead of distance and try again.
This will eliminate the need for dark energy and show that all matter did not start in the same point at any time, eliminating the big bang theory.

This is a simple word problem that they got wrong.

I challenge the thunderbolts project to do the math and physics that correlate to the 3 statements cosmology likes to repeat and get back to me.

Also, i would like to see more effective videos and speeches from u guys. The superfluous verbiage needs to stop. It's just as bad as hearing 'the most famous equation in the world' after every time they state it. This is propaganda/mind control/unscientific and is outside the boundaries of intelligent conversation.

I need to email this, post it on my science rant page, and check their forums...
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu May 30, 2019 2:00 pm

i'm in the process of figuring out what is meant by electric universe and found this under 'synopsis'
...
Cosmology

Today, magnetic fields are detected everywhere, even in the “empty” depths of intergalactic space. Magnetic fields cannot exist without causative electric currents.
...
the last sentence doesn't fit with my understanding. there are standing magnetic fields that are not associated with electric currents, like in a refrigerator magnet. it is moving or changing magnetic fields that induce current.
does this need to be corrected?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Webbman » Thu May 30, 2019 3:15 pm

i think what your referring to is redshift which i believe most here do not accept as there is evidence that connected bodies have greatly differing redshifts and thus redshift is not a good estimator of either time, velocity or distance.

thus your three statements, which are formed basis on redshift, are basically irrelevant.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu May 30, 2019 8:26 pm

just reading the statements from cosomolgy, i say they don't understand what they are saying. i'm not questioning the data or how it was obtained, just their interpretation of it. i accept the first 2 statements, but not the 3rd. i do not believe the galaxies are accelerating, but decelerating, again assuming the data is acceptable. could u b more specific on y u think redshift is irrelevant?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby rickard » Fri May 31, 2019 1:22 am

fencewalker wrote:just reading the statements from cosomolgy, i say they don't understand what they are saying. i'm not questioning the data or how it was obtained, just their interpretation of it. i accept the first 2 statements, but not the 3rd. i do not believe the galaxies are accelerating, but decelerating, again assuming the data is acceptable. could u b more specific on y u think redshift is irrelevant?


Regarding the "redshift" --- Listen to the man ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:15 pm

rickard, i saw the vid, which i'm sure i've seen b4, and do not understand why u say these statements are irrelevant because they are based on redshift. could u explain in ur own words why they r irrelevant?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby rickard » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:52 am

fencewalker wrote:rickard, i saw the vid, which i'm sure i've seen b4, and do not understand why u say these statements are irrelevant because they are based on redshift. could u explain in ur own words why they r irrelevant?

Hi, sorry for the delay
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean ....... I inserted the link with Halton Arps lecture because he give an alternative explanation of why ceartain quasars are redder than other and that his observations make it obvious that the universe does not expand .... and thus there is no need for a "big bang" ....
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:13 am

@rickard
back to the 3 statements...
1) the farther out we see, the further back in time we see.
the equation that these words translate to is distance is proportional to negative time, D α -t.
since the signal we see is light, D = -ct.
2) velocity increases with distance.
this translates to V α D. from the data, V = HD.
3) the galaxies are accelerating apart over time.
no, they accelerate over distance according to their data.
D = -ct, V = HD, V = -Hct.
from the kinematic equations, V = At + V(0).
V(0) = 0, A = -Hc.
V = the velocity of all galactic nuclei away from the observer's galactic nucleus.
saying V(0) = 0 means that all galaxies are neither moving away or coming closer, but temporarily static.
like throwing a ball in the air, it's V = 0 at the apex, very briefly.
so how crazy is that? +/- a few million years from now, the galaxies were/are/will be static.
cosmology is reading it's data backwards.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby rickard » Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:34 pm

fencewalker wrote:@rickard
back to the 3 statements...
1) the farther out we see, the further back in time we see.
the equation that these words translate to is distance is proportional to negative time, D α -t.
since the signal we see is light, D = -ct.
2) velocity increases with distance. this translates to V α D. from the data, V = HD.


