/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14739742
You're probably right.
Good luck publishing your rebuttal of their pseudoscience.

>>14739742
Thanks 4chan man, now go revolutionize physics.

Universe isn't real and ceases to exist once your dead

>>14740147
Sollipsism is inconsistent, so nah.

>>14740165
you're not real bro

Inflation has a completely negligible effect on the age. Data shows dark energy is consistent with a simple cosmological constant to current limits, even if it’s not it’s a good approximation.
And the age can be independently tested against the ages of the oldest known stars. But I guess we should take your ignorance over testable models.

>>14740174
I don't even have to hit you with a chair to show you how real I am. I can just ask you questions you are supposed to ask by yourself:
If all the world is in your head, then how did it get in there? How did that world begin? Why was it as complex as it is today even when your mind was underdeveloped? If you are the master of the universe, then why are you a nigger? And there are more, these four are only from the top of my head.

>>14740201
t. bot

>>14740322
lolwut
(stop discriminating bots you meatbag faggot)

>>14739766
>You're probably right.
>Good luck publishing your rebuttal of their pseudoscience.

This. Gravity stretches photons causing redshift. Big Bang literally never happened. The math to prove this is trivial. So what's the issue? The issue is that since the execution of Giordano Bruno by inquisition the Catholics have STILL not apologized, i.e. eternal steady state Universe is STILL heresy because it disproves a moment of creation. Guess what religion disproportionately controls academics, the courts, presidency & the federal reserve? Don't even concern yourself with the mainstream - its lost. Our universe is an infinite & eternal "fractal", and they will never admit this. Fuck'em.

>>14739742
>measure CMBR and plug into relativity
~14 billion years
>measure Hubble's constant and plug into relativity
~14 billion years
>Measure age of oldest star
~14 billion years
>Measure temperature of oldest white dwarf
~14 billion years

sheesh yeah literal guesswork

>>14740174
Lol no if anything YOUR not real and this isn't something a projection of you would say this is something the real me would say.
>But seriously why would you assume if the universe isn't real that dying in it would be the end of your consciousness. Why would you assume you are gonna die in it?

>>14741631
>>Measure age of oldest star
>~14 billion years
>sheesh yeah literal guesswork
The fact the Methuselah star's upper range age estimate is more than a billion years "older" than the universe does in fact quite directly imply it's all literal guesswork. There's fundamental unproven assumptions in all the "measurements" you list, each of which if turned out to be wrong would completely obliterate the dates listed into irrelevancy. That is what you call guesswork.

>>14741631
>measure
How exactly you measure stuff that is theoretical and doesn't even possibly exist?

>>14742178
The fact you have no idea what your talking about directly implies you're an idiot.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.11311

Where does the dark energy come from?

>>14742195
>CODE RED EMERGENCY SOMETHING DOES NOT MATCH THE NARRATIVE!!
>WE MUST KEEP THE NARRATIVE!!
>REVISE REVISE REVISE!!!
Thanks e-science bro for copying the link from wikipedia for me that you googled and read about for the fist time just now, I could not have found it without you. I can think for myself though and tend to be skeptical of blatant hidden-agenda-driven research.

>what your talking about

>>14742210
There is no consensus, not even a most likely explanation.

>>14742222
Nice one bro. I also find that typing in caps is the best way to ignore the most recent astronomical measurements and win the argument.

>>14742223
Well my uneducated guess is that it's coming outside of the universe via a hole or holes and pouring in into the universe maybe.

>>14742236
That's certainly a unique idea with no supporting evidence but full marks for originality.

>>14742241
Really?Thank you. Well I just thought of something else. So we know the rate at which the universe is expanding and the age of the universe, so maybe there could be some math to find out how big the hypothetical hole is.

