Cosmology Constant - The Biggest Mistake Of The Modern Science.

[A-wal]

Yes you are right in principle. I think I've had enough of A-Wal though. Too much the troll to be worth the trouble.  

I'm not trolling at all. Your argument was that there 'tired light' hypothesis requires an extra hypothesis to explain it:

*such as the well-known "tired light" hypothesis, or the idea that some us had at school that Planck's Constant might have changed with time. Both these involve additional hypotheses, for which there is no evidence. 

That is a lie. As I pointed out:

Red-shift hypothesis 1: The galaxies are moving away.

Red-shift hypothesis 2: The light is being stretched along the way.

Hypothesis 2 makes a definite prediction that red-shift is proportional to distance and it is. It needs no further hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 needs the further hypotheses to explain the data.

To which you responded:

But light "stretching" requires some unknown feature of physics, at variance with the evidence we have about the behaviour of light.  That is an extra hypothesis, which would require some independent evidence to make it credible. Is there any?

Before dishonestly editing your post to this in an attempt to deceive:

But light "stretching" is just the cosmological expansion of the universe, which is equivalent, surely?  

 

(And you need to consult a dictionary about the meaning of "lie". A lie is a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive. I may easily be mistaken in some of what I say on this topic, but if you accuse me of deliberate untruths you deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat. :)  ) 

To which I replied (before the deceitful edit):

And the big bang, inflation and dark energy don't require some unknown features of physics? :mad:

So tell me, what makes you think that red-shift being caused by the journey rather than the galaxies moving away requires additional hypotheses given that red-shift is proportional to distance exactly as you would expect if it were caused on route while the galaxy recession model requires inflation, dark energy and galaxies to be moving away faster than the speed of light, as well as needing to explain the patterns in the microwave radiation and the huge shortage of anti-matter and lithium, not to mention how nothing could become something that then explodes?

 

You really think that that red-shift being caused during the journey requires extra hypotheses?

 

He's just, as Withnail says in the film, such a terrible c**t. Oh well.....

...if you accuse me of deliberate untruths you deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat. :)  )

You're in England, would you like my address so you can say that to my face or would you prefer to hide behind your computer screen?

 

Putin trolls are downright evil.  It's hard to say if they are actually working out of the center in St. Petersburg, or if they're just home-grown malcontents; a study of Russky trolling by the Swedes said they often get their cues from local extremist websites.   What goes around, comes around.   Up to no good either way, can't tell the difference.

 

The Guardianists are not exactly troglodytes.  In one of my parting shots I said:  "If it wasn't for the Guardianistas, I wouldn't know Hillary C lost because she was too Right-wing; that Barack O is a corporate-controlled Fascist; and that the younger generation is bright Red in color."

We a have a clueless right-wing freedom hater. :) Those are always entertaining.

Edited May 22, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

Hmm, you exceeded my UK bandwidth on those two ... thanks to Wikipedia, I get the Corbyn (ack!) reference, but I think more in terms of George Monbiot on the GRAUNIAD.

 

Mind you, I don't always think Monbiot is wrong, but he is always off-putting.   Well, I suppose it beats Monckton and THE DAILY MAIL.   Took one look at the DM and headed for the hills.   There was some good stuff on THE GUARDIAN, but I finally realized I could get most of it off of Reuters instead.

Yes Monbiot is rather a pain. Re the Mail, my brother's newsagent, who is of South Asian extraction, refers to it as the "Daily Hate", which I find quite insightful. It seems to be full of the narrow-minded Little-Englander spleen of the editor, Paul Dacre.

 

To avoid, definitely. 

[OceanBreeze]

A lie is a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive. I may easily be mistaken in some of what I say on this topic, but if you accuse me of deliberate untruths you deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat. :)  ) 

 

 

I think I've had enough of A-Wal though. Too much the troll to be worth the trouble.  

 

 

LOL. Consider it a test. I am relieved to see I am not the only one here running out of patience.

This forum really could do with an Ignore feature.

My preferred solution would be something like this

 

[exchemist]

LOL. Consider it a test. I am relieved to see I am not the only one here running out of patience.

This forum really could do with an Ignore feature.

My preferred solution would be something like this

 

Yeah, enough already. 

 

Anyway, keep up the good work.

