/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15224768]

This can't be happening.

[Anonymous No.15224775]

>>15224768
What can't be happening? Use your words, anon.

[Anonymous No.15224786]

>>15224775
The BBC theory is a joke

[Anonymous No.15224809]

>>15224768
The redshift of distant objects is still all there regardless of how accurate the age of those objects is determined to be. It's not wildly off it's just slightly off. But things are still moving away from us at some rate which is what the big bang is based on

[Anonymous No.15224816]

>>15224786
You're right, they are not bigger and that's science fact.

[Anonymous No.15224819]

>>15224809
>The redshift of distant objects is still all there regardless of how accurate the age of those objects is determined to be. It's not wildly off it's just slightly off. But things are still moving away from us at some rate which is what the big bang is based on
makes no sense if there were already giant galaxies from the start. The whole point is that the universe basically started off as basically a small and heavily compressed soccer ball.

[Anonymous No.15224881]

>>15224819
No it didn't. You don't understand the big bang.

[Anonymous No.15224884]

>>15224809
The universe is NOT expanding. Old light loses energy and becomes redder. That's what is happening.

[Anonymous No.15224886]

>>15224884
>Old light
what
>loses energy
what

[Anonymous No.15224887]

>>15224884
this could be true. good theory.

[Anonymous No.15224888]

>>15224886
>light travels for billions of years
Old light.
>light becomes redder the further it goes
Loses energy.

It's as simple as that. It's an observable fact of the universe that old light becomes redder. No, I don't have to explain the mechanism. It's observable reality, whether or not anybody can explain it.

[Anonymous No.15224890]

>>15224881
>you don't get it
sure buddy
>>15224884
>>15224888
this actually makes a lot of sense and is easy to understand

[Anonymous No.15224891]

>>15224884
There's no such thing as "old light." Light doesn't age. It's time-dilated all the way down to zero.

[Anonymous No.15224892]

>>15224809
There is no problem with the ages. The inferred masses seem to be too high given current models of galaxy formation. The caveats are that the masses are not direct measurements, they fit models to the galaxy fluxes. Those models make assumptions, like that the stars I'm these galaxies are just like those in the Milky Way, and that there is no black hole activity. Those assumptions haven't been tested yet. The redshifts of the galaxies aren't even confirmed yet. It's also possible galaxies just form faster at early times.
>>15224819
These galaxies are not giant. They are orders of magnitude smaller than the biggest galaxies today, giant ellipticals.

[Anonymous No.15224894]

>>15224891
>old light
it's a good term to use because it's intuitive.

[Anonymous No.15224895]

>>15224891
>light in transit for billions of years
>not old
Yeah sure buddy.

[Anonymous No.15224898]

>>15224892
>There is no problem
>The inferred masses seem to be too high given current models
>assumptions
>assumptions
>It's also possible
cope the post

[Anonymous No.15224905]

>>15224886
>He thinks light travels forever and has infinite energy

[Anonymous No.15224906]

>>15224894
Intuitive and completely wrong. Like so wrong it renders everything else you might say about it moot.

[Anonymous No.15224910]

>>15224891
old as in longer time since its been emitted he obviously means

[Anonymous No.15224923]

>>15224886

[Anonymous No.15224925]

>>15224906
light is dependent on time

[Anonymous No.15224926]

>>15224809
That implies we're at the center of the universe because everything is moving away from us at the same rate

[Anonymous No.15224927]

time slows down as the universes entropy increases.

In the early universe time went by faster and large galaxies formed much faster than what is apparent today

[Anonymous No.15224930]

>>15224888
Could we test this by beaming radio waves at a very distant satellite, a somewhat distant satellite, and a not so distant satellite and then compare the magnitude of redshift?

[Anonymous No.15224932]

>>15224930
You have my permission to do so.

[Anonymous No.15224933]

>>15224927
>time slows down as the universes entropy increases.
that makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15224991]

Tired light sisters..
https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[Anonymous No.15224993]

>>15224926
The universe doesn't have a center. If you were able to magically teleport yourself to any point in the entire infinite universe, you'd see the same picture: It would look to you like everything in space was moving away from you.

[Anonymous No.15224997]

>>15224910
But that's the point: In the frame of reference of a ray of light, zero time passes between absorption and emission. There's no such thing as "old light" because light doesn't age AT ALL.

[Anonymous No.15225006]

>>15224884
>Old light

[Anonymous No.15225042]

>>15224997
so you admit you're quibbling over words and technicalities to deflect from how fucking stupid you are, while the meaning is clear?

thank you for shitting up this board, back to /x/ or /lit/

[Anonymous No.15225051]

>>15224768
I saw the images and all of this fuss is over 30 or so pixels.

[Anonymous No.15225078]

If the universe is expanding then as beings from the universe we should be expanding as well

[Anonymous No.15225176]

>>15225042
>can't into relativity

[Anonymous No.15225206]

>>15225176
>hurr durr faster go bad
relativity was made up
ironically it's where scientific progress halted, too. didn't notice that pattern tho?

[Anonymous No.15225218]

>>15224891
>Light doesn't age.
Photons interact with things and get destroyed, eventually it all should turn into heat but meanwhile just gets a bit redder

[Anonymous No.15225221]

>>15225218
>heat
the greatest meme concept of all time

[Anonymous No.15225223]

>>15225176
What you say is only valid for isolated textbook single photons, real light interacts with things in outer space, including other photons, gravitons, dark matter, who knows.

[Anonymous No.15225224]

>>15225078
Mr. Brosnan pls go.

[Anonymous No.15225225]

>>15225223
>dark matter
not real.

[Anonymous No.15225226]

>>15225221
More whining about semantics?

[Anonymous No.15225227]

>>15225223
Dark matter by definition doesn't interact with photons.

[Anonymous No.15225229]

>>15225225
Its a placeholder for undiscovered particles, do you think no new particles will ever be discovered?

[Anonymous No.15225231]

>>15225229
>placeholder
thanks for admitting it's not real and just a retarded cope

[Anonymous No.15225232]

>>15225227
How do you know? Maybe it does interact but its an extremely weak interaction so its barely detectable though the red shift?

[Anonymous No.15225233]

>>15224768
Lerner vindicated once again
I can just imagine the look of satisfaction on his face as he reads all the latest articles where everyone admits that huge "young" galaxies undeniably exist

[Anonymous No.15225236]

>>15225231
So you are saying that there no new particles will ever be discovered?

[Anonymous No.15225238]

>>15225233
The big bang never happened but it should have

[Anonymous No.15225239]

>>15225238
back to >>>/pol/ you go

[Anonymous No.15225240]

>>15225236
>our current models aren't accurate
>ah shit what should we say
>some idiots makes the following shit up
>well actually there are super secret special particles that are hidden
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.15225244]

>>15225240
i didnt say any of that, you are hallucinating

[Anonymous No.15225246]

>>15225244
that's how the dark matter concept came to be. It's made up out of whole cloth with not an iota of evidence or reasoning behind it

[Anonymous No.15225255]

>>15225246
I just said "what if there are undiscovered particles?"

[Anonymous No.15225259]

>>15225246
I mean, it does have reasoning behind it, but it's obviously a weak ad hoc hypothesis that shouldn't be taken very seriously
there's also a lot of recent evidence to suggest that it's already been proven wrong, such as:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96
>Tidal effects from neighboring galaxies in the Λ cold dark matter (CDM) context are not strong enough to explain these phenomena.
in short, even dark matter, as bad an explanation as it is in the first place, can't even account for something clearly observable, so at this point it should be declared a dead hypothesis until further notice

[Anonymous No.15225265]

>>15225255
>what if there are undiscovered particles
you shouldn't make dumb statements like these in the first place

[Anonymous No.15225271]

Bing Bang contradictions:

Wikipedia will be my example.
Go to wikipedia's Big Bang page:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It says that the big bang is about the origin of the observable universe. It confusingly says "universe expanded", instead of observable universe expanded, but when you click this link it says it's about the observable universe.

Next, go to wikipedia's universe page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
It says the universe is all of space and time and their contents. But then says the big bang is the origin of the universe. Yes, they say that the big bang is the origin of the whole universe, not just the observable universe. Then they mention about measuring the size of the observable universe, but don't mention that the big bang is only the theory of origin of that alone. This is a contradiction with their page about the big bang.

Conclusion:
Wikipedia editors don't know that the universe isn't the same as the observable universe, and some of them think the big bang is the origin of the whole universe.

[Anonymous No.15225276]

>>15225259
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96
does this mean einstein was retarded and led science down a ditch?

[Anonymous No.15225283]

>>15225276
Yes. There is no bent space, there is only the gravitational aether field composed of Unruh waves. Aether pressure gradients deflect light exactly how water or air pressure gradients do.

[Anonymous No.15225287]

>>15225283
my mind has been corrupted by relativity and I can't think of things in any other way. It's over...

[Anonymous No.15225289]

>>15224881
no you

https://www.bitchute.com/video/naL7urXXZLfl/

[Anonymous No.15225290]

>>15225276
in a sense, but they're still trying to preserve relativity despite having to throw out or at least heavily modify GR
but in reality, relativity theory is as nonsensical as the Big Bang hypothesis itself, so while the article doesn't directly imply that, that's simply a fact
relativity theory is some of the most ridiculous nonsense imaginable, because it confuses measurement with truth, it's one of the most egregious instances of confusing the map for the territory in all of scientific history

[Anonymous No.15225339]

>>15225290
Time dilation is measurable though. Clocks both digital and mechanical run slower in orbit, or even on high altitude airplanes. Even with quantized inertia or another MOND to explain gravity, variable time needs an explanation.

[Anonymous No.15225344]

>>15225276
Nope. The paper is entirely model dependent, they assume MOND is correct. They fit rotation curves with MOND and find they need an extra component to fit the curves. They claim that missing ingredient is the external field effect usually asummed in MOND, but the observational evidence is non existent. So they're really just adding an extra parameter with their fit.
But as soon as you assume MOND, GR is not going to work at all.
The title is completely sensationalised. MOND needs the external field effect to not fuck up the solar system, so it's always violated if you believe MOND.
But if you believe MOND is not correct then their fitting and the rest of the results are meaningless.

>>15225259
>>Tidal effects from neighboring galaxies in the Λ cold dark matter (CDM) context are not strong enough to explain these phenomena.
And yet if you actually glance at the paper you see they never compare to any CDM simulations or models. They have no idea, but they're MOND people so of course they say claim that.

[Anonymous No.15225352]

>>15225233
Lol no. JWST has also confirmed that the early galaxies all have much lower less heavy elements than the Milky Way. In Lerner's static tired light model that is not allowed. Galaxies should not evolved at all. This is of course a natural prediction of the big bang. JWST has debunked him once again.

[Anonymous No.15225366]

>>15224768
desu it kinda jibes with the observations of pioneer and voyager that the interstellar medium is denser than previously thought. Denser medium = more shit for photons to interact with and lose energy, so they become more redshifted not because they're moving away but because they're losing energy as they interact with all that shit

[Anonymous No.15225372]

>>15225265
whats dumb about it? You think there cant be undiscovered particles?
And why are you so obsessed about it? My argument wasnt specifically about dark matter, but about things in outer space that light can interacy with. Theres gas and photons and allegedly gravitons (if they are real) that light can interact with. Photons are not traveling in a perfect vacuum, they will get absorbed or scattered eventually

[Anonymous No.15225387]

>>15225339
>Time dilation is measurable though.
again, only an artifact of measuring using electromagnetic fields
electromagnetic retardation explains time dilation perfectly well without relativity retardation
>>15225344
if you actually read the paper instead of having an emotional knee-jerk reaction to rationalize your disproven pet hypothesis, you will see that they do in fact compare to what would be expected in a CDM model
>>15225352
>no
yes, absolutely
>In Lerner's static tired light model that is not allowed. Galaxies should not evolved at all.
wrong
hilarious misrepresentation of what he says
typical intellectually dishonest tactic by irrational lunatics trying to desperately cling to their outdated models

[Anonymous No.15225414]

>>15225387
>you will see that they do in fact compare to what would be expected in a CDM model
Please cite the figure where this is shown.

>wrong
Maybe you should tell Lerner he's wrong then.
>In this paper we are examining the consistency of data on the SB of galaxies using the static Euclidean model with redshift proportional to distance. We therefore do not expect any evolutionary effects either in size or luminosity, in contrast to expectations in LCDM models. Not only are these in all cases galaxies whose UV radiation is dominated by young stellar populations, but in the static Euclidean model that we are testing the mean density of the universe remains a constant, so we expect no change with z among such young galaxies in size or in virial radius for a given luminosity
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275
No evolution, so no change in metallicity either. If redshift is just tired light caused by distance to Earth then galaxies which happen to be further from Earth should be no different. Lener's cosmology has been falsified, again.

