I'm sorry physicists...

It's logically agreeable to say something is wrong without providing alternative.

To *where* is the space expanding? Into nothingness?

> unimaginable
Don't dare to compare whatever we insignifant humans build in this tiny space with the whole universe.

We will see. I agree that there is a slight chance that something is wrong with our models. However, dark matter and dark energy seems the most plausible solution at the moment.

You don't need dark matter and dark energy (as in undetected), can exist even without the expansion of the universe.

But assuming that the doppler efect is the cause for red shift is the most baseless assumption with most terrifying implications I've ever seen. It's on the same scale as "we live in the matrix", but no one thakes this one seriusly. The fact that physists seriusly consider the expansion of the universe as the "most plausible explanation" is enough to lose faith in humanity.

Misstyped the first line, I meant that they CAN exist even without the expansion of the universe.

Can you please explain the correlation of doppler effect and red shift and how that implicates simulation of reality?

What? "On the same scale" doesn't mean "it implicates". Means that it is proportionally the same bullshit.

> Both are baseless asumptions.
> The implications of those asumptions efect all phyical objects.

As for how red shift and doppler efect are related to the big bang, use the wikipedia.

>expansion speed being faster than the speed of light
each light-year stretches by about 2 cm / s,
so it is a simple add-up to see that 15 bn ly away stuff is receding from us at 1c.
At the edge of the observable universe, 46 bn ly away, the speed is 3c

>my wife isn't cheating on me if I don't know the guys name

>As for how red shift and doppler efect are related to the big bang, use the wikipedia.
I think he was wondering WHY are you saying it's a baseless assumption. The wikipedia won't answer that. And if you do answer that question, I'd like to know what your explanation for the redshift is and how it's a less baseless assumption than the doppler effect.

> speak well
Write well

It's a baseless asumption becouse it's basis have a logical flaw, hence making it have no basis.
(Hipotesis): Red shift --> (Doppler) Expansion --> Big bang
However, that's false becouse (Doppler) Expanson --> Red Shift; and not (Doppler) Expansion Red shift.

In other words, the consecuence is being used to prove the cause, wich is wrong.

Anology: I can say that if a meteor falls on my head tomorrow, I would day; but if tomorrow I die, it doesn't mean a meteor has fallen on my head, I could've just been shooted.

As for my alternative explanation for redshift, is equally baseless, but it's consecuences are much less severe, making it a better alternative if you have to choose against two equally incompetent therories. In my opinion, the red shift is just a property of electromagnetic waves that can be observed over huge distances.

>In my opinion, the red shift is just a property of electromagnetic waves that can be observed over huge distances.
If that were the case, we would be able to observe such an effect by just using two mirrors and reflecting light back and forth until it's travelled a distance large enough to observe the effect. Yet we have not observed this. So the consequences of your explanation are actually more severe than those of a doppler shift explanation.

We would be able to observe such an effect by just using two mirrors and reflecting light back and forth until it's travelled a distance large enough to observe the effect.

When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?

> So the consequences of your explanation are actually more severe than those of a doppler shift explanation.

The consecuences of my explanation are just that light has an extra behavior. The consecuences of the doppler shift explanation is that everything there is, has a diferent behavior. Mine efects only light, doppler efects every physical object in existence, it's clear whose has worse consecuences.

> When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?
By the way, the cause of this proerty I belive has more to do with dispersion rather than energy. But again, is just as baseless as the doppler, my point was not to prove my theory true but to prove expansion false.

>When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?
If that were the case, then reflecting telescopes would not be able to detect any shift in wavelength in the light from distant galaxies because the mirror would "reset" the incoming light.

>yet we have not observed this

Not the other user but if the distances involved are large enough testing it in a lab will be impossible simply because of the time frame required to bounce light around, even if you had the equipment and everything capable of doing it in the first place.

See I could be wrong, as I stated from the beginning, that doesn't make doppler right.

Inflation isn't bullshit. It predicted the scalar spectral index was less than unity which was confirmed at high significance by Planck.

Inflation also doesn't switch on and off for no reason.

>But assuming that the doppler efect is the cause for red shift is the most baseless assumption with most terrifying implications I've ever seen.