[A-wal]

The only reason you're getting so annoyed is because you don't a reasonable argument. You claimed that red--shift occurring on route would require additional hypotheses, implying that the recession of distant galaxies is the more likely explanation which is ridiculous considering that it requires that all matter and energy in the universe came into existence at a single point which exploded, then inflated, and now is being accelerated by dark energy that makes up over 95% of the universe.

 

All the stretching on route explanation needs is to explain how it could be stretched during the trip, and there's any number of possibilities. Do you really think that galaxy recession and all the baggage that comes with it is more likely? Why?

 

Let's try to keep this civil and actually talk about the science shall we?

[mrg]

> Let's try to keep this civil and actually talk about the science shall we?

 

Let's just not take you seriously.   On consideration, I can't think of how I could.

[A-wal]

So still nothing in the way of an actual attempted argument against the points I'm making.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Could light be losing energy as it passes through as-yet-undiscovered "dark matter". Couldn't "dark energy" cause weak cancellation waves that sap energy out of the wave as heat, and could this be the source of the cosmic background radiation?

[Super Polymath]

Could light be losing energy as it passes through as-yet-undiscovered "dark matter". Couldn't "dark energy" cause weak cancellation waves that sap energy out of the wave as heat, and could this be the source of the cosmic background radiation?

Yes. Remember that conversation we had about sub-Planck-scale "quantum information" with a "radically different time dilation"?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Could light be losing energy as it passes through as-yet-undiscovered "dark matter". Couldn't "dark energy" cause weak cancellation waves that sap energy out of the wave as heat, and could this be the source of the cosmic background radiation?

Not really. There is or was a theory about so-called "tired light" that you can look up. But this would involve scattering, which is not what we observe. So that idea has fallen by the wayside.  

[Super Polymath]

Not really. There is or was a theory about so-called "tired light" that you can look up. But this would involve scattering, which is not what we observe. So that idea has fallen by the wayside.  

Scattering of the photon into smaller trans-Planckian structures is exactly what we observe in the double-slit experiment. 

 

We see it every-time, that the trans-Planckian interactions are superluminal. We just have no way of actually seeing a photon scatter without shooting photons at it's tracks, which should collapse the wave function if there's scattering, & that's exactly what it does. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Scattering of the photon into smaller trans-Planckian structures is exactly what we observe in the double-slit experiment. 

 

We see it every-time, that the trans-Planckian interactions are superluminal. We just have no way of actually seeing a photon scatter without shooting photons at it's tracks, which should collapse the wave function if there's scattering, & that's exactly what it does. 

On the contrary, that is exactly what we do NOT observe. We see only whole photons, arriving at one point or another.  We never see the photon broken up. 

[Super Polymath]

On the contrary, that is exactly what we do NOT observe. We see only whole photons, arriving at one point or another.  We never see the photon broken up. 

Not when we shoot it without shooting photons @ their tracks. When unobserved, the particles scatter into waves.

 

QM as you know it is a deliberate misinterpretation of this very test.

 

Einstein would attest to that fact if he were still with us, all they let us see about his objections is "God does not play dice." Materialism in physics is a very human game. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Not when we shoot it without shooting photons @ their tracks. When unobserved, the particles scatter into waves.

 

QM as you know it is a deliberate misinterpretation of this very test.

Not quite: there is a wavelike function (not strictly a wave) that explores both slits and determines where the "particle" is likely to be observed. But "scattering" has a meaning in physics and this is not it. 

 

QM predicted the outcome of the test before it was ever constructed. The experiment was set up to test the predictions of QM. And those counterintuitive predictions of QM were borne out.

 

So you will struggle to show that QM misrepresents what it going on here: it is a triumph of QM.  

[Super Polymath]

there is a wavelike function that explores both slits

Yea but we can't glibly guess that it's non-locality as opposed to superluminal trans-planckian scattering & reemergence (from superluminal trans-planckian gravitational interactions) from the observed phenomenons, you haven't told us why it's one but not the other.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Super Polymath

[mrg]

So you will struggle to show ...

 

Not at all.  SP can pull stuff out of the tailpipe all day.  If it required any effort, it wouldn't be easy, right?

[Super Polymath]

Not at all.  SP can pull stuff out of the tailpipe all day.  If it required any effort, it wouldn't be easy, right?

Then how come superstring theory, m theory, & all the other QM theories can't account for dark matter & dark energy?