 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2009If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, things would be closer together, and there'd be no need for Dark Matter
If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them would be stronger, and Dark Matter wouldn't be necessary. Hubble redshift is evidence of a new phenomenon of light. Not every observable galaxy. But the light coming from them. Dark Matter is a clear falsification of the expansion model. > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them > would be stronger, and Dark Matter wouldn't be necessary. In the past the universe WAS smaller! And dark matter was there all along. Gravitation was more dominant than dark energy in the early universe. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them > would be stronger, and Dark Matter wouldn't be necessary. [snip rest of crap] Hey f.cking stooopid - tell us how galaxies "being closer together" affects their individual rotation rate vs. radius yet avoids tidal and mutual orbital resonance effects. idiot  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > affects their individual rotation rate vs. radius yet avoids tidal and > mutual orbital resonance effects. Doesn't it take like a few hundred million years for a galaxy to rotate? You're pretty quick to hostilely reject a hypothesis based on very very little direct empirical evidence. Sure there are some indirect ways to think we know what is going on, but the room for error on the scale of being "not even wrong" is still there. > idiot tool > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > Doesn't it take like a few hundred million years for a galaxy to > rotate? The sun orbits the galaxy, say 225 million years... but a spiral arm takes roughly twice that time. > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them > would be stronger, and Dark Matter wouldn't be necessary. And Redshift is NOT caused by expansion. So that just makes "Dark Matter" more physics word game bullshit. But just listen to Wormley below. He is a TRUE believer. It doesn't matter how absurd the statement, he buys it. The universe has no center (Which hilariously implies that the universe has more physical dimensions than three! But they all then deny that extra dimensions exist in spite of hints everywhere that they do!) It's all DOUBLETHINK and political at it's core. It's all crooked nonsense designed to justify and codify a criminal regime of people control that many hope to put in place soon. > Hubble redshift is evidence of a new phenomenon of light. Not every > observable galaxy. But the light coming from them. The apparent redshift is a heterodyne effect due to the angle stellar light makes with 3-space when traveling in a straight line through 4- space. It's all due to geometry and not velocity. Those in power do NOT want you to know this because understanding the basics could lead you to understandings that would open vast vistas of physics that those in power have a vested interest in making sure are NOT opened. It's a simple as that. > Dark Matter is a clear falsification of the expansion model. "Dark Matter" is idiocy. [...] >> Dark Matter is a clear falsification of the expansion model. > > "Dark Matter" is idiocy. Thank you for your input, armchair scientist. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you for your input, armchair scientist. Hey, Gisse you moron. I'm not even a "good amateur" as I recall you saying. However, I studied graduate level quantum mechanics under R. Mills, (yes THAT Mills), and you? Yeah, that's what I thought: college drop out! PS. Thanks for your help with my Unified Field question in another thread! It helped me search more down. Now I'm thinking DAMN! I should have paid more attention in Mills' classes! >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hey, Gisse you moron. I'm not even a "good amateur" as I recall you > saying. That's because a "good amateur" would at least have passing familiarity with the field he chose to investigate as opposed to excessive disdain for ever corner of science. > However, I studied graduate level quantum mechanics under R. Mills, > (yes THAT Mills), and you? ...yet you display no understanding of the subject, or physics in general. How do you pass your exams when you have froth in your mouth? Doesn't it make it hard to hold the pencil? > Yeah, that's what I thought: college drop out! Nope. > PS. Thanks for your help with my Unified Field question in another > thread! It helped me search more down. Now I'm thinking DAMN! I > should have paid more attention in Mills' classes! > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them > would be stronger, and Dark Matter wouldn't be necessary. Like I said, you'll be shitposting again in 6 months. Here we are, with you shitposting. > Hubble redshift is evidence of a new phenomenon of light. Not every > observable galaxy. But the light coming from them. > > Dark Matter is a clear falsification of the expansion model. Shut the f.ck up, Mike. You do not know what you are talking about. > > If Hubble redshift wasn't caused by actual expansion of distances, > > galaxies would be closer together, the force of gravity between them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Shut the f.ck up, Mike. You do not know what you are talking about. There is no need for dark matter because galaxies expand. Mitch Raemsch > There is no need for dark matter because galaxies expand. > > Mitch Raemsch No two Nobel prizes for you this year, moron. You are totally wrong. The "need" for dark matter is precisely BECAUSE galaxies and the universe are assumed to be expanding. And it is thus found that there is not enough mass in the universe to explain the current motion etc. So, given the typical idiot physicist approach these days, rather than taking that as a reason to go back and question whether expansion is in fact taking place, no, we invent some new magical, invisible, "dark matter" to give the added mass to make the equations come out right. Can you say "blatant fudge factor"? I knew that you could! Note Mike is right on and you are right wrong. On Jul 25, 4:58 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There is no need for dark matter because galaxies expand. > > Mitch Raemsch No two Nobel prizes for you this year, moron. You are totally wrong. The "need" for dark matter is precisely BECAUSE galaxies and the universe are assumed to be expanding. And it is thus found that there is not enough mass in the universe to explain the current motion etc. So, given the typical idiot physicist approach these days, rather than taking that as a reason to go back and question whether expansion is in fact taking place, no, we invent some new magical, invisible, "dark matter" to give the added mass to make the equations come out right. Can you say "blatant fudge factor"? I knew that you could! Note Mike is right on and you are right wrong. ================================== You continue to make the same spelling error... it's "dork" matter. >> There is no need for dark matter because galaxies expand. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The "need" for dark matter is precisely BECAUSE galaxies and the > universe are assumed to be expanding. Thank you for making the same cockup that Mike did, because you - like Mike - do not understand cosmology. The expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the rotation of a galaxy as expansion does not significantly affect bound structures. > And it is thus found that there > is not enough mass in the universe to explain the current motion etc. > So, given the typical idiot physicist approach these days, rather than > taking that as a reason to go back and question whether expansion is > in fact taking place, no, we invent some new magical, invisible, "dark > matter" to give the added mass to make the equations come out right. And observation. Don't forget observation. Why do we see dark matter through gravitational lensing if it isn't there? > Can you say "blatant fudge factor"? I knew that you could! > > Note Mike is right on and you are right wrong. Mike does not know what he is talking about. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.