German elections, when to short the euro, or buy it? - page 15
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Don't listen to anyone - it's much more fun for someone who only studied physics in high school to refute cosmological hypotheses with a website about UFOs and Bigfoot and with the Ren-TV channel.
And PostScience is full of nerds with higher education in physics.....
P.S. By the way, there was a movie on Ren-TV this week with a dude who scientifically proved that the Earth is flat and not round. That's hilarious!
Nikolai, the topic is off-topic for the thread, so I am answering for the last time. The article you cited describes exactly what I explained to you - the light from the star goes a) directly to us; b) the other part, coming out at an angle to us, gets into a strong gravitational field on the way, unfolds in it and finally reaches the Earth too. If your statement were true, then in case b) the redshift would be much stronger than in case a). But in reality (and it is written in the article), the red shift is the same in both cases, which contradicts your assumptions.
Well, in general, in science the ultimate arbiter is experiment. If any experimental facts contradicting the most established theories are found, the theories are refined or rejected altogether. So come up with an experiment (at least mentally, or numerically) that confirms your assumptions, and they will turn (in time), into a generally accepted theory.
And also, there is a wonderful resource on the net - PostScience. There leading scientists from all fields of knowledge, explain complicated phenomena in simple language. Physics, astronomy, mathematics, biology, history. I highly recommend it.
I agree about the off-topic, although there is something to disagree about the same redshift of the two images of the same quasar. With your permission I will continue in private.
Dimitri, finally understand that for me it is equally valuable to prove my hypothetical claim as it is to refute it. I am not going to claim anything. I will be grateful to anyone, including you, if this someone will blow my logic to smithereens and poke my "inquisitive mind" face in the mud, only in substance and argumentatively. I'm just interested in figuring it out. Your posts, on the other hand, briefly boil down to one thing: "Who are you to make a fuss? There's a giraffe and he knows best."
Dimitri, finally understand that for me it is equally valuable to prove my hypothetical claim as it is to refute it. I am not going to claim anything. I will be grateful to anyone, including you, if this someone will blow my logic to smithereens and poke my "inquisitive mind" face in the mud, only in substance and argumentatively. I'm just interested in figuring it out. Your posts, on the other hand, briefly boil down to one thing: "Who are you to make a fuss? There's a giraffe and he knows best."
1. There is a "gravitational lens" effect predicted by Einstein.
2. There is a "double quasar" effect as a result of the "gravitational lens".
3. "Double quasar" has a redshift (the same) explained by the theory of inflationary expansion of the universe.
What do you have a problem with this scheme?
I can't wait for the CGM fanatics to show up and stick it to God ))
1. There is a "gravitational lens" effect predicted by Einstein.
2. There is a "double quasar" effect as a result of a "gravitational lens".
3. "Double quasar" has a redshift (the same) explained by the theory of inflationary expansion of the universe.
What is your problem with this scheme?
Yes, I was wrong when I said that the "double quasar" effect proves my hypothesis, as one image of the quasar has a redshift in relation to the other. Indeed there was no information in the articles that they have different redshift. But also nowhere was it said that they have the same redshift, it was said only that they are very similar, but no wonder. After all think yourself in the given example of double quasarQSO 0957 + 561 is 8.7 billion light-years away, and the difference between light arrival by time from two images of this quasar is 1.1 light-year, i.e. about 1.1/8 700 000 000 *100%=0.000000013 % of "real" distance, therefore no existing device will catch a difference of red shift, if even it exists, therefore they write carefully: very similar. To demonstrate the failure of this example to prove or disprove my hypothesis I will give an analogy on an understandable scale:
As you know, the two-dimensional surface of our Earth is curved and forms a sphere in three dimensions. And in curved space, too, as it is known, the sum of angles of a triangle is greater than 180º. For example, if we construct an equilateral triangle with vertices: one at the North Pole and two others at the equator, the sum of angles in such a triangle will be 3*90º=270º. I hope this is clear. If we decrease the sides in this triangle, the sum of angles will decrease and tend to 180º, but it will not reach 180º, because 180º is possible only on a non-curved plane. So in this case we are dealing, mathematically speaking, with an irreducible function. Now we reduce this triangle in the same proportion as with the example of the double quasar. The distance from the pole to the equator is ~10000 km (very close). If we reduce it by a factor of 8,700,000,000/1.1 we get a triangle with a side of ~1.3mm. Now measure the sum of the angles in such a triangle, which lies on a sphere the size of our Earth, with all modern tools available. Of course it will be 180º, it is simply not possible to measure to billionths of a degree.
I repeat, my hypothesis is that the red shift observed from distant galaxies is not due to the Doppler effect of supposedly running away from the imaginary centre of all galaxies, but simply to the curvature of the space-time continuum.
This hypothesis could be confirmed on example of double quasar, if angle of observation of two images of one object would be not 6 seconds, as in this case, but several degrees or even several tens of degrees. I'm sure we see plenty of such twins, triplets etc. in the starry sky, but to calculate that two stars at an angular distance of say 20º from each other are the same quasar no one has yet succeeded and is unlikely to succeed in the foreseeable future because the difference in arrival times of light from that quasar will be not 1,1 light years ( as with angle of 6 seconds) but millions or tens millions years and the characteristics of light from these two images of the same object will differ very strongly as they show one object at completely different times of its life and nobody would imagine that it is one and the same quasar.
Why do I dislike the Big Bang theory so much? I'm not the only one who doesn't like it. There's a lot of jigsaw puzzles that don't add up. And I find it hard to believe that galaxies are moving away from the centre of the universe (i.e. the place of the Big Bang) at a speed very close to the speed of light. It used to be thought that the rate of expansion slowed with time, but now it is thought to be accelerating.
There's an elder in a field and an uncle in Kiev... What genre?... what criminal?... what crime?... What does the price have to do with it?... NONSENSE.
How's that Nonsense?
Maybe it's not nonsense after all. :)))
Or maybe it's an accident?
Here is my post dated 27.09.2017
What do you think of such nonsense?
Maybe it's not bullshit? :)))
Or maybe it's a fluke?
Here's my post of 27.09.2017
No, the movement is not an accident.
And passages like"genre... criminal... crime..." -- nonsense.
That's what I'm talking about: "There's acloud in your garden, and a man in Kiev...
No, the movement is not an accident.
And passages like"genre... criminal... crime..." is nonsense.
That's exactly what I'm talking about: a littleelder in a cottage, but an old man in Kiev...