[Anonymous No.15225437]

>>15225414
>Please
please actually read the article before saying stupid bullshit about it
>Maybe you should tell Lerner he's wrong then.
no, you're the one who is wrong about what he claims, making your argument a braindead straw man
>>We therefore do not expect any evolutionary effects either in size or luminosity, in contrast to expectations in LCDM models.
correct
only a braindead retard like yourself interprets this as "no evolution"
of course galaxies evolve with time
but not in size or luminosity
turn on your brain and start using it, idiot

[Anonymous No.15225453]

>>15225437
>please actually read the article before saying stupid bullshit about it
I have. You haven't, clearly. I gave you the opportunity to defend your claim, unsurprisingly you refuse because there is no such section.
>of course galaxies evolve with time
but not in size or luminosity
And how the fuck does that work? They magically know to stay fixed in luminosity?
No evolution is exactly what is model requires. How the fuck do you think galaxies evolve but manage to stay exactly the same luminosity and size?

[Anonymous No.15225471]

You sciencetards believe anything.
You dont know shit
You DONT know how big planets are
You DONT know what they are made of - they are millions of light years away

You are GUESSING based on some lights. You're wrong and retarded

[Anonymous No.15225593]

>>15225387
EM field retardation doesn't explain clock drift.
>have pair of identical, synchronized atomic clocks
>take one to orbit for a while
>bring it back
>compare clocks again
>observe drift

[Anonymous No.15225776]

>>15225259
>paper in epub
How nice of them

[Anonymous No.15225794]

>>15225593
Has this experiment ever been performed?

[Coon Disciple No.15225797]

>>15224884
That's actually kinda interesting. What if light "ages" very slowly or the aging is somehow proportional to distance travelled and that is why you can't see any redshift on light used on earth cuz simply it hasn't travelled nothing compared to light from other galaxies.

But then again our current understanding of the redshift is very intuitive and it's basically the Doppler effect so....

[Anonymous No.15225801]

>>15225006
That's right frogposter. Old light.

[Anonymous No.15225831]

>>15225259
>Tidal effects from neighboring galaxies in the Λ cold dark matter (CDM) context are not strong enough to explain these phenomena.
Then it's dark energy.

[Anonymous No.15225951]

>>15225794
Yes, in the Hafele Keating experiment.

[Anonymous No.15226079]

>>15224809
Or the light gets tired.

[Anonymous No.15226082]

>>15224926
I am literally the centre of the obervbable universe.

[Anonymous No.15226239]

>>15225290
>confusing the map for the territory
That's schizo jargon
Next you'll start talking about terrain theory

[Anonymous No.15226293]

>>15224993
Then your big bang is big wrong
Where is the center of this “bang” you speak of? Wouldn’t everything then have a common traceable trajectory? Why do your models keep being wrong anon? Perhaps you’re making assumptions about implied implications from an extremely limited observation and calling it a theory.
>it’s right because it’s the closest

[Anonymous No.15226299]

>>15224884

[Anonymous No.15226306]

>>15226299
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.15226313]

>>15224891
Time dilation does not exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLEhw7upzFE
https://sciencevstruth.org/muons-time-dilation/

[Anonymous No.15226387]

>>15226239
At this point I can’t even tell if this is serious or bait

[Anonymous No.15226393]

>>15224768
speed of light being a constant was always one of the most retarded assumptions

like why would it be constant

[Anonymous No.15226402]

>>15226393
I think because we thought it acted like a wave in that sense like the speed of sound is a constant so I personally think the old geezers just couldn’t find any example of anything that affected the speed of light

[Coon Disciple No.15226456]

>>15226393
Just read the inference of relativity on the wiki, the one with the Pythagorean theorem and the mirrors.
It makes the assumption that the speed of light is constant no matter the frame of reference it is viewed from.
How did Einstein know this, how do we know this?
Has this been proven experimentally and if so when?

[Anonymous No.15226457]

>>15224884
Fucker! Heathen! SCUM! Take your tired red light and shove it up your ass!!!

[Anonymous No.15226463]

>>15224886
>what
>what
In the butt.

[Anonymous No.15226471]

>>15224891
>Light doesn't age.
So you are saying that the big bang theory is wrong, there is no speed of light and further light sources aren't like looking into the past? The sun's light doesn't have an 8 minute delay, all the light arrives to earth instantaneously?

[Anonymous No.15226472]

>>15225078
2cm/s per light-year is so slow that EM forces overcome it easily.
Even weak-ass gravity wins up to about 100 million ly

[Anonymous No.15226476]

>>15224927
Then why does everyone seem to say that the days pass by quicker rather than slower as they get older?

[Coon Disciple No.15226483]

>>15226476
Anon I.........
/sci/ truly is the worst board
I hope this is b8

[Anonymous No.15226495]

>>15226483
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/no-not-just-time-speeds-get-older/
I agree people like you are really bringing the board quality down by constantly making stupid personal accusations as a substitute for doing even a modicum of research.

[Anonymous No.15226511]

>>15225794
Yes, they didn't even have to send anything to orbit, when they put one clock at sea level and another on top of a mountain, they found drift.

Then they did the experiment on a tabletop and even found slight time drift between a clock on top of a table and one raised up another foot higher.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

[Anonymous No.15226559]

>>15224892

You are basing your thoughts on presmises:
>we can infer distance just by lightwaves without triangulation
We have no idea how far shit actually is.
No idea. Cannot measure.
>but the meme-Shifts of wavelengths
We cannot even know if what we see is still, or moving and in what direction, since we cannot even know what interferes with the lights we see.
Zero chance of knowing.
>cosmic dust
>other objects
>Heliosphere
>other meme fields in space

Memes about black holes.
It's all assumptions and hypothesis.
according to them:
>the closest black hole is 1,600 light-years away
Because you just read the meme word "light" years, you prolly cannot even fathom what this distance actually is.

> ~ 15,000,000,000,000,000 km
or
> approx 15 Quadrillion km

You really have to believe that we posses the ability to accurately can infer what exactly we can see and observe at this distance?!
Let alone that this distance is accurate.

If you believe that, you might aswell just believe in sky daddy.

For example with the cosmic dust:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20050215611
Space dustgrain density
[math]10^{−6} grains/m^3[/math]

And lets say we observe with a cylindrical field of view with a diametre of 1m, we would have encoutered:
> 23,561,944,901 space dust particles
And there is just the assumption that this would not in the slightest obstruct the light in any way?
No shift in opacity? No diffraction?
We just assume "light is straight line"?
And also even if the shit with the light shift would be a accurate way to measure distance, how can you measure it, you you don't know of what spectrum is actually emitted from the source?
To infer something about it, you need the output of the source to make assumptions about distance and direction of movement.
It's all memes and make believe.

[Anonymous No.15226568]

>>15226457
the most stable expansionist

[Anonymous No.15226576]

>>15224891
>It's time-dilated all the way down to zero.
No.
Fuck off pseud.
Go read intro relativity

[Anonymous No.15226599]

>>15226559
>>15226559
>We have no idea how far shit actually is.
>No idea. Cannot measure.
This is just wallowing nihilistic ignorance. We know how parallax works, that lets us directly measure distances out into the Galaxy. From there the distance ladder can be calibrated, multiple techniques can be crosschecked. They all point to a very tight correlation between distance and redshift, setting up redshift as a distance indicator.

