Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post Reply
User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by C_D » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:17 am

gods+lonely=man said:
What is the deal with ''Neil deGrasse Tyson (bullshit theories, imo)''?
Historical and current astronomical theories have much in common with religion-based beliefs. Similarly to religion, astronomy has high priests that are privy to knowledge in the form of data and imaging from their 'eyes in the sky', from which theories are extracted and presented to acolytes that then disseminate the pertinent 'facts' to the general layperson as gospel.

Here are the titles of a few of NdGT's published papers:
"On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest"

"uvby Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789"

"Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge"

"The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s"
These papers (are supposed to) sound fantastically intelligent and far beyond the intellectual reach of most. But that's the idea - blind them with science - so I call bullshit. This does not make me a flat-earther.

The standard model of the Big Bang does not hold water. The credibility of the Big Bang is dependant on one premise alone - that we exist in an expanding Universe. This has been proven false by Halton Arp, amongst others.

I've started this thread as a placeholder for discussion about the problems with modern astronomy, to be continued when I find the time (because some fundamental alternative premises need to be established and explained first, which take time to explain in a fairly simple manner), or if anyone else has input to share.

User avatar
deep state
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by deep state » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:54 pm

C_D wrote:
Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:17 am
The credibility of the Big Bang is dependant on one premise alone - that we exist in an expanding Universe. This has been proven false by Halton Arp, amongst others.
You've fallen into the same trap you are identifying here, that of scientific mystification. How did Halton Arp "prove" the universe is not expanding, and can I reproduce the methods in my backyard? We cant even prove a Universe exists.

This is the appeal of flat-earthism I suspect, is that it is an exaggerated way to draw attention to the fact that most things we think we know are simply things we have been told since before we could use logic or rational thought to question.

If we grew up in an off-the-grid culture that taught the Moon was a mile in the sky and 2000 feet across (or whatever), that would be that, so it would be for us. There would be no way to test it without getting into a hot-air balloon.

Spiritual teachings have such strong appeal because they tend to confirm the one thing we do know for sure, i.e., that all there is is consciousness. Everything else exists inside of that.

User avatar
gods+lonely=man
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:00 am

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by gods+lonely=man » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:27 pm

The village idiot gets it...

.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by C_D » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:13 am

deep:
You've fallen into the same trap you are identifying here, that of scientific mystification. How did Halton Arp "prove" the universe is not expanding, and can I reproduce the methods in my backyard? We cant even prove a Universe exists.
Fairly blunt dismissal of an enormous area of interest you got going on there, young man. Not your scene, eh? :lol:

User avatar
deep state
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by deep state » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:35 pm

Do you want to explain to us newbs why the universe is provably not expanding? n3rd*

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by C_D » Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:26 pm

I'm in no rush. Sometimes our rampant thirst for knowledge can lead to blind alleys - as exhibited by modern astronomy theories *stirr*

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by jakell » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:46 pm

C_D wrote:
Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:17 am

...The standard model of the Big Bang does not hold water. The credibility of the Big Bang is dependant on one premise alone - that we exist in an expanding Universe. This has been proven false by Halton Arp, amongst others...
It seems to me that Arp has simply added an extra component to the redshift model, not supplanted it.

I agree though that the Big Bang is problematic, but there's no need to go there. A presently expanding Universe doesn't automatically imply that there was a singularity at the 'beginning', people tend to get carried away with extrapolation.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by C_D » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:14 pm

It seems to me that Arp has simply added an extra component to the redshift model, not supplanted it
We have differing interpretations of the intrinsic red shift model in totality, I'm afraid. - Arp's theory (which matches the data - suppled by space agencies to support their own theories) challenges the core concept and subsequent misunderstanding of that which current cosmology (abr. CC) terms quasars - Arp shows that quasars are, more probably, connected to galaxies - following a correlating 'step-down' in velocity as they retreat from the centre of the galaxy from which they have been ejected along the trajectory of the minor axis.

I assume you've seen this:



There are so many problems with CC that I don't really know where to start, as all of the problems are interconnected - rather like a tree trunk that forms the central tenets of current cosmological doctrine which has sprouted an inordinate amount of branches - all of which have unfortunately been misdirected by a rotten central belief.

I have a question for you - if opposing magnetic poles attract, why are they repulsed away from one another in a magnet?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Modern Astronomy (and implications)

Post by jakell » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:31 pm

When confronted with complexity, I usually start with the point where a theory developed from (ie, a historical approach), which isn't too difficult in science as it mostly well documented and open source, it's more difficult in other areas.

I usually try to stay out of the weeds too, lest others follow me there, so if I was going to suddenly start wondering about magnetism, I'd want to know the trail it took to get there (ie the link to astronomy). At any point in time there are a myriad number of potential questions that can be asked, a map of some sort comes in handy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest