CreateDebate


Debate Info

59
24
THIS Nothing
Debate Score:83
Arguments:51
Total Votes:103
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 THIS (24)
 
 Nothing (23)

Debate Creator

BigOats(1406) pic



What proof do we have of an expanding universe ?

I often hear that the "Big Bang" is a brilliant theory and is based on sound scientific arguments.

Closer examination of the premises and experimental data which form the basis of this hypothesis, shows that it's so full of holes there's hardly any theory left in it.

There are many people on this site, that are convinced we live in an expanding universe. Please post your reasons for thinking so.

Note: "Some clever guy said so and I believe him" is not a valid scientific argument.

THIS

Side Score: 59
VS.

Nothing

Side Score: 24
1 point

"BigOats" may be right. I only know, when the turtle finally dies we are ALL in for it! Put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye!

Side: THIS
Hellno(17759) Banned
1 point

What proof do we need? Take a look at your Russian asshole if you dare... I'm sure it expands daily.

LOL

Thanks BigO or LittleWheaties...

Side: THIS
BigOats(1406) Disputed
0 points

Dude, seriously, you're a crazy little homo with no brains.

I don't hate gays, but if a faggot said that shit to me IRL, I would bust his skull in no time. Because some animals (like you) only learn their lesson the hard way.

This isn't me being an internet "tough guy". I'm just stating a fact.

Being anonymous is the only thing that's saving you.

You're pathetic.

Side: Nothing
Hellno(17759) Disputed Banned
3 points

Okay, listen up Lil'Wheaties, if you can, I know it's hard on, errr I mean hard for you but you aren't scaring anyone dude. You're a small minded Ruskie asshole that thinks he's a tough guy.... I get it. I'm sure you dream about Putin's asshole at night.. that's cool. But NO ONE CARES DUDETTE!

LOL

You're pathetic.

Side: THIS
1 point

The usual argument employs red gallactic red shift, which is supposed to mean that galaxies are moving away from us, and the relativistic Doppler effect accounts for the observable frequency distortion.

However, if we consoder the formula for relativistic Doppler, which is used in these theories:

w'=wSQRT(1-x^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos (Theta)),

where v is the speed of a distant object,

and Theta is the angle between its speed and its radius-vector,

We immideately see that there is a possibility of a lateral doppler effect, when Theta = PI/2 and cos (Theta) = 0, so the distant object is moving perpendicular to the radius-vector (rotation)

In that case, we have:

w' = w*SQRT(1-(v/c)^2),

and so there is observable red shift, which increases for more distant objects (because v is larger for object which are further away from the rotation axis).

But there is no "expansion" in this scenario.

Side: Nothing
shaash(434) Disputed
2 points

No one is going to post on your debate unless you dumb it down, Michio Kaku. WTF is that notation for the equation, I can barely read it. Find a picture or something please :)

Side: THIS
nobodyknows(745) Clarified
2 points

So what you are arguing is that everything in the universe is in orbit around the Earth. Because in order to maintain universal redshift in perpetuity without the universe expanding everything has to move at a 90 degree angle to the Earth at all times, which is only accomplished by an orbit. Or am I missing something?

If this is correct, we should be able to measure celestial bodies moving in relation to one another. Now go test your theory.

Side: THIS
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Red shift/blue shift happens when something is moving closer/away from the point of view, an orbit will not produce this.

A common analogy is a pitcher throwing a ball at a catcher at 1 ball a second. The catcher catches one ball a second in this scenario. If the pitcher walks towards the catcher while throwing 1 ball a second the rate at which the ball gets to the catcher increases. If the pitcher walks away while throwing the ball the frequency of balls calls caught diminishes. (assume the same velocity of the ball here of course)

If the pitcher and catcher maintain the distance while playing catch but the pitcher circles around the catcher the frequency of catching one ball a second will still be maintained. Sure someone further away must run faster aound the circle than someone nearer to the center but the distance between catcher and pitcher remains the same.

Closer guy to the catcher throws 1 ball a second to the catcher, catcher gets 1 ball a second. The further guy away throws 1 ball a second, the catcher still catches 1 ball a second. Sure the further guy away has longer distances to cover, this just means that there is potential for more balls to be in the air between the further pitcher and catcher than between the closer pitcher and the catcher however the frequency between the balls in the air will be the same still.

No redshift or blue shift will be observed.

Side: THIS
BigOats(1406) Clarified
-1 points

So what you are arguing is that everything in the universe is in orbit around the Earth.

No, I didn't' say I had a consistent theory which could replace the "common" explanation of red shift. That's why my debate title is a question, not an assertion.

But the usual explanation is no less absurd than mine. IF it was true that the universe is expanding according to Hubble's law, then we would NOT be observing a universal red shift effect. For exactly the reason, that the speeds of astronomic objects, often have significant lateral components. So, there should be a lot of discrepancies of Hubble's law. If somebody claims that red shift exactly corresponds to that law, then either Hubble's law is wrong, of someone is fiddling with experimental data.

There's another aspect to this. Objects which are closer to us than 15 mln light years , often have a lateral velocity component, which is significantly greater than what Hubble's law would give for their transverse speed. And so, for many of them, the law does not hold.

For objects which are further away, the only sound method of measuring distance to them, is using red shift, so we have a logical fallacy here. This means that Hubble's law is not an experimental fact, but rather a theoretical speculation.

Side: THIS
0 points

Hubble's law is not relativistic invariant.

Hubble's law states:

V = Hr

Where V is the velocity of a distant object, r is it's radius-vector, and H is Hubble's constant.

If the expansion law is universal, it should be the same in the reference frame of every object.

Consider two distant astronomic objects , M1 and M2, flying away from Earth in opposite directions, so their velocities are on the same line (col-linear), and they are the same distance from Earth (R). So we don't have to use vectors here, for simplicity's sake.

We have:

V1 = HR, for M1

V2 = -HR, for M2

What is the velocity V of M2 in the reference frame associated with M2.

Relativistic velocity transform gives us:

V = (V1 - V2)/(1+V1V2/c^2), where c is the speed of light

So, using Hubble's formula, we have:

V = 2HR/(1+r^2(H/c)^2)

This is completely different from what Hubble's law gives us in Earth's reference frame.

So, according to the "Expanding universe" hypothesis, Earth is the center of the universe. Which makes no sense from the relativistic point of view.

Side: Nothing
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
4 points

So, according to the "Expanding universe" hypothesis, Earth is the center of the universe

No, it's the center of observation. We would get the same effect if observed from any planet.

Side: THIS
BigOats(1406) Disputed
0 points

No, it's the center of observation. We would get the same effect if observed from any planet.

The proof of the opposite is in my formulas posted in this very debate. Can you point to an error in my proof?

Side: Nothing
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
2 points

So, according to the "Expanding universe" hypothesis, Earth is the center of the universe. Which makes no sense from the relativistic point of view.

Nope. What you describe would be the same from any point of reference due to an expanding universe. It is merely an optical illusion that you can test out yourself.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

Side: THIS
BigOats(1406) Disputed
0 points

Nope.What you describe would be the same from any point of reference due to an expanding universe

I've just explained why that isn't true.

Your first link is for schoolkids. The second one uses non-relativistic logic and is therefore completely irrelevant.

Side: Nothing