>cosmic dust
>And there is just the assumption that this would not in the slightest obstruct the light in any way?
Yes it's called extinction. Welcome to the 1950's. Extinction by dust does not shift lines, it just absorbs light. It's effect can be estimated because dust preferentially absorbs short wavelengths, so objects appear redder. But this doesn't cause redshift, spectral lines don't shift.
>Heliosphere
Is not some magical frontier, it's just diffuse plasma. It absorbs with very, very long wavelength radio and scatters light at a specific wavelength in the UV corresponding to hydrogen Lyman alpha. It has no effect on most light.
>other objects
>other meme fields in space
Meaningless.

>We just assume "light is straight line"?
If light was scattered around first it would blur our distant objects like quasars and stars, this isn't observed.

>And also even if the shit with the light shift would be a accurate way to measure distance, how can you measure it, you you don't know of what spectrum is actually emitted from the source?
And yet we see the same sequence of emission lines shifted from what we see locally in the lab. You'd have to be retarded to believe this is a coincidence. Different galaxies have pretty consistent spectra, just shifted.

[Anonymous No.15226610]

>>15226599
>Extinction by dust does not shift lines
depends on the optical properties of the dust. isn't diffraction wavelength-dependent? refraction definitely is

[Anonymous No.15226619]

>>15226610
No it doesn't. Extinction is just absorbtion, not diffraction. And diffraction also doesn't change the wavelength, being wavelength dependent is not the same as being able to cause shifts.

[Anonymous No.15226623]

>>15225801
Photons’ clocks are frozen

[Anonymous No.15226624]

>>15226623
So you think that the speed of light is infinity since no time passes between being emitted from a source and reaching a destination?

[Anonymous No.15226634]

>>15226624
No, I think that the speed of light is the speed of light and that photons which move at the speed of light don’t experience time because their clocks are frozen

[Anonymous No.15226638]

>>15226599
>We know how parallax works, that lets us directly measure distances out into the Galaxy. From there the distance ladder can be calibrated, multiple techniques can be crosschecked. They all point to a very tight correlation between distance and redshift, setting up redshift as a distance indicator.
>multiple techniques can be crosschecked
No they cannot.
You cannot get information of an distant object or even the distance of the object if you cannot triangulate it.

If you know nothing about the object in the distance, let it be Source and surface luminosity, direction and speed of movement towards or away from you or simply what obstructs the view between you and the object, then you can only claim hypothetical attributes and assumptions.

If the distance between the triangulation points, is to low, and the angles of the [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math] are approximating 90° then you cannot say anything about the distance.

The base (distance between triangulation points) must be at least 5% of the distance to the object, to be able to even start making assumptions.
they triangulate shit allegedly with stationary earth observatories and distant satellites (>=4.5 billion kilometers distance)
and if an object is: 15,000,000,000,000,000 km far away (allegedly) and their best triangulation distance they can achieve is 4.5 billion kilometers, then the angle of the [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math] will be 89.99999999999.... you cannot tell shit about distance and make up of things that are out of reach.
It's impossible without anything empirical.


And as you said:
> It absorbs with very, very long wavelength radio and scatters light at a specific wavelength in the UV corresponding to hydrogen Lyman alpha. It has no effect on most light.
then you have a source of obstruction.
>If light was scattered around first it would blur our distant objects like quasars and stars, this isn't observed
circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15226639]

>>15226634
If their clock is broken, how do they all know to move at the speed of light instead of some other arbitrary speed, wouldn't every photon move at a random speed if they were out of sync with time like you describe?

[Anonymous No.15226650]

>>15226634
>don’t experience time
how do they have a frequency of oscillation with an immobilized clock

[Anonymous No.15226659]

>>15226619
there are billions of lightsources in the sky.
You say that diffraction does not intermingle the lightwaves so that it is hard to assign which wave comes from what source?

Also:
>objects like quasars
The closes quasar is in the Markarian 231 (Mrk 231).
Allegedly hosts a "quasar".
https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2015/news-2015-31.html
This is the closes galaxy to earth.
You know what the distance is to earh?
>allegedly?
> 581 million light years
>581 MILLION LIGHT YEARS
You have to literally belive that they possess the ability to accuratly measure (ignoring the problem of lights inverse square law) the distance and make claims about an object that is
> 2,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 km away?!
You really believe that?
That this is possible and accurate !?
> ~2.4 Novemdecillion km away?!
YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?

[Anonymous No.15226706]

>>15226619
>being wavelength dependent is not the same as being able to cause shifts.
what about Raman scattering and amplification?

[Anonymous No.15226719]

>>15226634

>The base (distance between triangulation points) must be at least 5% of the distance to the object, to be able to even start making assumptions.
This 5% is a completely baseless assumption on your part. Instead of pulling numbers out of your ass let's consider what angular precision 5% implies. Parallax is limited by your ability to measure the position of stars in the sky. 5% of the distance means the distance would be 20 Astronomical Units. This means that the parallax (D/B) would be 0.05 radians or 2.9 degrees. 3 degrees is enormous. It is about 6 times the diamater of the Full Moon. Under your silly assumption this is the highest precision you could possibly measure the position of a star to. Does that sound at all reasonable? No, you can do better with your eye. To put it in perspective how retarded this claim is: Tycho Brahe could measure positions of stars to about 1/60th of a degree, 400 fucking years ago without a telescope.
Instead of making up random numbers lets take something actually physical. 1 arcsecond is about the blurring caused by the Earths atmosphere in a good site. This the the limiting quality on images without going to space or using AO. 1 arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree. With 1 arcsecond of precision the length of the base of the triangle is ~0.0005%. So the distance is 20,000 AU, 3.26 lighyears or 1 parsec (parallax second).
So with an actual physically motivated precision we see that actually parallax works for nearby stars. In reality the blurring of the atmosphere limits resolution but it's possible to measure the center of light with much better precision, and obviously you can do much better from space like Gaia.

[Anonymous No.15226722]

>>15226638
>circular reasoning.
Nope. There is no physical mechanism, theoretical or known, which could change the wavelength without scattering light in angle. Compton scattering for example requires a change in angle to change the photon energy, otherwise conservation laws are violated.

>>15226706
In Raman scattering there is a change in angle. So it would blur sources.