>>14741621
>Guess what religion disproportionately controls academics, the courts, presidency & the federal reserve?
Judaism

>>14742423
scotus is right-wing catholic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-PFoCzlX7M

>>14741621
Matter constantly being created out of nothing and the universe being infinite does not contradict religion...
Matter being created out of nothing does not make a whole lot of sense I think. If he wanted to be taken seriously, well prove that matter can in fact be created out of nothing.

>>14742478
hallelujah brother, have a toast
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-12.htm

>>14742478
Virtual matter can be created out of 'nothing'. Most of the paradoxes of physics disappear when you discover that materialism is false and that matter is not fundamental. Matter is something that only exists as a localized thing upon measurement at which point information is created and a selection is made from possible outcomes.

The Physical World as a Virtual Reality

'The big bang contradicts any theory that assumes the universe is objectively real and complete in
itself. How can an objective reality, existing in and of itself, be created out of nothing? The
failure of the steady state theory of the universe removes a cornerstone of support for the
objective reality hypothesis. In contrast virtual reality theory fits well with a big bang. No virtual
reality can have existed forever, since it needs a processor to start it up. All virtual realities “start
up” at a specific moment of time, typically with a sudden influx of information. Every time one
starts a computer game or boots up a computer, such a “big bang” occurs. From the perspective of
the virtual world itself, its creation is always from “nothing”, as before the virtual world startup
there was indeed no time or space as defined by that world. There was nothing relative to that
world because the world itself did not exist. It is a hallmark of virtual realities that they must
come into existence at a specific event in their space and time, which also initiates their space-
time fabric. Note that in a virtual world there is no logical reason why all initiating information
cannot initially “point” to a single arbitrary location, i.e. no reason why an entire universe cannot
exist at a single point. In VR theory the big bang was simply when our universe was “booted up”.'
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

>>14739742
The universe is a torus. Creation started from a singular point and will return to the point of singularity.

One is all, all is one.

>>14739742
It could have been booted up with apparent age, true. I like this version myself. The pre -consciousness past could also just be rendered probabilistically upon measurement as well. There would not have been any players/consciousnesses around to render the reality to. This seems like a waste of resources. What gets rendered in the distant past gets rendered as what would have been probable to have occurred given the current situation.As long as it doesn't conflict with any recorded data of events and forms a logically consistant history. The guy that came up with the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came to this conclusion.

“the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. (...) we would seem forced to say that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not 'exist, out there' independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe”
― John Archibald Wheeler

>>14742469
>I have a single counterpoint
>Thus your entire argument is invalid
>Oh also here's you being literally Hitler

>>14742628
Boy that read like an ayn rand book.
Well go find a way to make an experiment to prove it. Who knows maybe he's right.

>>14742705

>>14742232
>ignore the most recent astronomical measurements and win the argument
>strawmanning this muchly
Your midwit is showing very hard right now.
I said upper estimates. If we take current estimates based on the most recent measurements (ie 2 years later than the ones I referred to), which still uses a different methodology because muh 16 narrative of trying to reduce the star's age, then the age of the oldest star according to them is 12 billion years old, not 14 like the retard said.

To recap, he was wrong, you are strawmanning, and I remain fully justified in saying it's guesswork because if we use "most recent astronomical measurements" like you're crying about we get 2 billion years under "age" of the universe instead of up to 1 billion years over.

Ergo :
>Measure age of oldest star
~14 billion years
Should be 12 billion

>>14742232
>ignore the most recent astronomical measurements and win the argument
>strawmanning this muchly
Your midwit is showing very hard right now.
I said upper estimates. If we take current estimates based on the most recent measurements (ie 2 years later than the ones I referred to), which still uses a different methodology (because muh 22 years long narrative of trying to reduce the star's age because originally it was 16 billion years old), then the age of the oldest star according to them is 12 billion years old, not 14 like the retard said.
To recap, he was wrong, you are strawmanning, and I remain fully justified in saying it's guesswork because if we use "most recent astronomical measurements" like you're crying about we get 2 billion years under "age" of the universe instead of up to 1 billion years over.

