Big bang clarification?

[paddoboy]

We observe what exactly paddy?

what is expanding?

You maybe trying to impress people tc, but I suggest the only person you are impressing is yourself.
Ignoring evidence is not smart...It is the height of ignorance and stupidity.

Unless of course you are claiming to be the smartest person in the world, smarter than all those professionals with their access to all the state of the art equipemnt and the data that they recover for cosmology?
Is that what you claim tc?
If that is the case then as I have told you previously, besides only fooling yourself, you are reinforcing what this forum thinks about you and your obvious delusions, the same delusions, ignorance and childish insulting behaviour that has seen you banned from many other forums.

 

[paddoboy]

I know you told me Paddy, you have not told me a red shift of what exactly?

a red shift of a humming bird flying solo away from the light?

am I suppose to guess Paddy?

Don't be an Idiot.
Please check out what a cosmological redshift is. That IS the answer to your question.

 

[Dr_Toad]

He can't help it. Self-destruction above all else.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You maybe trying to impress people tc, but I suggest the only person you are impressing is yourself.
Ignoring evidence is not smart...It is the height of ignorance and stupidity.

Unless of course you are claiming to be the smartest person in the world, smarter than all those professionals with their access to all the state of the art equipemnt and the data that they recover for cosmology?
Is that what you claim tc?
If that is the case then as I have told you previously, besides only fooling yourself, you are reinforcing what this forum thinks about you and your obvious delusions, the same delusions, ignorance and childish insulting behaviour that has seen you banned from many other forums.

I try not to impress, if you do not have the capable to deal with my questions just ask and I will give you the answers.

I claim nothing, I claim to know nothing, but I do claim if your information is not 100% accurate then I wish for the explanation of my perceived fault in the information.

It is really simple , science observes the ''expansion'' of the ''Universe'' by observing a cosmological red shift of matter interaction with light. Something that is being observed moving away from us at the near speed of light is observed as red shifted.
This observation is independent of space, space is ''transparent'' and is not observed, the matter is observed travelling through infinite ''transparent'' space.


Science then plays dot to dot with the often use of maths to try to define a shape to a ''transparent'' infinite shapeless space.

 

[paddoboy]

I try not to impress, if you do not have the capable to deal with my questions just ask and I will give you the answers.

Answers you extracted from your rear end?? No thanks, I want a scientifically based answer with evidence.

I claim nothing, I claim to know nothing, but I do claim if your information is not 100% accurate then I wish for the explanation of my perceived fault in the information.

There you go lying again. You have claimed 100% positive many times in many threads, all without any evidence or substance.

It is really simple , science observes the ''expansion'' of the ''Universe'' by observing a cosmological red shift of matter interaction with light. Something that is being observed moving away from us at the near speed of light is observed as red shifted.

Wrong again. Science observes a cosmological redshift which by definition is spacetime expansion. [Didn't you just say you didn't claim anything? ]
If it was the galaxies themselves moving away, it would be a Doppler redshift.
Please read my explanatory post at 143.

This observation is independent of space, space is ''transparent'' and is not observed, the matter is observed travelling through infinite ''transparent'' space.

More crap, more nonsense, more thinking from the wrong end.

Science then plays dot to dot with the often use of maths to try to define a shape to a ''transparent'' infinite shapeless space.

More crap, more nonsense, more thinking from the wrong end.

Science and cosmology has the evidence to support their model.
You have nothing, except your delusions of grandeur, and your 100% necessity to oppose any conventional science just for the sake of it.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Answers you extracted from your rear end?? No thanks, I want a scientifically based answer with evidence.


There you go lying again. You have claimed 100% positive many times in many threads, all without any evidence or substance.


Wrong again. Science observes a cosmological redshift which by definition is spacetime expansion. [Didn't you just say you didn't claim anything? ]
If it was the galaxies themselves moving away, it would be a Doppler redshift.
Please read my explanatory post at 143.


More crap, more nonsense, more thinking from the wrong end.



More crap, more nonsense, more thinking from the wrong end.