[Anonymous No.15226742]

>>15226659
>You say that diffraction does not intermingle the lightwaves so that it is hard to assign which wave comes from what source?
Diffraction happens with coherent light. Different sources in the sky are not coherent. And no, you take and image of the sky and see sperate sources. They are blured together as this would imply.
>You have to literally belive that they possess the ability to accuratly measure
That depends entirely on what one means by accurately. A very precise distance is unnecessary for the scattering point. All that matters is that they are cosmologically distant, that is certainly true.

[Anonymous No.15226746]

>>15226722
>There is no physical mechanism, theoretical or known, which could change the wavelength without scattering light in angle

You still avoid the fact, that first you have to know the composition of the source, to make any claim about "change" in wavelegth.
And you cannot derive from the wavelenghts to distance to an object.
I don't even know why you are mentioning wavelenght

the core premise is not working.
But also even if the premise of magical knowledge about original composition of the lightsource would be given:

>There is no physical mechanism, theoretical or known, which could change the wavelength without scattering
>relativistic Doppler effect changes the wavelenght
They use this effect to claim that our "universe is expanding"

Also you included claim:
>>>15226599
>blur our distant objects like quasars

Which implies the premise that we know and have verified the existence of "quasars" with distance and attributes as claimed...
even though they are even further distant:
>>15226659
Also you avoided the issue with "parallax" which is a fancy euphemism for "triangulation".

[Anonymous No.15226770]

>>15226746
>You still avoid the fact, that first you have to know the composition of the source, to make any claim about "change" in wavelegth.
See image>>15226746
Do you think it's just a coincidence that the spectra of these galaxies all look the same? They also all show a pair of lines, with the exact separation and ratio of doubly ionised oxygen.
Note that the shift from the lab measured wavelengths is positional to distance from Earth. If you say there is no shift after emission then that implies the galaxies somehow know where Earth is. Does that sound reasonable?
>Which implies the premise that we know and have verified the existence of "quasars" with distance and attributes as claimed...
Quasars exist as objects in the sky. If you want to dispute their distances then please make a logical argument, instead of this empty innuendo.
>Also you avoided the issue with "parallax" which is a fancy euphemism for "triangulation".
False. >>15226719
Your assumption is baseless and bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15226773]

>>15226770
Wrong post link, should be this image:
>>15226599

[Anonymous No.15226791]

>>15226770
>They also all show a pair of lines, with the exact separation and ratio of doubly ionised oxygen.
Light source looks the same as different lightsource.
What does that prove?
>If you say there is no shift after emission then that implies the galaxies somehow know where Earth is.
I don't claim that.
I just say, we cannot know, nor make claims of make up or distance, because you cannot verify it.

> Quasars exist as objects in the sky. If you want to dispute their distances then please make a logical argument, instead of this empty innuendo.
Not empty.
You make claims and use an object with an alleged "special complex working".
There is a thing in a sky, we call quasar, but we have no idead:
>what it is
>what it is made from
>how far it is
All is made up meme claims to get the funding rolling and get "meme Star wars fanbois" to spend money on infantilized space fantasies.
>>15226719
>1 arcsecond is about the blurring caused by the Earths atmosphere in a good site. This the the limiting quality on images without going to space or using AO

Now you are getting closer to it.
You are getting it.
a arc second is incredibly small angle.
You are getting it.
Farting next to measuring tool which should "measure" via paralax, would cause an different result.
You are getting it.
You finally understand that we have no means to accuratly measure some shit like that via triangulation in the sub degree spectrum, because the error rate would be to high.
Humidity, movements, vibration etc. all affect accuracy.
So they to "long time exposure" and to a "average".
Which is a funny playground for "noise" and error.

[Anonymous No.15226809]

>>15226770
>with the exact separation
why is the separation not increased as cosmological redshift increases? wouldn't a longer wavelength photon experience more redshift because it occupies more space and thus expands faster?

where does the energy of the emitted photon go when it is redshifted to lower energies in empty space? is it destroyed?

[Anonymous No.15226826]

>>15226791
>Light source looks the same as different lightsource.
>What does that prove?
The simplest explanation is that they are the same emission lines. So they are shifted with respect to the wavelengths measured locally. This shift also increases with distance from Earth, so there are three possible explanations:
1) the light shifts wavelength during travel.
2) the whole universe changes in time. The light is unchanged but lab wavelengths change in time. But this is functionally the same as 1.
3) The wavelengths were shifted at emission and these galaxies are just different from the Milky Way. But in order to explain the correlation between distance from Earth and redshift is if Earth is a very special place.
>If you say there is no shift after emission then that implies the galaxies somehow know where Earth is.
>I don't claim that.
It's the implication of what you claim.
>I just say, we cannot know, nor make claims of make up or distance, because you cannot verify it.
There are many independent distance measures to cross check.
>>15226809
Separation as a ratio.

[Anonymous No.15226832]

>>15226791
>what it is
>what it is made from
>how far it is
"You know nuffing" is not an argument. Again, if you'd like to make the specific case against the evidence that quasars are cosmologically different go ahread. But this whining carries no substance.
All is made up meme claims to get the funding rolling and get "meme Star wars fanbois" to spend money on infantilized space fantasies.
>>15226719 (You) #
>1 arcsecond is about the blurring caused by the Earths atmosphere in a good site. This the the limiting quality on images without going to space or using AO

>>a arc second is incredibly small angle.
>You are getting it.
Lol. One post ago you were sure it was 3 degrees. 10,000 times worse that 1 arcsec.
>Farting next to measuring tool which should "measure" via paralax, would cause an different result.
If that was true it would be impossible to get images as sharp as 1 arcsecond. So false. Pic related is a star moving by 10 arsconds, it's very fucking obvious even by eye. Measuring it properly can do many times better.
You are getting it.
>You finally understand that we have no means to accuratly measure some shit like that via triangulation in the sub degree spectrum, because the error rate would be to high.
So you cannot see this star move then?

[Anonymous No.15226886]

>>15226832
>If that was true it would be impossible to get images as sharp as 1 arcsecond. So false. Pic related is a star moving by 10 arsconds, it's very fucking obvious even by eye. Measuring it properly can do many times better.

I love that you brought up this beatiful gif.

This is bernards star.
A start that moves.
I get it.
It moves a slight distance.
While nothing else arround it moves.
Within a year it apparent position changed by 10 arcseconds...
Based on on the claim that it has the distance of 5.6 light years.

Meaning, the distance has to be known first somehow.

Because an angle of a parallax is based on the distance to the apparent object.

This image is not a paralax as it is typically done to "triangulate" a distance, by measuring the apparent difference of position 6 months apart (one side of the sun vs other side of the sun).

This is one year apart. the exact same place.
From that info you cannot measure "arcseconds".
You take the image, measure the apparent distance from apparent position A to apparent position B.
And then under the assumption of "this star is 5.6 light years away" you claim that you measured the arcseconds.

This is calculated arcseconds based on a claim.