Ergo :
>Measure age of oldest star
~14 billion years
Is wrong and should be 12 billion

>>14742841
So a single star with a massive error bar somehow invalidates every other observation? Now who's the one strawmanning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_stars

>>14743048
>massive error bar
Cute falsehood (every study of the past 10 years has had rather small error bars despite each newest one significantly deviating from the one before it). The star in question didn't match the narrative for the last 22 years so it has been extensively "reworked" until it did, dropping it's "age" by 4 billion years at this point. Has "every other observation" been given the same attention for 20 years to "narrow down" their exact dates? No? Didn't think so.

>Now who's the one strawmanning
>doesn't know what strawman means
Nobody here ever brought up the idea that the "consensus" of the oldest stars is pretty sorta kinda close to 14 billion years and it makes absolutely no sense for me to bring that up as a strawman argument and defeat it because it's possibly an easier argument to defeat.
But now that you bring it up, yes, the rest should be called into uncertainty given that they are mostly 12 years out of date and so much work has been devoted to one star to make it fit in the correct range. That new "research" should be applied to those other stars to reevaluate their dates to see if they're still valid. Let me know when that happens.

>the universe is infinite
Could be
>And matter is created out of nothing and basically this is all a videogame
This is the part where you need some kind of proof buddy

>>14741631

Redshift is bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTRg9LXJnLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nygjhV2tjAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQu5iff2F3o


CMB fail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxHZ_FAXjs4

>>14739742
And what's your alternative Mr. Anonymous know-it-all? Scientists are just trying to piece empirical evidence together things into a theory, but some of the evidence contradicted, meaning they had to come up with asspulls one way or the other in order to make a working theory. Occam's razor dictates the theory with the least amount of asspulls is probably the best.

>>14743268
> thinks posting some schizo vids is proof
kek. people like you deserve to go to space. then the worlds average IQ will just a few points.

>>14743289
The alternative is to say "we don't know so let's keep looking for more evidence". Scientists who are "married" to a particular hypothesis are like some vindictive cop that "knows" for a fact that the main character in the story is guilty and he's looking for evidence to prove his suspicions right while missing evidence pointing to someone else as the culprit.

>>14743268
> thinks posting some schizo vids is proof
kek. people like you deserve to go to space. then the worlds average IQ will jump a few points.

>>14743289
>What I find logical
The big bang
>What I don't find logical
Infinite universes being created by some kind of cosmic wavy branes crashing against each other creating infinite realities with different kinds of physics.
>What I'd do
Go back to the big bang.
Unless I misunderstood.

>>14743301
>people like you deserve to go to space. then the worlds average IQ will just a few points.


"Just" what "a few points"? You seem to be missing a word or two. Maybe you should go to space to *raise* the world's average IQ.

>>14743304
Too late. We caught your mistake, brainlet.

>>14743318
if the best you can do is whine at an autocorrection then cry harder

>>14743326
>"HURR DERP! It's wasn't me. It was the software."

Okay brainlet.

>>14743364
I'm curious, just how underage are you?

>>14743157
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_stars

Every single one of those stars are found in the Milky Way proving that the Milky Way is around 13-14 billion years old.

>>14743381
Old enough to get a blowjob from your mom.

>>14742628
I enjoyed your posts, makes sense as well. Still doesn't solve all metaphysical problems though. The question remains: who started the programme. I'm not a theist but I guess we can call that God.

>>14743268
Redshift is just the observed shifting of spectral features to loner wavelengths. It is an observational fact. You have no place in discussions like this if you're so abysmally ignorant of the most basic terms.

>>14743439
>Redshift is just the observed shifting of spectral features to loner wavelengths. It is an observational fact

>Your tinder date said she was a size 4
>When you met she was a size 15
>Catfishing is just the observed shifting of waist features to longer diameters...
>"Catfishing" is an observational fact....
Your fatass tinder date did not actually shift, you just had a mismatch between reality and what you expected to see. There was no "observational fact" of shifting determined by "observed shifting" because nothing actually shifted in real life.
In the exact same way, redshift is not "observed shifting", it is a mismatch between expectations and empirical data. We aren't actually watching anything shift and we are not conclusively determining anything shifted.
There is simply a mismatch and the most commonly accepted excuse is the alleged expansion of the universe, of which itself has inherent five sigma mismatches between observations and expectations ("early universe" mathematical predictions).

