What was the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

So let me rephrase it, falsifiability of a scientific theory is a part of how science works, so long as it has not been falsified means it stands, but that does not mean in the future it won't be.

No, that is not how it stands in science. Yes your claim has to be falsifiable, but that is only a start. How would you test your idea? If you can't think of a test you are already with the pixies. Then you need to find evidence for your idea. And then show it is better than the current model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there are two sides to that coin

they who are not informed are ....ignorant
they who chose to ignore are profoundly ignorant
no cure

some lines of thought and some observations lead to conclusions
but the experiment won't fit in the petri dish

all you CAN do id think about it

asking proof.....is shallow (now and then)

just because an experiment cannot fit in a Petri dish does not mean that it can't be done. And one asks for evidence, not proof.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that is not how it stands in science. Yes your claim has to be falsifiable, but that is only a start. How would you test your idea? If you can't think of a test you are already with the pixies. Then you need to find evidence for your idea. And then show it is better than the current model.

But apparently it has been discovered there is another cause of red shift other than doppler, so who says there is no others to be discovered, that how science works!

 

[Thief]

just because an experiment cannot fit in a Petri dish does not mean that it can't be done. And one asks for evidence, not proof.

without the experiment.....no proof

no fingerprint, no photo, no equation and no repeatable experiment

no kind of evidence ....other than
Cause and effect

Something set all things into motion

that Something would be God

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath, an informative post, I understand that is where it stands at this time. Btw, is the gravitational effect associated with inelastic scattering?

No. The gravitational effect is due to the change of curvature along the path. Inelastic scattering produces reddening, not red-shifts.

 

[Polymath257]

so you gave up the Doppler effect?

not yet.....you need something to take it's place

Remember that the cosmic expansion is an expansion of space itself. As space stretches, the wavelength of the light increases, which is precisely a red-shift. The description of this as a Doppler shift was a convenience which works to a good approximation for nearby galaxies. But calling it a Doppler shift when the galaxies are 'at rest' isn't completely correct.

And yes, the gravitational effect on wavelengths has been known for a long time. It was one of Einstein's original predictions based on GR.

 

[Polymath257]

But apparently it has been discovered there is another cause of red shift other than doppler, so who says there is no others to be discovered, that how science works!

The gravitational red-shift was predicted by general relativity by Einstein very early on. It is well-known and verified.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The gravitational red-shift was predicted by general relativity by Einstein very early on. It is well-known and verified.

But it is not due to the doppler effect!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. The gravitational effect is due to the change of curvature along the path. Inelastic scattering produces reddening, not red-shifts.

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

But it is not due to the doppler effect!

For close galaxies, one way of interpreting it is as a Doppler effect produced by motion. But, more accurately, it is due to the change in curvature as the light travels. In this case, it is a gravitational effect, not a velocity effect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For close galaxies, one way of interpreting it is as a Doppler effect produced by motion. But, more accurately, it is due to the change in curvature as the light travels. In this case, it is a gravitational effect, not a velocity effect.

Thank you for providing the explanation for why it is not a doppler phenomenon.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. The gravitational effect is due to the change of curvature along the path. Inelastic scattering produces reddening, not red-shifts.

So iyo, is the present science wrt distinguishing what degree the reddening of light is due to doppler, what is due to gravitational curvature, and what is due to Inelastic scattering, settled?

 

[Polymath257]

So iyo, is the present science wrt distinguishing what degree the reddening of light is due to doppler, what is due to gravitational curvature, and what is due to Inelastic scattering, settled?

For the most part. The observed red-shifts agree with the predictions from general relativity. The description of those predictions as 'red-shifts' was more of an explanatory convenience than anything else. The actual predictions have *always* been from GR. It's just that we now have data from very distant galaxies and the difference between the Doppler shift (due solely to motion) and the GR prediction is now significant.

Galaxies *do* have 'peculiar motion' due to local dynamics and those motions do affect the observed red-shifts. This was one historical reason that the rate of expansion was so hard to determine: we had to get reliable distances far enough out that the overall expansion was dominant. In any case, the contribution from these peculiar motions *is* due to Doppler effects.

Inelastic scattering does NOT produce a red-shift. It filters out shorter wavelengths, producing a reddening. But it doesn't actually shift the spectra.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ Thank you...

 

[`mud]

Hey Thief,
All `coins` have three sides !
You have to expand your parameters.

 

[Thief]

The gravitational red-shift was predicted by general relativity by Einstein very early on. It is well-known and verified.

the flex of motion was predicted
and proven by the experiment of photo during a total eclipse

took several years btw

 

[Thief]

Hey Thief,
All `coins` have three sides !
You have to expand your parameters.

you're just being onery

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

What was the Big Bang?

It was the method by which intelligence brought itself into existence.
That intelligence could be human or alien!
Hence if there were no intelligent beings all there would be is an infinite empty void.

 

[Thief]

'at rest'

nothing is truly at rest in this reality

all motion is relative

 

[Thief]

What was the Big Bang?

It was the method by which intelligence brought itself into existence.
That intelligence could be human or alien!
Hence if there were no intelligent beings all there would be is an infinite empty void.

by definition......God ....IS an et

and I agree......
kinda hard to say...I AM!....
without something to show for it