No it's not, you're just ignorant. Steady state models don't generate a cosmological microwave background with a blackbody spectrum and yet it is observed to be a blackbody as well as can be measured. Cosmological time dilation has been confirmed in supernovae, tired light doesn't have this.

>As for my alternative explanation for redshift, is equally baseless
No it's not. You can derive cosmological redshift from the FLRW metric. Saying energy is lost "somehow" is not comparable, you have no mechanism.

>my point was not to prove my theory true but to prove expansion false.
You haven't done that though have you? Some vague suggestion is not the same as a model which has a mechanism and can make quantitative predictions.

Secondly cosmological redshift isn't the same as the Doppler effect, it's not that simple.

Are you implying that tropical rain forests didn't exist at the time of castles?

Haven't you heard user? It may just be that we are the center of the Universe.

If by mechanism you mean formulas, those are made on the blink of an eye. Formulas are to clarify concepts, they don't prove anything by themselfs, you need experimentation for that. As for measured data, that measured data can mean a lot of things, not only the inflation, you're making the same logical mistake again.

As for relativity, I won't say it's wrong, but they've made so many modifications to usual definitions that it's not intuitive anymore, so I would not use that to guess if some theory makes more sense than another or not.

>unimaginable things such as rain forests and Mexican people
Kek

No I mean a physical mechanism, a description of the physics that causes the photon to lose energy. You don't even have that.

>they don't prove anything by themselfs
Nobody is claiming they do. You've said "my model is just as baseless as their model" but you haven't even explained how your model would work. Before anything can be tested it needs to be defined. The standard explanation is both testable, tested and some of it's predictions have been verified.

> I would not use that to guess if some theory makes more sense than another or not
This is not about making sense. This is about defining a model, you don't have shit. It is not on par with standard cosmology. Science is not done on the basis of what you find intuitive or not.

You're right, my model sucks, it's meant to, I never had the intention to use it as a replacement, that was not my point. My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.

The standard explanation is not testable nowadays, you'ld have to periodically calculate the distance with red-shifted stars over the years and see that they are indeed expanding. Calculating the distance acurately enough is tricky, and we don't have the time to wait for the results to be clear enough that inacurate measurements don't matter. Any other tests you do are indirect evidences, wich don't really prove anything seeing how much effort is put into finding them. (If you put enough effort, you can find indirect evidences and correlations for any two things).

it's just theoretical (gaussian) physics

please keep your cuckold fantasies where they belong - on pol

>that was not my point.
It was exactly your point. You claimed that your model was as shit as the standard one so therefore it was bad.

>My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.
You're talking about inflation now, inflation is not the same thing as the expanding universe. You don't even know what you're talking about and you think you can say what should and should not be taken seriously.

>The standard explanation is not testable nowadays
I already gave you two ways it had been tested. Don't talk out your ass.

>wich don't really prove anything
You don't prove anything in empirical science. It's not mathematics, things are never proven, they just become better tested. You don't even understand science much less cosmology.

> I already gave you two ways it had been tested.
What you did give where two things that happend to be predectible with the standard model, and that could also be predicted by a bunch of other models.

And you're right I don't know shit, I'm no physicist, just as I don't know shit about religion, yet I don't belive in anything that implies that the whole universe does crazy stuff (like being created in seven days, or being in constant expansion at speeds near light).

Both look equally ridiculus, if you want any of those to be credible you better provide some hard prove of them (like the number phone of God, or an experiment that measures the expansion of the universe based on something else than redshift), an drawing of God, or an almost imperceptible background noise are not good enough.

Now, if you know of such experiment, then please link it and I'll shut my mouth.

Mirrors don't "reflect" light, they absorb it and the re-emit it along the opposite direction.

>My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.

The consequence of falling off of a building are pretty severe too, does that mean it's not possible to fall?

>argument from personal incredulity

The fact that you lack the intelligence or imagination to understand how intuitive expansion really is proves exactly nothing. If you want to argue about physics you must first actually know what the physics says, otherwise you;re literally just wasting everyone's time. Here, consider this: I've never met you, or any of your family, but I propose that you are a half-pig, half-mollusc creature. Would you bother arguing against this? Or would you reply "well, you haven't even seen me, how the fuck could you know such a thing?"

