CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
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!
Look here everyone, we have yet another internet tough guy... he wants to beat me up and make me pay for the medical costs... just proves the DemocRats aren't any better than the Russkie Asshole Commie Bastards!
Hey Lil'Wheaties, you should shut the fuck up because you look like an idiot.
Dude, I don't "want" to beat you up, that's what your gay lovers do when you steal their meth.
I'm just telling you to either say this to me in the face, or shut the fuck up. I'm not the internet tough guy, you're the internet fuck boy who's lost his marbles.
The only person in this debate looking like an idiot is yourself. And you're making it worse for yourself with each post.
Calling you an idiot isn't even an insult, you've really have your brains by pot or something worse. Only someone who is totally brain-dead, would call me a "communist" or think that I like Putin.
From smart-ass, you've devolved to just an ass, and from that - to nothing.
Just because you say shit, it doesn't make it true Lil'Wheaties. You Ruskie Assholes love to pretend you have giant cocks. LMAO! Everyone knows it's a story dude.
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).
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 :)
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.
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.
Yeah I get that. Isn't what your trying to say that all redshift we observe is caused by the transverse Doppler effect? What I am saying is it is absurd because this not sustainable and would only explain our observations if they were temporary. The universe is expanding and we know that because it is the simplest explanation for observed redshift.
This isn't my field so I may not have the best way to explain this idea with the nuances.
My example above holds for classical physics but relativistic physics shows something slightly different. It does appear that what BigO is saying that what we see is caused by the transverse doppler effect, but if we can identify something can't we also correct for that something?
The transverse doppler effect doesn't break redshift in anyway that negates an expanding universe. When we account for the slight difference do to moving bodies and time shift we still have redshift showing an expanding universe.
Apologies if I wasn't clear I was trying to keep it simple.
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.
He's arguing that the earth is the center of the Universe, and that it is rotating around the earth. He won't come out and say this because he knows he will be laughed out of the room.
No, I'm arguing exactly the opposite. The Earth cannot be the center of the universe, at least not according to special relativity. But Hubble's law implies that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Now, before you start "explaining" that this is an "optical illusion". I know the "popular" explanation for schoolkids:
for 2 objects, 1 and 2 we have:
V1 = HR1
V2 = HR2
And in the refference frame accosiated with object1, the speed of object 2 is:
V = HR2 - HR1 = H(R2 - R1) = HR,
where R is the vector denoting object2 in object1's frame.
So, Hubble's law still "holds".
Well.
The problem with proof is that it uses Gallilean kinematics. And the Big Bang theory only exists in the context of relativity theories.
The Earth cannot be the center of the universe, at least not according to special relativity
And it can by your alternative theoretical proposition, I presume?
So, Hubble's law still "holds".
Of course it does, no one is saying otherwise.
That still doesn't refute the fundamental principle at work here. All galaxies are moving away from each other. Not just in "appearance" but in reality. They are moving away from each other.
And it can by your alternative theoretical proposition, I presume?
Certainly not. I accept Mach's principle in physics, but I personally don't give much credit to special relativity. But you don't have the qualification to discuss that.
Of course it does, no one is saying otherwise.
Well, that's that's the point: SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS SAYING OTHERWISE
So you don't believe the earth or the Milky way are the center of the Universe?
Well, that's that's the point: SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS SAYING OTHERWISE
You've yet to do more than to baldly assert this. How? In what way does special relativity contradict Hubble's law. If you are going to argue with virtually every Astrophysicist out there, at least present a good argument.
So you don't believe the earth or the Milky way are the center of the Universe?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're implying I believe this for theological reasons, that's nowhere near the truth.
There could be a "center of the Univerese": center of mass, where we include the mass of matter and all the fields. It would have some interesting properties. But there's no reason to beleieve that it's the Earth.
Also, you're wrong if you think that the rotating universe hypothesis implies that there's a "center" of rotation. In fact, if it were true, then, in Galliliean physics, every object would be the center. The proof is simular to the one for Hubble's law in Galliliean approach. I'm sure you wouldn't understand it.
You've yet to do more than to baldly assert this. How? In what way does special relativity contradict Hubble's law. If you are going to argue with virtually every Astrophysicist out there, at least present a good argument.
I don't think belief is a good word for it. I think it's a plausable hypothesis, if combined with (advanced) Mach's principle.
I'm not asking "why?". Do you believe the milky way is the center of the universe? Yes or no?
Once again, belief should not be a part of science. At least not in physics. The answer to your
I'm trying to get a handle on what exactly your alternative model is, you seem a bit slippery on this front.
I don't have an alternative model. I'm just stating that modern cosmology is a pseudiscience and there's no reason to believe in its fairytails. These guys have a track record of lying and they make a living off of these lies.
I don't think belief is a good word for it. I think it's a plausable hypothesis, if combined with (advanced) Mach's principle.
Geocentrists have long used Mach's principle to dispute the Big Bang, in the same manner that creationists have used Thermal Dynamics to dispute evolution. With utmost disregard. The use this to argue that any motion of the earth around other celestial objects, could be due to the motion of those objects around the earth.
Once again, belief should not be a part of science. At least not in physics.
Belief isn't part of science, but you may still chose to believe the science or not to believe it. Young Earth Creationists chose not to believe the science, habitually.
The answer to your
The answer to your... the answer to my what?
I don't have an alternative model.
Of course you don't. Because what you're suggesting as the 'proof of the opposite' would be internally inconsistent. If the only situation in which redshift is not the result of an expanding universe is inconsistent with vast bodies of empirical fact, then excuse my language, then you haven't refuted shit.
I'm just stating that modern cosmology is a pseudiscience and there's no reason to believe in its fairytails. These guys have a track record of lying and they make a living off of these lies.
Well there we have it. Astrophysicists are liars. I'm persuaded already.
Geocentrists have long used Mach's principle to dispute the Big Bang,
I don't care about that because I'm not a geocentrist, and because my modification of Mach's principle is vastly more complex.
Belief isn't part of science, but you may still chose to believe the science or not to believe it.
I was answering your specific question whether I "believe" that the universe is rotating around the milky way. This is not a matter of belief, for a scientist.
The answer to your... the answer to my what?
Strange typo...
If the only situation in which redshift is not the result of an expanding universe is inconsistent with vast bodies of empirical fact, then excuse my language, then you haven't refuted shit.
One thing seems to be constantly escaping your attention: there is no "empirical data" in cosmology. Something is registered by telescopes and interferometers, and then astronomers interpret that data, to obtain information about stellar bodies. The interpreting process heavily relies on the underying theory, which in our case happens to be special relativity (mainly): using relativistic formulas for parralax, doppler effect and velocity transform. If the result of such interpretation direclty contradicts that underlying theory, then there are only 3 possible explanations: that theory is wrong, original experimantal data is false, or a combination of these.
I don't need to build an alternative model, to prove that the existing one is full of #$%^
Well there we have it. Astrophysicists are liars.
That's old news. Anyone with a sound knowledge of physics is aware of that fact.
I'm persuaded already
It was never my intent to persuade you of anything, this is science not religion.
That's very perceptive of you. When it comes to science, you can always be sure that if I'm saying something, then that's what I think.
Okay, well you still haven't answered the question.
Ok, now I remember what I wanted to say. The answer to your question is: I don't know. First of all, because I don't have a model of my own which would account for existing physical fields, and therefore have no consistent definition of their center of mass. I'm trying to do this for electromagnetics, but even in this limited case, there are a lot of weird issues which need to be resolved.
...is still empirical.
I was refering to empirical data on stellar body movement. That's what cosmology attempts to explain.
Empirical data would be a measurment of distance by a giant "ruler", which we do not have and which cannot exist.
No, I think that's the monkey on your back.
Failed attempt at NLP detected.
(Just so you know, my main sphere of interest is maths, not cosmology).
Wait. Shouldn't we expect universal red shift if the universe is expanding?
What I was implying, is that there would be no way to check if the red shift actually means universal expansion. Because we usually have no idea what components of a particular object's velocity, cause the red shift for that object.
Also: for faraway astronomic objects, red shift is the only sound way to measure the distance to them. So, in this case, the "universal expansion" hypothesis is used to interpret experimental data, which is then used to back up that hypothesis. This way, we will always have a perfect "match" between observable red shift, and Hubble's law. Because a logical fallacy is being used.
I have now realized that this theory is even crazier than I thought.
Hubble's law is not relativistic invariant.
So, according to the "expanding universe" hypothesis, Earth is the center of the universe.
The Redshift IS the check, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you can clarify?
Clarification: red shift is due to doppler effect. Relativistic doppler effect can occur for other angles between object radius vector and it's velocity, than 180 degrees. And there is no way to check which velocity component is causing it. In other words red shift does not mean that the object is moving away from us.
It's due to the Doppler effect. Where is the confusion here?
See the formula for relativistic doppler effect in my previous posts.
No, it's not. The distance to cosmological bodies can be measured reliably via parallax.
Only for objects which are less than 1000 light years away. If the distance is greater, parallax is too small and comparable to experiment error.
Clarification: red shift is due to doppler effect. Relativistic doppler effect can occur for other angles between object radius vector and it's velocity, than 180 degrees. And there is no way to check which velocity component is causing it. In other words red shift does not mean that the object is moving away from us.
So you are suggesting that an object is only moving away from another object if it does so at 180 degrees? I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. What does '180 degrees' mean when we are discussing the movement of cosmological non-planar objects in 3 dimensional space? What direction is '180 degrees' from earth? You appear to be attempting to describe movement of objects in 3-dimensional space with Euclidean geometry.
Nevertheless, It doesn't matter what angle or direction an object is going, if it is moving away from the observer the relative frequency will decrease, and if it is moving towards the observer it will increase. This is true because the waves radiate in every direction, and they 'bunch up' in the direction of movement.
See the formula for relativistic doppler effect in my previous posts.
I see the formula, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.
Only for objects which are less than 1000 light years away. If the distance is greater, parallax is too small and comparable to experiment error.
With spatial scanning techniques to measure Parallax NASA was able to accurately measure the distance of objects more than 75,000 light-years away. And just as importantly to cross-corroborate the reliability of other methods.
So you are suggesting that an object is only moving away from another object if it does so at 180 degrees
Well I was tires and used the wrong phrase. I meant 0 degrees, not 180. And no, I was not confusing anything with "Euclidian" geometry (did you mean planar geometry). It's right there in my post: angle between velocity and radius-vector. VECTOR. In this case both are 3D vectors. If tha angle is 0, the object is moving away from us, and if it's 180 degrees, it's moving towards us. This is just basic stuff and is not even an "argument".
Nevertheless, It doesn't matter what angle or direction an object is going, if it is moving away from the observer the relative frequency will decrease, and if it is moving towards the observer it will increase.
The relativistic doppler formula says that red shift can also occur, if the object is moving perpendicular to the radius-vector. Or at an angle>90 degrees.
I see the formula, I'm not sure where the confusion lies.
There is no confusion. That formula means that the object doesn't need to be moving away from us for red shift to occur. Lateral doppler effect is also possible.
With spatial scanning techniques to measure Parallax NASA was able to accurately measure the distance of objects more than 75,000 light-years away
I seriously doubt that. Were thay using interference telescopes? If so, you can't be sure of the results due to possibility of huge distortions caused by gravitational lensing.
Ah! I see what you are going for. This is the Redshift quantization argument for geocentrism, isn't it? The idea that the Universe is composed of a series of concentric circles rotating around the milky way, right?
I'll give it another try, perhaps this time you'll manage to actually understand what I write.
Consider the following scenario:
1. A group of famous scientists make a publication about red shift and the big bang theory. They demonstrate how well our experimental data fits with the expansion hypothesis.
2. They use the Doppler effect formula to prove that everything "fits". They assume that a distant object is moving in a direct line away from us, and show that the red shift values matches the experimental data "perfectly". Let's say the object is 10000 light years away from Earth.
3. Then somebody else finds out that the object's velocity actually has a huge lateral component. That fact had not been registered by ordinary astronomic observations, because even such a significant linear velocity resulted in a very insignificant angular velocity.
4. This means that the red shift value for this particular object, was not caused by its high transverse speed.
5. So, what the fuck did the first group of scientists "prove"? And how can we trust the rest of these publications?
And, it's funny you mentioned geocentrism, because that's exactly what Hubble's law is about. It's not Lorenz invariant, and therefore makes Earth the center of the universe. That is, if we avoid using Friedman metric, - which messes things up even more, but in a different way.
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.
The proof of the opposite is in my formulas posted in this very debate.
No, it's not. The argument here, if I may be so bold, is essentially this:
.
.
We see effect X in nature. This is a fact. Nobody disputes effect X. Explanation Y predicts effect X. Explanation Z also predicts effect X. In no way is this "proof of the opposite".
.
.
The entire premise of Explanation Z, is predicated on the notion that the entire universe is rotating around the earth on a flat planar-axis, that's the only situation in which explanation Z predicts effect X. And this is inconsistent with just about everything we know about the universe, which is why you must deny the reliability of distance measuring techniques, and why Astronomers don't take this argument seriously.
(I couldn't edit the typo in the original text, but I edited it here. Obviously I meant vellocity of M2 in the frame of M1, not M2 in the frame of M2):
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 M1.
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.
--------------------------- END ----------------------------------
If you don't understand the formulas, just say so.
If you do understand them but disagree with me, show me where I'm wrong.
Your formulas don't add anything new or useful to the discussion. It's math for the sake of including math.
"There's math! It must be science"
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.
"The fact that we see other galaxies moving away from us does not imply that we are the center of the universe! All galaxies will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe unless the other galaxies are part of the same gravitationally bound group or cluster of galaxies. A rising loaf of raisin bread is a good visual model: each raisin will see all other raisins moving away from it as the loaf expands."
Your formulas don't add anything new or useful to the discussion. It's mathematical obfuscation.
Bullshit. My formulas reflect the very essense of this issue. And they're not just "formulas", it's the basics of special relativity and should not frighten anyone who knows that theory.
Hey, there's math! It must be science.
There's no science without maths, at least not in physics.
"The fact that we see other galaxies moving away from us does not imply that we are the center of the universe! All galaxies will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe unless the other galaxies are part of the same gravitationally bound group or cluster of galaxies. A rising loaf of raisin bread is a good visual model: each raisin will see all other raisins moving away from it as the loaf expands."
Totally pathetic. This reasoning refers (implicitly) to GALLILEAN kinematics. And if we look at it from the point of view of special relativity, things are not nearly that simple. Your link is for schoolkids.
This has been explained to you multiple times
Nothing even closely resembling an explanation. Citing stupid popular sources is not the same as explaining something.
It makes no sense form any point of view unless you are comfortable dismissing vast bodies empirical fact.
I mentioned relativity, because the whole "Big Bang" sci-fi story appeals to that theory and without it, it will just fall apart.
Bullshit. My formulas reflect the very essense of this issue.
Your formulas don't add anything new or useful to the discussion. It's math for the sake of including math.
There's no science without maths, at least not in physics.
The idea that you are promoting is pseudoscience. Using mathematic equations in your arguments to lend a false sense of credibility to your claims.
Totally pathetic. This reasoning refers (implicitly) to GALLILEAN kinematics. And if we look at it from the point of view of special relativity, things are not nearly that simple.
That's neither here nor there. Of course they're not that simple, but the physics involved are true just as well. The fact of the matter is that all galaxies would be moving away from each other does not imply that the earth is the center of the universe. That's silly.
Your link is for schoolkids.
The link was from the Georgia State University Physics department. You are merely attempting to hand-wave information that contradicts your ridiculous claims.
Your formulas don't add anything new or useful to the discussion. It's math for the sake of including math.
Wrong. It's maths for the sake of physics. My formulas express 2 physical laws which are accepted as an absolute truth by mainstream physics. Try again.
The idea that you are promoting is pseudoscience.
I'm promoting the idea that the so-called "Big Bang" theory is pseudoscience. And I'm proving this from a scientific point of view.
The fact of the matter is that all galaxies would be moving away from each other does not imply that the earth is the center of the universe.
Hubble's law means just that. It means Earth is special. In any other refference frame, special relativity gives a completely different formula, for the same physical effect.
The link was from the Georgia State University Physics department.
That doesn't change a thing. In fact, I'm quite sure they're using this simplistic (Gallilean) approach, because using special relativity would completely screw up their wonderful story.
My formulas express 2 physical laws which are accepted as an absolute truth by mainstream physics.
This is mere sneering. No physicist I have ever met or ever heard of has asserted the "absolute truth" of much of anything. The only folks asserting anything as "absolute truth" are the religious folks. The fact is that you are attempting to argue that Hubble's law means something that nearly every professional astronomer or physicist will say otherwise with such an overwhelming consensus that I'm sure you have a conspiracy to explain it.
I'm promoting the idea that the so-called "Big Bang" theory is pseudoscience.
Well, you can promote it all you want, but you'd be wrong, and you're stuck attempting to argue that hubble's law somehow specifically only applies to earth, despite credible the sources I have cited and others have cited that stated otherwise in no uncertain terms. Your recourse thus far has been to hand-wave them.
Hubble's law means just that. It means Earth is special.
For the apparent fact that you say so.
In any other refference frame, special relativity gives a completely different formula, for the same physical effect.
No. No it does not. Reiterating a false claim does not make it so.
That doesn't change a thing.
I don't reckon it would change your opinion no matter the credibility of the source.
In fact, I'm quite sure they're using this simplistic (Gallilean) approach, because using special relativity would completely screw up their wonderful story.
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.