Science and cosmology has the evidence to support their model.
You have nothing, except your delusions of grandeur, and your 100% necessity to oppose any conventional science just for the sake of it.

Like you have and many have said before you, I am not a scientist.
It really does not matter how you try to twist it Paddy, everyone knows we observe matter in space and do not observe space.
Space and matter are independents and not dependent relative to the moving of matter through a space.


Another flat Earth theory except this time bumping into none existent walls rather than falling off.

You all know my thinking is accurate regardless what you post to confuse the public.

 

[paddoboy]

Finally [although taking into account your stubborness and lack of ability to understand as barriers] With a Doppler redshift, the recession of galaxies could never exceed "c", while with Cosmological redshift, or the expansion of spacetime, the effect can exceed "c" and does.
There is also a small difference in the equations for doppler vs. cosmological redshift, so it's possible to determine which "kind" you're looking at by measuring their characteristics.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Finally [although taking into account your stubborness and lack of ability to understand as barriers] With a Doppler redshift, the recession of galaxies could never exceed "c", while with Cosmological redshift, or the expansion of spacetime, the effect can exceed "c" and does.
There is also a small difference in the equations for doppler vs. cosmological redshift, so it's possible to determine which "kind" you're looking at by measuring their characteristics.

I really think you just miss the point at times, a cosmological red shift is still focused on celestial objects , this does not show space to be expanding, it only shows the object is moving away.

 

[paddoboy]

Like you have and many have said before you, I am not a scientist.
It really does not matter how you try to twist it Paddy, everyone knows we observe matter in space and do not observe space.
Space and matter are independents and not dependent relative to the moving of matter through a space.

Bullshit...that's only your weird interpretation of it for reasons I have already given. There is a space I see now between me and the computer screen, and there is a space between me and the Sun now which amounts to 1AU.

Another flat Earth theory except this time bumping into none existent walls rather than falling off.

Except of course it is backed by much evidence and data from state of the art probes etc, which you obviously do not have access to.
Try again.

You all know my thinking is accurate regardless what you post to confuse the public.

I'll let the public and our peers on this forum work out how accurate your thinking is and how many outright lies you tell to try and impress said public.
And of course we all know that if you had any legitimate evidence backed hypothesis that was any where near factual, you would not be on this forum, you would not be in pseudoscience, you would not have been banned from many other forums, and you would follow the scientific methodology and undergo proper peer review.

Yes, certainly, I'll let the public, and your's and my peers, decide who is a troll and who has afflictions that should be attended to.

 

[paddoboy]

I really think you just miss the point at times, a cosmological red shift is still focused on celestial objects , this does not show space to be expanding, it only shows the object is moving away.

No wrong again. It is based on spacetime expansion. If it was as you say, it would be Doppler expansion.
Still havn't woken up yet?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Bullshit...that's only your weird interpretation of it for reasons I have already given. There is a space I see now between me and the computer screen, and there is a space between me and the Sun now which amounts to 1AU.




Except of course it is backed by much evidence and data from state of the art probes etc, which you obviously do not have access to.
Try again.


I'll let the public and our peers on this forum work out how accurate your thinking is and how many outright lies you tell to try and impress said public.
And of course we all know that if you had any legitimate evidence backed hypothesis that was any where near factual, you would not be on this forum, you would not be in pseudoscience, you would not have been banned from many other forums, and you would follow the scientific methodology and undergo proper peer review.

Yes, certainly, I'll let the public, and your's and my peers, decide who is a troll and who has afflictions that should be attended to.

You are just so wrong Paddy, cosmological red shift is generally stars that are so far away they start to red shift, you are suggesting that joining all the stars in the expansion and all the matter is a like curtain that drapes across space and moves outwards with the matter, now that is BS.
Space is not expanding , you have no evidence , you can not observe space. you observe the matter in space and play dot to dot.

It is funny that a nobody is wiser to science than science is.

 

[paddoboy]

You are just so wrong Paddy, cosmological red shift is generally stars that are so far away they start to red shift, you are suggesting that joining all the stars in the expansion and all the matter is a like curtain that drapes across space and moves outwards with the matter, now that is BS.
Space is not expanding , you have no evidence , you can not observe space. you observe the matter in space and play dot to dot.

