Welcome to the Physics Forum!??

The moderator/mentor 'cristo' bans several of my posts then I go to respond to an email notification and get this:

You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

---I note:

And THIS for me being irritated that he removed a post which had if anything a SCANT passing note that the data would work with BOTH theories and that kind of thing, data one fellow had most graciously offered a pointer to and I was trying to THANK him. But cristo has to remove the whole thread even ASKING for blue shift data!!! Highly inappropriate.

My such a TOUCHY little fellow...for simply noting that I would RESPECT him if he just had the gumption to RESPOND to a post where I was simply noting that it seemed ODD that M31 would have PASSED M33 on it's way towards us..if everything really came from one "bang" point. I mean there is no PHYSICAL mechanism for the apparent velocity orientation of these galaxies from *that* model.

The M.O. of roman catholicism runs thick in environments like this. People are so afraid of having their world view challenged that they BAN you for even making MENTION that 'non-mainstream theories' *might* exist... yet they WHINE that you can't provide "peer reviewed articles". If all the 'peers' allow Turkey's like this to RUN things...then how hypothetically WOULD any peer reviewed article IN OPPOSITION EXIST??

Like I say there is no real difference to Roman Catholicism's M.O. here. Squash the opposition. Don't reason with them. Don't educate them. Squash them. Here is a prior post that I cut from the site. Enjoy.

Vanadium 50 said:
There are very, very few objects with a blueshift. M31 is one. Looking in the 2000 version of the [URL="http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/"]CfA1 redshift catalog[/URL] gives only 16 objects with blueshifts. Most of those are quite small.

Tired light has been discredited for decades.

(1) It predicts more blurring than is observed.

(2) It predicts no time dilation for large Z supernovae, contrary to observation.

(3) It shifts only the frequency, not the photon density of a blackbody, so is inconsistent with CMB observations, particularly FIRAS.

=====I replied=====
Please educate me. (Mod apparently pulled another post where I talked about this and didn't consider it necessary to even talk to me about it so regardless of my degree I MUST be a total dunderhead :-))

1) THe 'blurring' argument is not the strongest one :-). It's an attempt at a SELF-SUPPORTING argument. It reads like *this*: "We don't know of anything except interactions that would cause blurring"..WELL THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT HERE>>>> Our instruments cannot, due to the GREAT distances over which light must travel to produce measurable red shifting, help us PROVE OR DISPROVE whether this phenomena occurs. This is an uncharted phenomena if it exists! Therefore it is USELESS to substitute familiar phenomena in our evaluation. (not to mention that since it is such a *gradual* energy dissipation if it exists, it would *likely* have a non-diverting effect; averaging out since each REGION of the effect is likely experience the exact same phenomena at the exact same moment..whatever it is.) RATHER the argument "Every other wave loses energy when it propagates" takes FAR superior precedence to this straw man. So point one goes to the tired light people when evaluated logically. We're considering an argument from ignorance VERSUS an argument from *precedence*. Far far more powerful philosophically speaking. Especially since a non-causal and perpetual motion fallacy argument enter in as well. When light propagates *something* is acting as a constraint so that the fields can oscillate in their tangential axis. We don't understand the nature of it but it's there.

2) Yes this one I've heard of. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm shows a nice plot of the data. SOME of the data is WAY out which...suggests maybe the apparatus is crummy? I dunno. Or maybe most of the people doing the research wanted it to turn out one way and someone else was just gathering data. Isn't it curious how that one just is right on the flat line? :-) IS IT NOT ALSO CURIOUS how the CLOSER data has a MUCH wider base of statistical deviation?? Hmmmm? I think the study is probably poisoned by people with an agenda possibly. I'd like to know *exactly* how it was carried out before I'd put any stock in it. The problem is there are SO many who make a *religion* out of this..and religions of man tend to corrupt.

3) Again CMB...we are presuming the SOURCE of it based on the MODEL that all the people are ACCEPTING in my observation and *this* producing ill found conclusions like *this* cut from the same page as above:

--------THey say
The local Universe is transparent and has a wide range of temperatures, so it does not produce a blackbody, which requires an isothermal absorbing situation. So the CMB must have come from a far away part of the Universe, and its photons will thus lose energy by the tired light effect.

----I say

OHhh k. So we're presuming we know so MUCH about the 'local universe' here. What an arrogant statement. We do not know whether CMB might be coming FROM what *appears* to be transparent! Such that it completely OVERWHELMS the background count from anything outside a few light years distance. Again we have no REAL method to test these things because it requires such a vast amount of space to produce detectable CMB if this is true. You can't trace it's source if it's source is...everything :-) It's a background radiation. That's all we know. We can speculate based on a PRESUMPTION what it *might* be...but we can't beat our chest and claim that it proves anything.