Not the anon you replied to btw, I'm just pointing out what you say is rooted in dogmatic thinking.

>>14743558
>There is simply a mismatch
That's what redshift is. In writing this you accept it exists. This has nothing to do with dogmatism, this has to do with basic fucking facts.
>inherent five sigma mismatches between observations and expectations
Be more specific.

Speed of light x redshift of furthest light = age of universe, then calculate pin point size big bang to the largest diameter of universe from furthest redshifted light distance = constant expansion rate

But wait add due to inequality of cmb leading pointing to variance in expansion rate, recalculate by measuring rough expansion variance in cmb. Thus new age of universe.

Also more accurate cmb data + more calculation = more accurate age

>>14739742
It's deductive guesswork that uses a baseline of the knowledge we CAN acquire.

If you ignore that we make our conjectures based on past data, then yes, it is guesswork.

>>14743408
God's a good flagging concept, marks out current understanding boundaries generally and person to person, + at a certain abstraction on abstraction layer it might be the best description of some fundamental reality essence. MIGHT be kind of, if that makes any sense.

>>14742210
>>14742223
For these two reason I don't believe shit you liars say. I'd bet money you are all just pulling shit out of your asses then using big words to confuse people. Like always.

>>14741621
this guy again
im sick and tired of you making these posts all of the time, you never post any scientific proof but just jammer on about religious conspiracy theories and then idiots smell your shit and get attracted and derail the thread

>>14739742
>>14739742 >>14739766 >>14739773 >>14740147 >>14740165 >>14740174 >>14740195 >>14740201 >>14740322 >>14740749 >>14741621 >>14741631 >>14741866 >>14742178 >>14742183 >>14742195 >>14742210 >>14742222 >>14742223 >>14742232 >>14742236 >>14742241 >>14742264 >>14742423 >>14742469 >>14742478 >>14742551 >>14742628 >>14742654 >>14742667 >>14742705 >>14742711 >>14742739 >>14742841 >>14743048 >>14743157 >>14743187 >>14743268 >>14743289 >>14743302 >>14743304 >>14743310 >>14743314 >>14743318 >>14743326 >>14743364 >>14743381 >>14743386 >>14743393 >>14743408 >>14743439 >>14743558 >>14743610 >>14743793 >>14744154 >>14744196 >>14744298 >>14744363
why does the universe look like a jimmy hat (condom)????? fucking LMAO
is this what """science""" has to offer? a fucking 3d condom pulled over the universe? fucking lmaoing right now

>>14743610
A mismatch does not necessarily mean a redshift. Distance galaxies could appear more red than we expect because their stars are simply more red. It may have nothing do with the expansion of the universe.

Or maybe there is physics we don't understand that cause photons to red shift through new particle interactions in intergalactic space. Plenty of plausible explanations of than expansion.

>>14744509
>Or maybe there is physics we don't understand that cause photons to red shift

They redshift because they are being stretched by gravity. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. WE ALREADY ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY STRETCHES LIGHT, BUT THE MAINSTREAM REFUSES TO APPLY THIS TO COSMIC SCALE REDSHIFT. Why? BECAUSE IT WOULD DISPROVE A MOMENT OF CREATION WHICH IS STILL LITERALLY HERESY ACCORDING TO THE RELIGION THAT DISPROPORTIONALLY CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE. IT REALLY IS THIS FUCKING SIMPLE.