That's wrong.

Your analogy is wrong, a good analogy would be: The consequence of every single human on earth falling off of a building are pretty severe too, does that mean it's not possible for every human on earth to fall?

And the answer becomes obiusly no. You're doing the same with expansion, you're not saying one, two or a small set of stars are expanding, you're saying that every fucking star and pice of matter out there is.

>To *where* is the space expanding?
It's not. The meaning of expansion in this context does not imply expansion into another space or even an increase in total volume. It simply means that the density of space in any local area is decreasing.

Matter isn't expanding you dunce, it's spacetime itself that grows. And yes it is certainly possible for every human on Earth to fall to their death, it's not likely but there's nothing impossible about it.

>Write well
Type well

It isn't impossible either for God to exist, but that doesn't mean I belive it does.
And it really doesn't matter if it's matter of space time or the six dimension, in any case it implies every physical object and that is already too big of an implication.

Using incorrect grammar does not imply you type badly.

>It isn't impossible either for God to exist

Yes it is, because his definition is incoherent. Omnipotence is a self-refuting property, meaning we can know with logical certainty that no such being can exist.

And this isn't a matter of belief, the expansion of spacetime has been observed, it is a FACT. That you lack the intelligence to understand it proves nothing, but tat you continue to insist that your credulity is relevant to the facts of nature proves that you are not only stupid, but dishonest.

>What you did give where two things that happend to be predectible with the standard model, and that could also be predicted by a bunch of other models.

Yes, that is always true in science. No theory will ever be shown to be a unique solution. That isn't a criticism of any of it.

>yet I don't belive in anything that implies that the whole universe does crazy stuff
Why should the universe bend to your belief?

> or an experiment that measures the expansion of the universe based on something else than redshift
Redshift drift is something that could be measured within 50 years (with the E-ELT and SKA eventually), it is being seriously considered but people like you will never be satisfied.

> Yes it is, because his definition is incoherent.
A man that created the universe. (forget everyhing else).
Now it's definition is choerent.
I still don't belive in it.

> And this isn't a matter of belief, the expansion of spacetime has been observed, it is a FACT
Bullshit, I already asked for the expirement yet you provided nothing. And by the way, are you seriously using only light and one point of view to make those observations? Becouse we all know light gets things distorted most of the time.

No they don't. If it were true there would be no reason for the angle of incidence to equal the angle of reflection.

>A man that created the universe. (forget everyhing else).

Impossible since men are products of the universe and have never demonstrated the slightest ability to create anything ex nihilo.

Read a book you moron.

>0.3 seconds in google
>How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—and they do that by giving off some more photons.

Go find a citation for what you just claimed. It's absolute bullshit.

>I'm too stupid to use google!

That's nice, moron.

> Redshift drift is something that could be measured within 50 years
Well if they can prove that redshift does in fact change over time (wich I don't think they can prove with a convincing precission bet let's assume they can), then I would be happy.

But notice that even assuming there is no expansion, galaxies still move, so that could still influence a change in redshift, that's why it has to be some really convincing measurment.

Which is of course nonsense. If light was absorbed and re-emitted it wouldn't remain coherent and so lasers and interferometers wouldn't work.
>Everything on the internet is true.

Wow you truly are a moron. Here's a challenge for you, moron: Find a citation that DISPUTES what I claimed. If what I said is nonsense this should be easy :^)

Not impossible, in the XI century no man had ever reached the moon, yet some managed to do it later. Hard? Yes, and creating the universe is much more harder, reason enough to believe it's bullshit, but that doesn't make it impossible.

Reaching the moon is just difficult, not even close to impossible. Creation ex nihilo IS impossible,the Universe just doesn't work that way.

So ex nihilio is impossible becouse "the universe just doesn't work that way", but expansion is perfectly possible becouse "the universe just works this way". That's a really convincing argument.

I asked you to find a citation and what you came back with as :explainthatstuff.com

Are you really too dumb to think for yourself? How does coherence work if the particles in the mirror absorb and re-emit? A challenge in critical thinking.

