Cosmology, the range of light, and the scientific method
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.7: Search for Equations of form y = 2x + z, SUNY Buffalo New York USA Results
Next: speed of light out of pure math the pseudosphere as time and sphere as distance Chapt 19 #216; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 05:44 On Jul 8, 5:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Michael Helland wrote: > > >> [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. > > >> > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down > > >> [...] > > >> The stupid is breathtaking. > > > It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. > > > Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, > > so that leads to very different predictions. > > Who the hell cares? Your model predicts the wrong answer anyway. As if the Big Bang doesn't? Every "prediction" the Big Bang can claim is RETROFITTED. That's a true fact. The Big Bang has never made a solid prediction and hit it near the mark. Nucleosynthesis, the CMB temperature? The maximum age of galaxies (inflation primarly exists to explain the most obvious falsification). When will you stop fitting the evidence to meet the theory, and look at a hypothesis that actually meets the evidence?
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 05:48 On Jul 8, 11:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, take a few days and read this material: I have. I also was born and raised considering the Big Bang to be an undeniable fact. Now take five seconds to consider this: You think the Universe has a finite age and size and light has an indefinite range... while I think a far more elegant fit for the evidence is that light has a finite range and the Universe has an indefinite size and age. Your whole explanation of how superclusters could form in 13.7 billion years is wildly contrived. That's the bottom line. I'm not the one in denial here.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 14:36 Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 8, 5:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Helland wrote: >> > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Michael Helland wrote: >> >> >> [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. >> >> >> > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> The stupid is breathtaking. >> >> > It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. >> >> > Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, >> > so that leads to very different predictions. >> >> Who the hell cares? Your model predicts the wrong answer anyway. > > As if the Big Bang doesn't? > > Every "prediction" the Big Bang can claim is RETROFITTED. No, Mike, it is not. Open a textbook on the subject then review the history of the theory. > > That's a true fact. > > The Big Bang has never made a solid prediction and hit it near the > mark. > > Nucleosynthesis, the CMB temperature? Predicted long before the CMB was even seen. > > The maximum age of galaxies (inflation primarly exists to explain the > most obvious falsification). Grasping at straws. Galaxy ages are consistent with the big bang theory. > > When will you stop fitting the evidence to meet the theory, and look > at a hypothesis that actually meets the evidence? A hypothesis only needs to make predictions that explain the evidence. Learn some scientific method and stop looking like a buffoon. If you want to be a buffoon just go away, we got enough of those here.
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 14:42 On Jul 9, 11:36 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > On Jul 8, 5:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Michael Helland wrote: > >> > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Michael Helland wrote: > > >> >> [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. > > >> >> > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> The stupid is breathtaking. > > >> > It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. > > >> > Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, > >> > so that leads to very different predictions. > > >> Who the hell cares? Your model predicts the wrong answer anyway. > > > As if the Big Bang doesn't? > > > Every "prediction" the Big Bang can claim is RETROFITTED. > > No, Mike, it is not. Open a textbook on the subject then review the history > of the theory. > > > > > That's a true fact. > > > The Big Bang has never made a solid prediction and hit it near the > > mark. > > > Nucleosynthesis, the CMB temperature? > > Predicted long before the CMB was even seen. Not accurately. > > The maximum age of galaxies (inflation primarly exists to explain the > > most obvious falsification). > > Grasping at straws. Galaxy ages are consistent with the big bang theory. Yeah, after being retrofitted. > > When will you stop fitting the evidence to meet the theory, and look > > at a hypothesis that actually meets the evidence? > > A hypothesis only needs to make predictions that explain the evidence. Of course. > Learn > some scientific method and stop looking like a buffoon. > > If you want to be a buffoon just go away, we got enough of those here.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 15:46
Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 9, 11:36 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Helland wrote: >> > On Jul 8, 5:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Michael Helland wrote: >> >> > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Michael Helland wrote: >> >> >> >> [...]> a. This is tired light which has been refuted. >> >> >> >> > Not a single tired light model suggests light actually slows down >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> The stupid is breathtaking. >> >> >> > It's a true fact. My hypothesis is novel. >> >> >> > Tired light models only decrease the energy of light, not the speed, >> >> > so that leads to very different predictions. >> >> >> Who the hell cares? Your model predicts the wrong answer anyway. >> >> > As if the Big Bang doesn't? >> >> > Every "prediction" the Big Bang can claim is RETROFITTED. >> >> No, Mike, it is not. Open a textbook on the subject then review the >> history of the theory. >> >> >> >> > That's a true fact. >> >> > The Big Bang has never made a solid prediction and hit it near the >> > mark. >> >> > Nucleosynthesis, the CMB temperature? >> >> Predicted long before the CMB was even seen. > > Not accurately. It was predicted to be about 3 degrees kelvin long before it was even measured. You are lying. > > > >> > The maximum age of galaxies (inflation primarly exists to explain the >> > most obvious falsification). >> >> Grasping at straws. Galaxy ages are consistent with the big bang theory. > > Yeah, after being retrofitted. You are lying. > > > >> > When will you stop fitting the evidence to meet the theory, and look >> > at a hypothesis that actually meets the evidence? >> >> A hypothesis only needs to make predictions that explain the evidence. > > Of course. > > >> Learn >> some scientific method and stop looking like a buffoon. >> >> If you want to be a buffoon just go away, we got enough of those here. |