. As same page above quotes 'Without some incredible coincidences'. If we really break down the NATURE of these coincidences and compare them to the coincidence of the things I note in FAVOR of believing in light fatigue from a statistical perspective, I think we know who would win that one. So 2 out of 3 of these from a logical analysis actually don't meet muster with what we already know in non-fringe-kook science about the universe. It's getting harder and harder to find people WHO ACTUALLY TOOK a year of E+M and got good grades. Anybody? Hopefully there are some in here besides myself.

For that reason anyway I'd like to see more information on how 2) was performed. We are WAY WAY to far from concluding the source of CMB to start using it as an impressive argument so I'm not really that interested in it at this time but I do want to keep up on actual findings there. 2) would be an impressive argument were it not for the way the data looks...arranged to some degree. And I certainly would call it to question. I've known of crazier things happening than a few dozen people even conspiring to lie about something. Heck when I was in Jr. High a whole class of kids conspired to frame this one kid for something and they threatened to get me in trouble if I didn't go along. I laughed and told the truth. Everybody hated me. So what? They're a bunch of worthless people at that point and I'd rather be around people who tell the truth.

But anyway I think real scientists like to experience the collection of data and scrutinize the procedure and the whole 9 yards. For that reason. IT's simply..unscientific to just accept what people claim at face value.

But hey it doesn't challenge my world view one way or the other. I'm open to whatever the truth is. But so far I'm only seeing *one* argument that seems formidable in favor. And the data is sketchy. I'm seeing

* We're the center of the universe basically due to seeing this perceived expansion in *all* directions where HEY something 3 billion LY away for instance..think about it folks. It's LOCAL SYSTEM (this is going to blow you away...if you've never thought about this...) *were* they all originally at this dot which then began expanding into all that we see in the 'big bang'.... the HEY they would have been moving along for what 6 billion years or so? At least? Well in that time let's do a little profile of the ACCELERATION TOWARDS each other due to gravity at a distance of 10 million LY. See...surely out there somewhere is a system sort of similar to ours. Over that many billion years I'm...guessing that the the slight initial velocity components from the 'bang' away from each other would have been swallowed up WHOLE by the gravitational acceleration compounded over that time. And those things would be SCREAMING towards each other so that ALL OF THEIR LOCAL SYSTEM WOULD BE BLUE SHIFTED! ALL OF IT ! NOT A SINGLE EXCEPTION FOR ANY REASON! :-) Oh crumb let me do the calculations. Using typical galactic objects with mass of 10^42 Kg. Let's bust this one out.

Acceleration = 6.67x10^-11 X 10^42Kg/(9.5x10^22M) ^2 (Distance below being 10 million LY for most distant object in this hypothetical 'local system'.) gives us 7.4 x 10^-15 m/sec^2

Ok so to get a rough out of how far an object would move in that amount of time for two objects NOT moving at relativistic bearing speeds to one another :-).... which is certainly the case in this particular scenario... d=.5x a x 6billion years squared... which gives 1.3 x 10^20 meters. My isn't that convenient? The wookie wins again. :-) Recall above that the systems ARE after all... 10^23 M apart almost in this scenario. SOOOOOO.....

Sorry but I haven't introduced myself. I'm Bob Weigel. I graduated from Oregon STate with a BS in science Ed in '83 and took more physics at U of O while working for the Inst. of Molecular Biology there to where I have all but one sequence of a physics BS under my belt also. But then years of engineering experience and working problems and contemplating things from a logical approach.

I've been reasoning with people about things for about 22 years on the internet and usually it's dumb kids on myspace forums or whatever because I have a heart to get people to wake up and start RECONSIDERING some things they've been taught as fact. I hope some of you might reconsider this argument and give it another look. There really is more here than meets the eye I believe. -Bob

===========END OF POST===========

I should add a quick note. It is remarkable that M31 is passing M33 on it's way towards us. THese are two large galaxies in the same general area of the sky, AND they are near the same distance from us (2 and 3 Mly respectively ). Yet the closer one, would have PASSED the more distant one in it's path towards us. M31 is moving towards our galaxy at around 150 Km/sec and I believe M33 is more like 24 Km/sec when you discount our movement within our own galaxy! Wow..so...you mean to tell me ALL THREE of us at one time were radially projected from this same 'point' in spacetime. And.. well here we are billions of years later and gravity has been acting all that time (see above for a QUALITATIVE perspective on how a galaxy would accelerate even it if was steady state in response to a gravitational field at 10Mly distance!)

Nay I tell you this maketh no sense whatsoever! :-) I mean c'mon! Someone hypothesize ANY process recognized by non-fringe-kook scientists that would REMOTELY explain the orientation of velocities that we observe here. This challenge is always open.