Do you mean that the speed of light increase .. with distance?
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:21 am

no, the galaxies. one of the 3 statements says that he farther the galaxy is away from us, the faster it is moving away from us. that's the red shift. V is the speed of the galaxy moving away from us.
this is the data they are misinterpreting: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro80 ... /html/1967
there is more recent data that extends to 13.8 billion lightyears. on the plot i linked, hubble mislabels velocity as KM, it should be KM/S. the 'extra-galactic nebulae' are other galaxies. they have distance in MPc, mega parsecs. a parsec is about 3.33 light years. they are plotting velocity versus distance and calling it acceleration. in order to get acceleration, velocity needs to be plotted over time. distance is proportional to negative time, they are reading the data backwards and calling it dark energy.
is that more clear?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby rickard » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:21 am

fencewalker wrote:no, the galaxies. one of the 3 statements says that he farther the galaxy is away from us, the faster it is moving away from us. that's the red shift. V is the speed of the galaxy moving away from us.
this is the data they are misinterpreting: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro80 ... /html/1967
there is more recent data that extends to 13.8 billion lightyears. on the plot i linked, hubble mislabels velocity as KM, it should be KM/S. the 'extra-galactic nebulae' are other galaxies. they have distance in MPc, mega parsecs. a parsec is about 3.33 light years. they are plotting velocity versus distance and calling it acceleration. in order to get acceleration, velocity needs to be plotted over time. distance is proportional to negative time, they are reading the data backwards and calling it dark energy.
is that more clear?

As I understand it "redshift" does not exist. The fact that ceartain galaxies are "redder" than others has to do only with their age .....
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby nick c » Sat Jun 08, 2019 8:27 am

As I understand it "redshift" does not exist. The fact that ceartain galaxies are "redder" than others has to do only with their age .....
Redshift must exist, otherwise your second sentence would not make any sense. The question is in what situations is it caused by increasing distance (motion away) and are there other causes.

-Red shift is real...the Doppler effect: the spectrum of an object moving toward an observer would show a blue shift and object moving away a red shift. And of course the classic example using sound waves is the changing pitch of a passing train, but it also applies to a spectrum shift in the light from a celestial object. For example, the spectrum of the Sun's limbs shows that one side is blue shifted and moving toward us and the other side red shifted and moving away. see:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2012SASS...31..225G
Also, M31 aka the Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward us (Milky Way):
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astrono ... toward-us/

-Cosmic Red Shift....this is the point of contention.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/c ... l+redshift
In the 20th C it was noticed that underneath the random motions (Doppler effect) of distant galaxies there was an overall recession. This is the cosmic red shift and is the underlying fact that gives rise to theories such as the Big Bang and the expanding Universe. The argument then is what causes the Cosmic Red Shift (it is real and can be measured). Is it cosmic expansion? or Is it tired light? or an effect of the age of the object? or something else.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:50 pm

red shift ONLY has to do with relative velocity.
the more distant objects are older images because their light took longer to reach the observer.
the reason andromeda appears to be moving towards the milky way is because the observation point is moving around within the milky way AND the source of light is moving around inside andromeda.
the sun moves around the nucleus of the milky way at about 220 km/s. the earth moves around the sun at about 30 km/s. the surface of the earth, at the equator, is about 0.5 km/s and is not significant compared to the other speeds.
relative to the milky way nucleus, the observation point contributes +/- 250 KM/s to every data point, depending on the angle of observation.
according to hubble's "law" V=HD, andromed should be about 50-55 KM/s AWAY from the milky way.
hubble plotted it's velocity at -301 KM/s away, or 301 KM/s towards the milky way. this means the light source that was observed is moving at least 100 KM/s around andromeda's nucleus, from the angle of observation.
i understand this from my dynamics class getting my electrical/electronic degree, with physics minor.
cosmology does not understand dynamics, reference frames OR doppler shift.
they also do not understand that distance is proportional to negative time and are reading their data backwards.
galactic velocities accelerate over distance, and decelerate over time.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:15 pm

fencewalker wrote:red shift ONLY has to do with relative velocity.

Laboratory and sun show that plasma can cause redshift.
It depends on the electron density.

It also causes time delay of higher frequencies. This can be observed during novas.

This certainly needs some more research.
But as we all know, it wont happen by the big-bang-believers.
Even though it may be used to explain "dark energy".
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:00 am

*** from zyxzevn
Laboratory and sun show that plasma can cause redshift.
It depends on the electron density.

It also causes time delay of higher frequencies. This can be observed during novas.
***
are there equations or data that shows this?
plasma, or fields of energy like magnetism, can distort images similar to heat from a flame, but that isn't redshifting.
also, my argument is that there is no dark energy, cosmology is reading their data backwards.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests