|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 31, 2011 12:01:45 GMT 1
The link explains how mixtures of blackbody emitters at various temperatures DON'T produce a blackbody spectrum as output.
Plus standard stuff ISN'T tired light, because it says moving through expanding space is the cause of the redshift, whereas 'tired light' uses something OTHER than expansion to supposedly explain the redshift:
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 31, 2011 17:28:05 GMT 1
@sta The linked article made a very narrow definition of 'tired light' as being caused by collisions, which I was NOT proposing, as you very well know.. And as the article went on to claim a 'consensus', which is an invalid form of scientific reasoning, becase it it toxic to progress (... just think about that, would you?) So, I am very surprised that you quoted it in aid of your case, as it were. Hm; So let's hear what that minority has to say, shall we? www.aoi.com.au/bcw/Placid/
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 31, 2011 20:43:42 GMT 1
Carnyx, your statements have been so wooly and vague, as well as subject to constant changes, that I have almost NO IDEA what your magic pixie dust is supposed to BE (apart from magic, and explain the CMB without expansion........).
If you meant something else, why don't you try saying exactly what you do mean (if you can)......................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 31, 2011 20:49:52 GMT 1
Not at all! Obviously relevant data to any case (especially one where you aren't qualified to assess the data itself), as to how many 'expert witnesses' agree with one interpretation, and how many don't. Yes, you will ALWAYS be able to find some academics that don't agree, but that doesn't make your position any stronger, because you still have the fact that MOST people who are qualified to assess the facts prefer the BB and expansion to other attempted explanations.
It's called science my little frog, a consensus gradually establishes itself as a field matures -- although of course if NEW data turns up, the whole shebang can be out the window. Its WHY the consensus changes that is the point.
Hence, based on current data, your supposed objection to whatever it is today you claim to be objecting to, is a very , very minority opinion, and probably not for the reason you hold it anyway .
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 31, 2011 21:37:31 GMT 1
@sta,
So, why do you behave as if it Received Truth, Holy Writ,and seek to defend it with the zeal of a crusader? Can't you see how tortuously risible these cosmological 'explanations' actually are?
Rather than leave it to astronomy and physicists, why is this speculative meta-science of Cosmology even given house-room in academe? It is as bogus as Climatology, a similar junk-science feeding off a host of proper scientific disciplines in an orgy of grant-seeking from politicians.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 31, 2011 21:46:29 GMT 1
Except you don't even understand the first thing about either the observational data they are based on, or the actual theories! So what are you basing YOUR judgement on apart from argument from incredulity and some sort of warped personal prejudice against academia?
So tell, because in all the posts you have made so far, you've failed to come up with even ONE good reason why people should believe your personal argument from ignorance, as opposed to the boring ole process of science..........................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 31, 2011 22:31:43 GMT 1
And there you have it!
It has f-all to do with belief! Science does not depend on acts of faith!
In science; speculations, conjectures hypotheses, arguments, theories, mathenmatical formulae and models, .... all reduce to recipes for conducting repeatable practical experiment. It asks the question; can you, entirely independently, take the same steps and get the same results. Arriving at a Scientific truth is the result of an intensely practical process.
Nullius in Verba, remember? Take No Man's Word for it?
So, Cosmology is not a true science but is an experimentless speculative field reliant in essence on belief, and to dogmatise it makes it a religious pursuit. It is a branch of Theology, and a direct descendant of Astrology.
And now, you might understand why matters of Cosmology ( aka New Astrology) are basically speculative, and open to pure techniques of disputation.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 1, 2011 1:59:24 GMT 1
Plain nonsense. Cosmology proceeds, like any other part of science, by gathering data from experiments. So, a new 'experiment' in cosmology consists of trying to construct a new piece of kit for gathering information. And we choose a new direction, just as we design a new experiment in the lab, based on what we have managed to explain so far, and what we haven't managed to explain.
So, the new experiments for measuring the CMB were because we thought that there was useful new information there -- and we didn't know until we did it what the answer would be, just as we don't know what results an experiment will give until we do it.
We also have repetition -- we can have different instruments taking slightly different views of the same stuff.
And finally, we have the possibility of falsification of hypotheses -- we may THINK that there should have been a certain pattern in the CMB, based on theory, but if that isn't quite what we see, then we need to introduce a new hypothesis. It works in just the same way as science in the lab. Predict and test and discard hypotheses if the data disagrees. Which is what happened to the steady state model of cosmology -- it couldn't explain the hubble shift and the CMB, whereas the big bang theory predicted the CMB should be there before anyonr had ever detected it. And when it was detected, it was totally by accident, just like many lucky accidents in lab based science.
Claiming that this isn't science just shows that you don't actually know what science IS.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 1, 2011 9:10:26 GMT 1
Your pastime of Cosmology ( aks New Astrology) is parasitic. It is utterly reliant on the results of the proper sciences of Astronomy, and Physics. They do not depend on a system of beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 1, 2011 14:17:24 GMT 1
O dear! you can't even be consistent! Astronomy doesn't depend on the sort of 'experiments' you think define science, and cosmology is just one particular area within astronomy..................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 1, 2011 15:09:58 GMT 1
Of course it does! Astronomers Observe, produce Data, and construct new Experiments ( e.g. new instruments). But Cosmologists don't.
I see you now want to hide Cosmology under the skirts of Astronomy. Which definitely makes it a sub-branch of it's elder ....... Astrology
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 1, 2011 16:47:30 GMT 1
I think you have severly confused theoretical cosmology with observational cosmology. What do you think WMAP or COBE are apart from NEW INSTRUMENTS........................
You statements are becoming not just ludicrous, but patently untrue.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 2, 2011 8:45:15 GMT 1
Excuse me while I wipe my eyes!
Here are the words from a Physicist manqué, attempting to defend the idea that Cosmology is a science, and not a species of New Astrology ...
A
B
|
|