Nigger, howshitworks is about on your level of comprehension. It's also more than YOU have produced, so I consider the case closed and you proven to be a halfwit.

We all know you haven't even investigated the argument, so why would we care how you feel about it?

It's like saying a politician is garbage without hearing what they're saying.

Question: What is the solution of equation X+5=Z?
Answer A: "In the equation X+5=Z, the Z must be 9."
I can say that the answer A is wrong without providing answer to the question itself.

Expansion is both an observed fact and something that is predicated by cosmological theories, creation ex nihilo is both unobserved and impossible according to all known theories. The two are not comparable, the only reason you continue to do so is because you're an ignoramus.

That's wrong.

>this idea is wrong because i don't like it

But your whole argument was "my model is just as bad as their model", then you backed away from that when people pointed out that was crap.

"The space *itself* is expanding faster than the speed of light" -model is wrong.

I don't have a model of my own.

It's wrong because you say so? Who the fuck are you? Just some idiot who is too dumb to understand just how dumb he is.

Haha lol

Wait, are you expecting me to walk you through a formal proof of few hundred pages or something?

>Expansion is both an observed fact and something that is predicated by cosmological theories
This is bullshit. Only experiment I've seen so far that could prove expansion is the one mentioned a little avobe in wich I've already commented:
It could also be that light just has a property that produces redshift, and it changes with time, but starts to be hardly convincing too. In any case no strong arguments are in favor of expansion nowadays, so it falls on a similar category that religion (well religion even contradicts itself so that may be too much).

>"The space *itself* is expanding faster than the speed of light"
Space *itself* doesn't have a speed because it's a fractional change. The expansion of the universe cannot be measured as a speed in the same dimensions as the speed of light for this reason. It only has a timescale.

Let me reformulate that in this way: what does your heart of a scientist say? Do you believe yourself that the space is expanding? When you think about all the pieces in the puzzle, does it feel right to you?

What possible difference does this make? I'm just some ape, if reality behaves a certain way that I find "hard to believe", what does that mean? It just means that /I/ find it hard to believe, it says exactly nothing about teh reality of the case.

>X cannot be true.
>Wait you expect me to prove that?

I'm not him, he is just explaining how mirrors and basic logic works, I'm the one making crazy models.

So it's bullshit because the PROOF that it happens doesn't meet your personal criteria of being "obviously true"? Yeah, no, go fuck yourself you halfwitted coon.

Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

Using your logic: Prove to me that space is expanding. Note that the attention span is about 2000 characters.

Any proof relies on the feelings of observer. When the proof is "correct" it just means the observer is feeling good about it.

>Any proof relies on the feelings of observer. When the proof is "correct" it just means the observer is feeling good about it.

Absolute bullshit. Clearly science isn't the only thing you are COMPLETELY ignorant about.

This low tier bait.

>Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

Because...? YOU say so? Once again, who the fuck do you think you are? You're just a moron opining about topics you have zero knowledge of. You are such an entitled little dipshit that I'm going to hazard a guess that you're a philosopher of some kind.

Are you saying my statement feels wrong when compared to the structure of the statements in your brain?

If it's not "obviusly true" it's not a proof, it's hint.

What a true simpleton you are.

Are you saying space can expand without anyone noticing?

>Using your logic: Prove to me that space is expanding.
No, nobody here is claiming the expansion of universe is proven. You are claiming the model cannot be correct. Prove it.

I'll just repeat since it seems you really don't have a good attention span. We are not the same person. He propabably is OP.

>Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

You're literally too dumb to understand the point being made here. He wasn't talking about spatial dimensions.

Yes, it took us a long time to notice it because it happens on a very large scale.

I don't give a shit you assclown. You're a fucking moron, if you're not OP then there are at least two complete morons ITT.

I, not him (with who you're talking with), was saing that the current model is hard to believe, almost as religion, basically it's baseless. I was not saying it can't be true.

Just as you assumed we were only one and you were wrong, you also assumed the expansion of the universe was real, and gueas what? You're wrong.

The avobe is not an argument, I just wanted to say so.