>>14744557
>They redshift because they are being stretched by gravity. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. WE ALREADY ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY STRETCHES LIGHT, BUT THE MAINSTREAM REFUSES TO APPLY THIS TO COSMIC SCALE REDSHIFT. Why? BECAUSE IT WOULD DISPROVE A MOMENT OF CREATION WHICH IS STILL LITERALLY HERESY ACCORDING TO THE RELIGION THAT DISPROPORTIONALLY CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE. IT REALLY IS THIS FUCKING SIMPLE.

This is NOT some religious conspiracy. The Catholics executed Giordano Brune precisely for steady state theory. And have STILL not apologized. Rather they doubled down, sainted his inquisitor ONLY A FEW DECADES AGO and named dozens of schools after that inquisitor. The Pope himself endorsed the Big Bang model. To prove that the universe is infinite & eternal IS TO DESTROY THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. They know this.

>>14744509
>A mismatch does not necessarily mean a redshift.
But it is because that's what we call it.
>Distance galaxies could appear more red than we expect because their stars are simply more red.
It's not about being red, it's about spectral lines being shifted to longer wavelengths than rest-frame spectra of the lab or galaxy. Note that those galaxies are only distant with respect to Earth, so what you propose here would require those galaxies to know the location of Earth. Anything that proposed the Earth is somehow special is a non-starter.

>Or maybe there is physics we don't understand that cause photons to red shift through new particle interactions in intergalactic space
That's tired light which is long dead. It was originally one of the favoured hypothesis. 100 years later there is still no known or proposed physical process which could cause redshift while a) being completely independent of wavelength and b) not deflecting photons in angle. Even without knowing how tired light would work it can be tested, such tests are the Tolman surface brightness test and Cosmological Time dilation. The results of these tests are not compatible with tired light, even ignoring the problems.
It's easy to claim there are lots of plausible explanations when you're totally ignorant of the field.

>>14739742
The details of inflation or any beyond standard model physics has almost nothing to do with the age of the universe. It's like you are measuring a kilometer and you are able to measure everything well except the last centimeter so you claim we can't measure anything at all.

>>14743610
>That's what redshift is.
No, it's not. Redshift is a literal shifting of wavelengths as they travel through space. What I described does not necessitate a literal shifting is necessary.
Some day we might call our current scientific epoch the "redshift mistake" era if we realize there was no actual shifting and we merely expected to see the wrong color of light from far away stars. Or maybe not, and we will determine there truly is a shift.
>This has nothing to do with dogmatism, this has to do with basic fucking facts
Mischaracterizing something as a fact merely because your belief system requires it is blatant dogmatic thinking. If someone says God is a fact is that dogma yes or no? That is what you're doing right now saying the light shifting is a fact.
>Be more specific.
?? It's unambiguous what I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Hubble_tension
Read the citations if you want to get into the 5 sigma discrepancies

>>14744509
Exactly

>>14744363
Huh? Dark Energy is the label for an observation we can't currently explain. That's it. No idea why you as so mad about that. Dark Matter is exactly the same apart from the fact we have multiple independent observations and a lot more evidence to support the current "best guess".

Why such basic concepts triggers so many schizos is lost on me.

>>14744557
You type like an unhinged crazy person.

>>14744779
If you can't measure the last centimeter, you can't truly say how long it is. Maybe that last centimeter is actually 1000x the length of the rest of the track, just with different physics?

>>14739742
>guesswork and scientific method
that why those are called theories - we can observe universe and theorize the mechanisms - but with our limited capabilities we cannot measure it properly and have to go with data our current tech provides us with - but astronomy/cosmology worked that way for centuries - in middle ages idea that earth orbits the sun was also a theory - it was proven outside of mathematics/physics only space much, much later...

>>14745106
>Dark matter
>have multiple independent observations
We've never directly observed dark matter even once. Only "indirectly observed" it. If you have not conclusively established it exists then it's metaphysically invalid to claim it's an observation in the first place.
If you walk into your dark house and flip a light switch and it nothing happens you could invent the idea dark matter leprechauns are stealing the electricity in your house. You could predict they'd also steal the electricity from your stove too, and when you try to turn that on viola! your prediction matched the observations
Same prediction for the heat in your house
Same prediction for your neighbors saying they didn't see any lights
and so on...
.... but guess what? You haven't observed dark matter leprechauns even though your many predictions came true, indirectly or otherwise.
The same logic applies to all the 12 or so "indirect observations" of dark matter.

>>14745295
Fair enough, but you can say that it has been 14 billion years since the universe was in a very hot very dense state, but not so hot and so dense that we can't understand it with physics we can test back home. And that is still saying something.

>>14745308
you're kind of an idiot

>>14745022
>No, it's not. Redshift is a literal shifting of wavelengths as they travel through space. What I described does not necessitate a literal shifting is necessary.
Nope. Redshift is the observed shift in wavelengths. It doesn't assume an expanding universe, that's a strawman. And note that what you say makes no sense. There are also redshifts and blueshifts from the normal Doppler effect, which has nothing to do expansion or the light traveling through space. But that is still redshift. Since you're fond wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Not defined as being from expansion.

What you described just ends in that in the same way, but you have had to assume that the earth is in a special location.
>Mischaracterizing something as a fact merely because your belief system requires it is blatant dogmatic thinking.
We have already established that we agree on the observational facts, and I've made my point quite clear. But you're still intentionally misrepresenting what I said so you can cry about muh dogmatism.
>Read the citations if you want to get into the 5 sigma discrepancies
You might want to lookup the definition of "inherent". The Hubble tension is a problem in one particular model of an expanding universe, specifically Lambda Cold Dark Matter. That model has lots of things in it, not just expansion. No one has shown that this is an inherent problem of expansion, so that is bullshit.

>>14745636
>Nope. Redshift is the observed shift in wavelengths.
Nope. Didnt read the rest

>>14745872
>Cry about dogmatism
>Refuse to read a counterargument
My aren't we a little hypocrite.

>>14745904
>Refuse to read a counterargument
No, I already read your previous "counterargument" and it was not an argument in the first place, it was dogma. Since your first sentence merely reaffirmed as "fact" your dogmatic belief the cosmological redshift is an "observation" instead of acknowledging it's not an observation due to possibly being just an artifact from mismatch between assumption-based expectations and observations (hence maybe not an actual redshift) there was no point in reading further.
>My aren't we a little hypocrite.
No, you're just confused

>>14746076
> mismatch between assumption-based expectations and observations
Comparing the spectra of galaxies at different distances is an observation, not an "expectation". They are shifted, that is an observational fact, that is redshift. It doesn't matter whether it comes from expansion or whatever nonsense you proposed, the effect is the same.
Your argument is now entirely based on semantics.

>>14746116
>Comparing the spectra of galaxies at different distances is an observation, not an "expectation".
Congratulations on such a mindlessly irrelevant statement your parents must be so proud. Meanwhile, you've missed the point entirely.
How do we know the photon frequencies shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
OOOPS!.... We don't. The very first time we looked at one galaxy and were able to empirically measure its light we expected another one of similar makeup and age farther away to produce the same light frequencies, but it didn't. We looked at more and they didn't either, and we looked at even more further away and the correlation continued. It's the foundational reason for the assumption the universe is expanding because before this correlative mismatch between expectation and observation we didn't think the universe was expanding.
You dogmatically think this mismatch is a "fact" the light has shifted frequency when in reality it's a blatant correlation equals causality fallacy.
>They are shifted, that is an observational fact
Repeat your dogma all you want it doen'st change a thing
>It doesn't matter whether it comes from expansion or whatever nonsense you proposed, the effect is the same.
HAHA "nonsense" that I "proposed"?? You are insanely ignorant. The alleged expansion is by far, by FAR, the most widely given explanation of the alleged cosmological redshift for the last 100 years. Look at cause 3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
>Your argument is now entirely based on semantics.
I see I was wasting my time with a midwit who confuses a correlation fallacy with the definition of redshift. At least you kept your dogma until the 2nd sentence this time, I would have stopped reading again if it was the first sentence like last time.

>>14746624
>How do we know the photon frequencies shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
Where exactly did I claim that was known? You can't help but totally misrepresent my point in every single post. Then you waffle on about your irreverent distraction and pretend you have an argument
>It's the foundational reason for the assumption the universe is expanding because before this correlative mismatch between expectation and observation we didn't think the universe was expanding. You dogmatically think this mismatch is a "fact" the light has shifted frequency when in reality it's a blatant correlation equals causality fallacy.
Nope, complete bollocks. You don't need to prove Hubble's law to show that a distant galaxy spectrum is shifted with respect to a lab rest frame. That is a strawman. I have no idea why you think this makes any logical sense. The significant redshifts of galaxies was known long before Hubble's law was discovered. You are utterly desperate to equate redshift with expansion, but that is false. Hence why gravitational redshift is a thing. Saying redshift exists does not imply expansion. Move on from this tiresome and idiotic point. You even cited the wiki article which proves you wrong.
>HAHA "nonsense" that I "proposed"?? You are insanely ignorant.
A reference to your retarded geocentric proposal, not expansion. >>14743558

>>14745266
>You type like an unhinged crazy person.

Says the religious dipshit who gargles Jesus body fluid.

>>14746624
>HAHA "nonsense" that I "proposed"?? You are insanely ignorant. The alleged expansion is by far, by FAR, the most widely given explanation of the alleged cosmological redshift for the last 100 years. Look at cause 3:

Because it's backed by religious retards like the Pope. Gravity is stretching light. Big Bang is religious fairy tail for retards.

>>14739742
this seems more likely to me than the rick and morty science current theories but it's a scary thought that the universe existed 67 google trillion years ago. infinite size also seems intuitive, what would be outside of it?

>>14739742
>The age of the universe is literally guesswork and pseudoscience. There is no comprehensive theory for dark energy and cosmic inflation. Measuring current inflation parameters and just rewinding things is such a naive way to do it

Fool that you are, for you trust the guesswork to tell you it's guesswork. All knowledge on the cosmos is ultimately made of things we cannot yet prove conclusively. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

>>14746693
>Where exactly did I claim that was known?
>The significant redshifts of galaxies was known long before Hubble's law was discovered
It's unbelievable how you so blatantly contradict yourself even within the same post. You've claimed this is known In every post you made. The topic since the beginning has been the "cosmological redshift" and in every post you claim it's an observed fact via observation, ergo.... wait for it.... known.
>You are utterly desperate to equate redshift with expansion, but that is false
??? Completely made up. I said here >>14745022 : "Redshift is a literal shifting of wavelengths as they travel through space" ... there are different types of redshift. The "cosmological redshift" is purported to be due to "expansion" and you have so ignorantly denied this it's impossible to even engage you.
>Saying redshift exists does not imply expansion. Move on from this tiresome and idiotic point
ridiculous strawman. I never said or implied this. You are just confused and failed to realize this entire discussion has been about a single type of redshift.
>You even cited the wiki article which proves you wrong.
>A reference to your retarded geocentric proposal, not expansion
Not expansion????? From wiki you failed to read:
"3. The radiation travels through expanding space (cosmological redshift)"

>You don't need to prove Hubble's law to show that a distant galaxy spectrum is shifted with respect to a lab rest frame
How do we know the photon frequencies [from distant galaxies] shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
OOOPS!.... We don't.The very first time we looked at one galaxy and were able to empirically measure its light we expected another one of similar makeup and age farther away to produce the same light frequencies, but it didn't. We looked at more and they didn't either, and we looked at even more further away and the correlation continued [BEFORE HUBBLES LAW]

happy?

>star emits violet photon
>it gets redshifted and is now a red photon
>The difference in energy between the violet and red photon? Its just disappears ok!
This is what expansionfags actually believe.

>>14747436
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2597/energy-conservation-in-general-relativity

>>14747117
>It's unbelievable how you so blatantly contradict yourself even within the same post. You've claimed this is known In every post you made.
Nope, wrong. As you said Hubble's law alone doesn't require there to be actual shifting. I shouldn't have to repeat your augment to you.
> >>14745022 : "Redshift is a literal shifting of wavelengths as they travel through space" ... there are different types of redshift.
Which I disputed.
A definition which makes no sense and is contradicted to Wikipedia. I explained this in a post but you childishly refused to read it.
>You are just confused and failed to realize this entire discussion has been about a single type of redshift.
>a single type of redshift
But it wasn't. The original statement that I took issue was "Redshift is bullshit", not cosmological redshift, not redshift due to expansion. Just redshift. Stop trying to shift the goalposts.
>Not expansion????? From wiki you failed to read:
I'm just going to ignore this because you failed to even understand that point and I'm tired of repeating myself.

>How do we know the photon frequencies [from distant galaxies] shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
Why does that fucking matter? It doesn't. The question was about comparing the observed galaxy spectrum at earth to a lab spectrum. You don't have to make any assumptions about expansion or anything else to compare the spectra and see that one is shifted to longer wavelengths.

>>14743289
watch Thunderbolts Project stuff on jewtube

>>14747117
>How do we know the photon frequencies shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
>You've claimed this is known In every post you made.
No I didn't. Hubble's law is for different sources. Not the same source. You were quite specific, so was my response.
> >>14745022 : "Redshift is a literal shifting of wavelengths as they travel through space" ... there are different types of redshift.
A definition which makes no sense and is contradicted to Wikipedia. I explained this in a post but you childishly refused to read it. Redshifts caused by the Doppler effect are not happing as the light travels through space, and yet it is redshift. This contradicts your silly definition.
>You are just confused and failed to realize this entire discussion has been about a single type of redshift.
>a single type of redshift
But it wasn't. The original statement that I took issue was "Redshift is bullshit", not cosmological redshift, not redshift due to expansion. Just redshift. Stop trying to shift the goalposts.
>Not expansion????? From wiki you failed to read:
I'm just going to ignore this because you failed to even understand that point and I'm tired of repeating myself.

>How do we know the photon frequencies [from distant galaxies] shifted towards red compared to an observer near the source when the photons left the source?
Why does that fucking matter? It doesn't. The question was about comparing the observed galaxy spectrum at earth to a lab spectrum.
Instead of obsessing over what cannot be measured why don't you actually consider for a second what can be measured. Pic related is one such measurement. A spectrum of a galaxy. The two bright emission lines are those of doubly ionised oxygen, which should be found at ~500.8 nm. And yet it is shifted to the red. Redshift.
You don't have to make any assumptions about expansion or anything else to compare the spectra and see these lines are shifted to longer wavelengths.

>>14747747
Wrong board for that.
>>>/x/

scifi age of universe novel

>>14747752
>its scared

>>14746966
Not even a good copypasta. Dogs are noble
>>14746848
>gravity is stretching light
Untrue.
Regardless, the existence of a big bang does not prove God nor disprove God. Thats on a whole other level. One cannot even assume to begin to comprehend God

The big bang is probably not even real and is just cope.
>It was a magic point of infinite energy, that blew up into a finite amount of matter
>It blew up really fast at the start, then it slowed down, but then it sped up again!
>Everything is the same everywhere except it isn't but also is, but maybe!

>>14747468
Thanks for proving me right.

>>14747780
It really does feel like a house of cards where more and more ridiculous theories are needed to keep it propped up in the face of observations that contradict it. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether that scientists kept trying to twist fit, instead of just admitting it was a nice idea that didn't pan out. Eventually someone is going to come up with a nice explanation for everything that shits all over the big bang, and physicists will talk about how decades were wasted going down the big bang path.