It is funny that a nobody is wiser to science than science is.

And there people is the prime reason why a thread that may have been rather informative, has been moved the speudoscience!

Let me straighten you out.
Cosmological redshift is what we observe over large scales.
It infers the expansion of spacetime, taking galaxies along for the ride.
It is not a Doppler expansion of the galaxies "moving through" spacetime.
One of the reasons we know this 100% is that [1] spacetime can expand at "c"or FTL, while to imagine galaxies moving through spacetime at anywhere near "c" is totally illogical.
And of course we observe space.....rather weird to say we dont, but coming from someone that claims light is an illusion and not a thing, and that dark and shadows are real, one can readily judge why this thread has been moved as has been all other threads of tc.
Rather than of course as other forums have done, just simply banning his childish unsupported nonsensical claims, which in later posts he has the audacity of saying he never claimed.
Ahhh, yes confusion reigns with this one!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok Dy this is what you are saying the equivalent of and science is practically saying.
That when a rocket is sent into space and is expanding away from us that space is expanding with it.

No.
That's relative movement.
A pretty fundamental mistake for someone who has claimed, many times, to "know science".

Do you not realise how flimpsy that sounds to normal people?

Like your arguments here?

Putting a shape to space by using matter , I see that as dot to dot.

Gibberish.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And there people is the prime reason why a thread that may have been rather informative, has been moved the speudoscience!

Let me straighten you out.
Cosmological redshift is what we observe over large scales.
It infers the expansion of spacetime, taking galaxies along for the ride.
It is not a Doppler expansion of the galaxies "moving through" spacetime.
One of the reasons we know this 100% is that [1] spacetime can expand at "c"or FTL, while to imagine galaxies moving through spacetime at anywhere near "c" is totally illogical.

Either way Paddy I just do not really care any more, there is not really any point when I know I am getting nowhere and will end up nowhere.
So none of it really matters, I am obviously as transparent as light in space, I am obviously moving away from reality and my mind is red shifted, My thoughts are obviously expanding through empty space.
My darkness in my mind is obvious not lit, my darkness about space is obviously a void in my mind.

I am fishing tomorrow, I wish you all good night.

 

[Kittamaru]

You are just so wrong Paddy, cosmological red shift is generally stars that are so far away they start to red shift, you are suggesting that joining all the stars in the expansion and all the matter is a like curtain that drapes across space and moves outwards with the matter, now that is BS.
Space is not expanding , you have no evidence , you can not observe space. you observe the matter in space and play dot to dot.

It is funny that a nobody is wiser to science than science is.

... no, red shift has NOTHING to do with how far away a star is you ignorant... ugh...

Doppler Shift has NOTHING to do with distance at all. Period. FULL FUCKING STOP. Stop making shit up TC

 

[Dr_Toad]

What's it gonna take?

 

[origin]

I really think you just miss the point at times, a cosmological red shift is still focused on celestial objects , this does not show space to be expanding, it only shows the object is moving away.

Actually, when you look at the data and evidence it is clear that space is expanding and it is not matter moving through space. Unfortunately, there is no way to explain this to you in a way you could understand. I mean for crying out loud you continue to insist that dark is a substance. It is hopeless.

I was sure you were just a troll. I now do not think you are a troll, I think you are serious. God, that is just so sad and depressing....

 

[Kittamaru]

What's it gonna take?

I'm not sure anymore... unfortunately, it seems we have gone "safe harbor" for stupidity...

 

[Dr_Toad]

That's too bad.

 

[paddoboy]

Either way Paddy I just do not really care any more, there is not really any point when I know I am getting nowhere and will end up nowhere.

Seriously, when you seriously realise that fact, you maybe half way to getting a cure for your malady of simply [1] Ignoring all that has gone before you, [2] Oppose mainstream just for the sake of it, and [3] never taking answers to your questions seriously.
Otherwise you continue to push shit up hill with your crappy nonsense.