[Anonymous No.15226934]

>>15226886
>I love that you brought up this beatiful gif.
Good, I hope you've abandoned this absurd fantasy that you cannot measure such angles. Note that you just claimed the minimum angle measurable was 1000 times worse. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop making up random shit.
>Within a year it apparent position changed by 10 arcseconds...
>Based on on the claim that it has the distance of 5.6 light years.
Nope. The distance is 1/parallax angle. So it would be 10 parsecs. But this star's motion is dominated by proper motion, you have to observe it for longer to separate parallax and proper motion. The point of the pciture was to demonstrate unambiguously that arsceond accuracy is not difficult.
>Meaning, the distance has to be known first somehow.
>Because an angle of a parallax is based on the distance to the apparent object.
Nope. You measure the parallax angle from the data, the change of the postion of the star in angular units (arcsec). No distance is necessary to work out the angle from the data, that is just retarded. The distance is then 1/angle.
If you want a demo there is the calculation for when this was done at the same time from a spacecraft and the Earth.
http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/wolf359/wolf359.html

[Anonymous No.15226993]

>>15226826
>1) the light shifts wavelength during travel.
>2) the whole universe changes in time. The light is unchanged but lab wavelengths change in time. But this is functionally the same as 1.
>3) The wavelengths were shifted at emission and these galaxies are just different from the Milky Way. But in order to explain the correlation between distance from Earth and redshift is if Earth is a very special place.

Wavelengths do not matter in the calculation of the distance of a star, galaxy, black hole or other meme name for an celestial object.
Wavelength is a property of the light, not a property of the distance of the object.
Wavelength is allegedly influenced by the movement relative to the observer thats how the "expansion claim" is based on.

To make any claim of the make up of the object, you need the object first.
At least once to be investigated, live on site at least once.
>to have a measurement of the luminosity and composition of spectrum
>then you also require knowledge of the composition of suspended or moving particles between the object and observatory to factor in the noise and obstruction

Without a single sampling to calibrate or to have gauge or "standard measure" based on the object, you can just observe and speculate.
You need at least one sampling to even verify the method of "muh parallax measurement" is accurate.
The speculation based on far far distant lights is not scientific, if you cannot directly interact or observe it.
You observe it's projection. And based on that you make claims.

>If you say there is no shift after emission then that implies the galaxies somehow know where Earth is
Elaborate what:
> "The wavelengths were shifted at emission"
Supposed to mean?
How do you know a shift occurred? A shift implies a change.
Do you have a measure before and after shift?
What if it is measured wavelength is just its wavelengths?
Why does it unavoidably have to shift or change?

[Anonymous No.15226998]

>>15224886
The same way you can't see through 50 panes of glass you can't see through 300 billion lightyears of vacuum energy

[Anonymous No.15227026]

>>15226998
The light moving through windows doesn't get redshifted, just scattered and absorbed.

[Anonymous No.15227032]

>>15226993
>Wavelengths do not matter in the calculation of the distance of a star, galaxy, black hole or other meme name for an celestial object.
Talking about just measuring just the redshift here. Distance is measured independently.
>To make any claim of the make up of the object, you need the object first.
And we have done that, you're going backwards to avoid thinking. We looked at the spectra of different galaxies, they are consistent with being the same basic emission lines with a shift. A shift which correlates with distance.
>to have a measurement of the luminosity and composition of spectrum
Don't need the luminosity to measure redshift. Don't need the composition either, can see it relative to different galaxies. But the bright lines are quite certain to be doubly ionised oxygen.
>then you also require knowledge of the composition of suspended or moving particles between the object and observatory to factor in the noise and obstruction
Don't need that to measure the observed shift.

>You need at least one sampling to even verify the method of "muh parallax measurement" is accurate.
You think geometry is wrong? This is flatearther-logic here. Parallax works in the solar system where it can be verified with radar.
>The speculation based on far far distant lights is not scientific, if you cannot directly interact or observe it.
An empty attempt at gatekeeping.

>If you say there is no shift after emission then that implies the galaxies
> "The wavelengths were shifted at emission"
>How do you know a shift occurred? A shift implies a change.
Shifted with respect to local sources. Christ. You're going in circles to avoid having to think.

[Anonymous No.15227035]

>>15227026
You would observe the same effect if the glass panes were as weak as vacuum energy, it's like driving a car into a brick wall vs a wall of feathers

[Anonymous No.15227037]

>>15226934
>Nope. The distance is 1/parallax angle. So it would be 10 parsecs. But this star's motion is dominated by proper motion, you have to observe it for longer to separate parallax and proper motion. The point of the pciture was to demonstrate unambiguously that arsceond accuracy is not difficult.

Ok lets say I have two photos of an object.
The apparent change of the position of the object of the photos with the same exact field of view is 1cm.
From this photo I cannot claim anything about the angular height of the distance the object traveled.

If I say the distance of the object of the photo is 100,000km, and the distance scale is 1cm:4.8km away I will get the "angular height" of 10 arcseconds.
If I say the distance of the object the object of the photo is 100,000,000km, and then the scale 1cm:4800km i will get the "angular height" of 10 arcseconds.

To derive any angle from an object, you need to first know how far it is.

If you don't know how far it is, you have to triangulate with with the "Stellar paralax method" (which is not working because of noise) or good old triangulation methods.
A non-fixed star cannot be triangulated.
Bernards star is not a fixed star.
As you showed.
Therefore we cannot know the distance.
So there are two images. Which are showing the difference in position.
From which you cannot say anything but to claim its apparent change inside the image.
You have to provide a scale and have to know the distance beforehand.

[Anonymous No.15227052]

>>15226599
>This is just wallowing nihilistic ignorance. We know how parallax works, that lets us directly measure distances out into the Galaxy. From there the distance ladder can be calibrated, multiple techniques can be crosschecked. They all point to a very tight correlation between distance and redshift, setting up redshift as a distance indicator.
It's completely circular.
We don't 100% know that X celestial object is n kilometres away past a certain point we just extrapolate that information based on measuring instruments in objects where we do know how far they are. It's a fair thing to do but to assume it's flawless is huge hubris.

[Anonymous No.15227055]

>>15227037
>The apparent change of the position of the object of the photos with the same exact field of view is 1cm.
I'm going to stop you right there, this is where you have gone completely retarded. You don't convert an image of the sky into fucking cm. It is not an image in linear distance. An image of the sky is in angular coordinates.
If you bothered to glance at the link you would see how it was done.
a) you measure the pixel coordinates of the star in each image
a) the image is registered to convert pixel coordinates to sky coordinates
c) you measure the difference in coordinates, which is an angle.
And you have magically calculated the change without known the distance or trying to use centimeters like a moron.
>A non-fixed star cannot be triangulated.
False. Parallax is on repeatable on a one year baseline with a known phase, whereas proper motion doesn't care about the orbit of the Earth. The two motions can be separated.
>Bernards star is not a fixed star.
No star is fixed. And yet when they measured instantaneous parallax with New Horizon's and Earth it agreed with the past methods.

[Anonymous No.15227056]

>>15227032
>And we have done that, you're going backwards to avoid thinking. We looked at the spectra of different galaxies, they are consistent with being the same basic emission lines with a shift. A shift which correlates with distance.
So we visited a distant galaxy, and took a sample of it's lightsource, and then verified that our measurments were accurate.
And we therefore proved that the closest galaxy is 581 million light years away?
Really?
where and when did we undertake such an endeavour?

>>15227032
>Don't need the luminosity to measure redshift. Don't need the composition either, can see it relative to different galaxies. But the bright lines are quite certain to be doubly ionised oxygen.
With luminosity you can pretty accuratly calculate a distance to a lightsource because of the inverse square law.

>Shifted with respect to local sources. Christ. You're going in circles to avoid having to think.
So you are saying we KNOW for certain, that the local lightsources and the 581 million light years distant are the same.
And because the light is different and we know for sure it is the same as the local lightsources , it can only be a red/blueshift because you know for certain that these lightsources are of equal composition?

>>The speculation based on far far distant lights is not scientific, if you cannot directly interact or observe it.
>An empty attempt at gatekeeping.
You cannot just say "this method works, trust me bro", without verifying it.
If you say "i can take a banana for scale" I don't need a ruler because all bananas are 20cm long.
They you first have to verify that all banans are 20cm long, before using it as an method of measuring anything.

Or You developed a laser that could measure distances. Before you use it as a method of measuring you need to first show that it measures exactly like a tape measure would do.
Especially under conditions under which a tape measure is not effected, such as fluctuating humidity &temperature

[Anonymous No.15227057]

>>15227035
There's no physical basis for that. And the idea has been extensively tested and rejected:
>>15224991

[Anonymous No.15227068]

>>15227056
>So we visited a distant galaxy, and took a sample of it's lightsource, and then verified that our measurments were accurate.
If you're just going to repeat the same shit over and over again there's no point discussing this. I laid out the logic for you again and you skipped over the difficult questions.
>So you are saying we KNOW for certain, that the local lightsources and the 581 million light years distant are the same.
Do you think it's a coincidence that all galaxies have very similar spectra? That they show emission lines which are just like those of local objects and lab spectra? What is going on?
>it can only be a red/blueshift because you know for certain that these lightsources are of equal composition?
Composition changes the relative strength of some lines (not the two oxygen lines), it doesn't change wavelengths.

>You cannot just say "this method works, trust me bro", without verifying it.
The same technique has already been verified. Using spectroscopy lines were discovered in the solar spectrum which didn't correspond to any known element. The new substance was dubbed helium, it was only later found on Earth. Maybe you should have told them that you cannot possibly say anything about places you haven't visited. Thank fuck actual scientists aren't as retarded as you.

[Anonymous No.15227073]

>>15227057
>And the idea has been extensively tested and rejected
Where are the tests, all I'm seeing is a shitty thought experiment, how are you going to test something that requires billions of lightyears of distance to occur?

[Anonymous No.15227076]

>>15227055
>If you bothered to glance at the link you would see how it was done.

It is a entirely oposite approach than what they did with Bernards start.
Bernards star was not triangulated.
And in the link you provided they used "paralax" to measure the distance to Wolf 359.

Using the distance between "new horizons" and earth.
>Picrel

Bernards star: Observatory fixed, star at two different positions

Wolf 359: Red dwarf fixed, two observatories at two different positions

It's the opposite.
Also they didn't just "used coordinates".
They used also claimed to KNOW positions of other stars and then did a """calculation"""" on where Wolf 359 is and how far it is relative to the """"KNOWN"""" stars.

Quote:
>So, we know the size of the parallax angle. It ought to be a simple matter of geometry now in order to determine the distance to the star, right? We just cut our angle in half to create a right triangle,
>Hmmm. My value does not agree (at the 1-sigma level) with the Carnegie value, even allowing for the stated uncertainties in each. Is there some reason that my value might be incorrect?
>Yes, certainly. One implicit assumption that I made in my analysis was that all the stars (other than Wolf 359) in the images were at an infinite distance. I made this assumption by using the catalog positions for the stars as their "correct" positions as seen from Earth

>In order to calculate the distance to Wolf 359 correctly, one would have to account for the shifts in all the reference stars. In other words, one would have to compute the apparent position of each star, from RIT and from New Horizons, and THEN determine the position of Wolf 359 based on those corrected positions. That's too much work for me.
Absolute kek

[Anonymous No.15227083]

>>15224768
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S-mg1LMOAo

[Anonymous No.15227107]

>>15227068
>Do you think it's a coincidence that all galaxies have very similar spectra?
It doesn't matter what I think.
It's all about proofs and not claims.
If method is non verifyable because the object is unreachable and only a projection is observable, you can only make claims about the projection and never the object.

[Anonymous No.15227119]

>>15226293
The big bang wasn't an explosion that expanded outward from a point somewhere. That doesn't make any sense. The big bang happened EVERYWHERE all at once. Space was highly contracted (the scale factor a was very small) and everywhere was hot and dense, then space expanded. That was the big bang. (I'm using the word "then" there very loosely, since time started with the big bang.)

[Anonymous No.15227146]

>>15227107
>It doesn't matter what I think.
If you're incapable of thinking independently then you're just an NPC. And if it doesn't matter what people think then you're wasting your time trying to convince people.
>It's all about proofs and not claims.
Then you don't understand science at all. Nothing is ever proven in empirical science. Proofs are for mathematics and logic, not physical sciences. Instead there are only degrees of evidence.

[Anonymous No.15227151]

>>15227076
>It is a entirely oposite approach than what they did with Bernards start.
Wrong. The actually data analysis is the same.
>They used also claimed to KNOW positions of other stars and then did a """calculation"""" on where Wolf 359 is and how far it is relative to the """"KNOWN"""" stars.
Which is why more sophisticated analyses solve for all parallaxes simultaneously. But it's unnecessary for this level of analysis since it's much closer than the other stars.

[Anonymous No.15227155]

>>15227073
Perhaps try reading the link in the post.

[Anonymous No.15227162]

>>15227146
>If you're incapable of thinking independently then you're just an NPC
I can think independently and see that """science""" uses just memes and a sasquepedelian prosa to bombard people with buzzwords.

>Then you don't understand science at all. Nothing is ever proven in empirical science. Proofs are for mathematics and logic, not physical sciences. Instead there are only degrees of evidence.

Yes you are right, degrees of evidence, and a lot of disproofs.
Thats what science is about.
The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used in most fields.
Meaning:
>you observe a natural phenomenon
>you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate)
>you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
>you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent way
>the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
>either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
>a theory arises
>a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable
>meaning, there must be a chance of reproducing the experiment
>and maybe getting a different result
>never repeated experiments are not considered "good"
>methodology is everything

Pseudoscience:
> observe phenomenon
> doing statistics which is also observing
> inventing the cause
> interpretation is everything
Muh science

[Anonymous No.15227183]

>>15227162
>The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used in most fields.
Or the scientific method isn't the recipe you learned in school? It's incredibly childish to believe that big daddy Francis Bacon wrote down his steps and that's the method like biblical commandments. But sure, it's all those damn scientists that must be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15227214]

>>15224997
>>15224891
according to you there is no distant light either since a photon's space dilation is zero. ie, photons don't experience space.

>>15224819
photons decay into the very substance of space itself
that's how space expands

[Anonymous No.15227317]

>>15224888
>>Appears redder further from the source, or reflection.
>Tired light

[Anonymous No.15227367]

>>15227214
>a photon's space dilation is zero
It's called length contraction, and yes, to a photon the distance between the point of emission and the point of absorption is zero.
>that's how space expands
Explain accelerating expansion.

[Anonymous No.15227389]

>>15225453
I love it when they go radio silent

[Anonymous No.15227474]

>>15227119
>The big bang wasn't an explosion that expanded outward from a point somewhere.
>That doesn't make any sense.
>The big bang happened EVERYWHERE all at once. Space was highly contracted (the scale factor a was very small) and everywhere was hot and dense, then space expanded. That was the big bang. (I'm using the word "then" there very loosely, since time started with the big bang.)
>What supposedly makes sense.
What a weird religion.

[Anonymous No.15227528]

>>15224884
Wrong. Everything shrinks and the expansion is just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.15227539]

>>15227474
You misspelled "science."

[Anonymous No.15227545]

>>15226624
>The speed of light is infinity/"instantaneous"/speed of causality
This isn't a problem if time is relative.

[Anonymous No.15227549]

>>15225794
Yes. Billions of times. Everytime one decodes a GPS signal they have to correct the relativistic effects.

[Anonymous No.15227550]

>>15224891
ima grab bud light and time-dilate myself to zero

[Anonymous No.15227562]

>>15226456
> Has this been proven experimentally and if so when?
1926, Michelson–Morley experiment.

[Anonymous No.15227721]

>>15227183
>But sure, it's all those damn scientists that must be wrong.
Yes.
And they have to keep up the lie becaus of funding.

[Anonymous No.15227731]

>>15227474
> 13 Brazzillion years ago
> absolute nothing
> then due to complex and random quantum events the absolute everything manifested
> in a infinitessimal small spot
> then
> HEAR ME OUT
> the absolute everything exploded (Big Bang)
> and then Gasses turn to stars and planets
> and just by cooincidence, create perfect orbits
> arround a sun
> and then a ice comet struck earth
> 3 Dan Bilzerean years ago
> it melts creat atmosphere and shit
> then lightnig hits a wierd spot
> LIFE IS CREATED
> a meaningless coincidence
> thats WHAT THE SCIENCE DISCOVERED
> life is singe cell
> over a course of umteen billion years cell turnd to fish
> then monkey then human
> and the solarsystem works like a well oiled clockwork ever since
> we are on a 1040mph spinning piece of dirt
> that orbits the sun with 67000mph
> which moves with 0.5 million mph through space while dragging all planets perfectly with it
> picrel

> while the milkyway spins with 1.5 million mph and dragging the sun and solar system sideways
> and while all these motions happen, we have reocuring celestial events
> like asteroids finding us always every 18 years and so on
> yearly Perseids in July
> Halley's Comet that visits us ever 75-79 years
> even though the sun travels 942.5 million kilometers each year though space
> we have no paralax because the stars are so far away that the distance is negliant
> but when we move around the sun the paralax of the seasons is so large, that our ancestors used this paralax orient them selves on space ant time the with the star signes, which also repeat EXACTLY each year,
> and also the moon never gets tugged away a little when its between earth and sun
> the orbit never changes
> and its amazing
> how our universe is like a well oiled mechanical clock that we can use for everything
> and As I stated before
> I fucking love science

[Anonymous No.15227769]

>>15227731
Ok but I won't be feasting on zombie jew bread anytime soon either.

[Anonymous No.15227809]

>>15227731
>

[Anonymous No.15228212]

>>15227562
disproves gravitational wave detectors

[Anonymous No.15228221]

>>15227183
>Or the scientific method isn't the recipe you learned in school?
a specific recipe isn't necessary, just a core consistent and insatiable application of doubt. preaching certainty is the purview of a faith.

[Anonymous No.15228256]

>>15227183
>the recipe
questioning claims and demanding evidence or at least an approximation via experimentation and protocols is the basis of science.
>this is certain because we did some vague maths and created THOUGHT experiments of hypothetical situation and sometimes it works out
>and if it does not work out we just invent a "gap" filling term like "quantum events" or "dark matter" or "xy postulate" or "meme theorem" to make up the part of the math that didn't work out
is not science.
>we thought about it and then agreed that explaination X is the most plausible
>so we use it as a fact and build other theories on X based on our agreement that we see it as fact
It religion and not science.

[Anonymous No.15228680]

>>15224884
>The universe is NOT expanding. Old light loses energy and becomes redder. That's what is happening.
In fact this is exactly what's happening. The universe has a roughly uniform distribution of intergalactic plasma—very tenuous. Light passing through it loses energy via excitement of the particles at the electron-plasma frequency. The resonant energy is what is commonly mistaken for the CMB. The farther light has to go, the more plasma it must go through, making it more red-shifted.

[Anonymous No.15229441]

>>15228680
Can you please elaborate on how you even know that a shift occured?

What if it is just it's light, and nothing shifted?

[Anonymous No.15229460]

>>15229441
Electron plasma resonance is a well-known phenomenon. It has been studied for decades now. The only option here, really, for disagreement is to claim that there is no plasma in intergalactic space.

[Anonymous No.15229497]

>>15224768
The only difference between an astrophysicist and a carnival con man is the physicist knows more math. Fuckers have no idea what they are talking about. The more I study the subject the more I am convinced of this and I've been reading about space and physics for decades.

t. PBS Space Time subscriber

[Anonymous No.15229509]

>>15228680
>Light passing through it loses energy via excitement of the particles at the electron-plasma frequency. The resonant energy is what is commonly mistaken for the CMB.
[citation needed]