Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #720122 > unrolled thread

No universal expansion

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 03:56 -0800
    Re: No universal expansion Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-22 14:34 +0100
      Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 06:58 -0800
        Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:51 +0000
          Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 08:02 -0800
            Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:56 +0000
          Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 11:59 -0500
          Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 05:04 -0800
            Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:47 +0000
              Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 15:55 -0500
                Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 12:56 +0000
                  Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 05:58 -0800
                    Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 21:38 +0000
                      Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 22:52 -0500
                        Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:42 +0000
                          Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:23 -0500
                    Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 16:51 -0500
                      Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 22:28 +0000
                        Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 16:23 -0800
                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:40 +0000
                        Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 22:58 -0500
                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:40 +0000
                            Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:17 -0500
                              Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 20:18 +0000
                                Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 16:19 -0500
                                  Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 23:25 +0000
                                    Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 19:42 -0500
                                      Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 01:48 +0000
                                Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 16:33 -0500
                                  Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 23:26 +0000
                                    Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 19:50 -0500
                                      Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 01:48 +0000
                                        Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 08:22 -0800
                                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 16:58 +0000
                                            Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 09:05 -0800
                                              Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 18:32 +0000
                                                Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 10:56 -0800
                                                  Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 01:44 +0000
                                                    Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 00:02 -0800
                                                      Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 12:08 +0000
                                                        Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 07:40 -0800
                                                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 04:03 +0000
                                                        Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 11:53 -0500
                                                          Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 14:12 -0800
                                                            Re: No universal expansion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 14:44 -0800
                                                            Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 04:06 +0000
                                                              Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 11:51 -0800
                                                                Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 03:16 +0000
                                                              Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 13:44 -0800
                                                                Re: No universal expansion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-29 22:30 +0000
                                                                  Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 19:27 -0800
                                                                Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 03:16 +0000
                                                                  Re: No universal expansion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 19:20 -0800
                                                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 04:03 +0000
                          Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 14:10 +0000
                            Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:39 -0500
                          Re: No universal expansion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 10:41 -0800
                  Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 16:50 -0500
                    Re: No universal expansion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:40 +0000
                      Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:10 -0500
        Re: No universal expansion Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-24 23:46 +0100
          Re: No universal expansion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 19:19 -0800
            Re: No universal expansion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 05:44 -0500
              Re: No universal expansion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-25 10:18 -0800
    Re: No universal expansion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 11:39 -0800
    Re: No universal expansion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 10:26 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#721218

Odd
“. I give you the link to the response papers. You decide you 
have no interest in reading anything more. “
What I read didn’t refute anything.
I’m tired of looking through garbage.
You say you have something.
Copy/paste what you ‘think’ you have, and the link, and Ill read it.
Your MO tells me that you never do that. Why is that, Odd?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721395

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “. I give you the link to the response papers. You decide you 
> have no interest in reading anything more. “
> What I read didn’t refute anything.

And what exactly did you read that you believe supported your position
among the response papers? I’ll wait here while you stall. 

> I’m tired of looking through garbage.
> You say you have something.
> Copy/paste what you ‘think’ you have, and the link, and Ill read it.

I’ve ALREADY given you the link to the responses papers and you say you are
too “tired” to read them. 

> Your MO tells me that you never do that. Why is that, Odd?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721224

On 12/28/2018 7:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> “Cite one you think confirmed. ”
>> Cite one you think refuted.
>> Show where it refuted.
>> Can you copy/paste? Didn’t think so
>>
> 
> Let’s discuss your MO, John. You give a link to something you’ve read, and
> you dare me to read it. I’ve already read it. I’ve already read the
> response papers. I give you the link to the response papers. You decide you
> have no interest in reading anything more.
> 
You are a liar. You have given no links. I've asked for jUST ONE LINK TO 
YOUR BEST RESPONSE PAPER and you provide nothing but not even a list of 
papers but just a link to place that may provide such a list. Clearly if 
you were telling the truth and had actually read any of these papers, it 
would be a simple matter for you to just give us a link to your best 
argument.

Obviously you think that bluster, lies and name-calling is what science 
is all about. You are a fraud and liar and know no science at all. 
Knowing how to make primitive wooden toys is not the same thing as 
knowing science. You are a fool and not worth anyone's time.

John wins. You lose (again).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721284

benj
“Knowing how to make primitive wooden toys is not the same thing as 
knowing science. ”
I don’t think he can do even that.
I have shown him picture after picture that in some cases I made intentionally FOR him, and he’s never even shown me one example of what he says he does.
Nuthin there

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721287

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 2:12:32 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> benj
> “Knowing how to make primitive wooden toys is not the same thing as 
> knowing science. ”
> I don’t think he can do even that.
> I have shown him picture after picture that in some cases I made intentionally FOR him, and he’s never even shown me one example of what he says he does.
> Nuthin there

Expansion started at the Big Beginning. It was required
to get over the universes gravity. Otherwise the universe
would be a black hole. Black holes don't exist.
Inflation came first...
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721397

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> benj
> “Knowing how to make primitive wooden toys is not the same thing as 
> knowing science. ”
> I don’t think he can do even that.
> I have shown him picture after picture that in some cases I made
> intentionally FOR him, and he’s never even shown me one example of what he says he does.
> Nuthin there
> 

Picture? Picture? What is a picture you draw on a cad  program supposed to
prove in science? Hmm? 
Draw me how an electric motor works in your CAD drawing tool. Try that. Or
even draw me how a block and tackle system with ropes and pulleys lets one
man pick up a piano. Go ahead. Show what you think a picture can do. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721473

Odd
“Picture? Picture? What is a picture you draw on a cad  program supposed to 
prove in science? “
It proves I’m not an asshole like you, and will actually put my arguments forward instead of say ‘go look for it’.
You’re an asshole, Odd.
Not saying that to be mean, but just to try to make you more self aware. Okay? No hard feelings.
If you won’t explain why Crawford is wrong, you just don’t know.
Shut your hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721521

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Picture? Picture? What is a picture you draw on a cad  program supposed to 
> prove in science? “
> It proves I’m not an asshole like you, and will actually put my arguments
> forward instead of say ‘go look for it’.
> You’re an asshole, Odd.

I’m an asshole for dismissing drawn pictures in science? 

> Not saying that to be mean, but just to try to make you more self aware.
> Okay? No hard feelings.
> If you won’t explain why Crawford is wrong, you just don’t know.

I’ve provided you the links. If you don’t want to read, that’s on you. 

> Shut your hole.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721482

Odd
“Picture? Picture?”
IOW, Odd-
Present an argument or shut up

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721491

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"Picture? Picture?"
>IOW, Odd-
>Present an argument or shut up

YOU need to present an argument. All you have are empty claims and, 
sometimes, CAD pictures. No model, no equations, no argument, nothing!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721525

MM
“
YOU need to present an argument. All you have are empty claims and, 
sometimes, CAD pictures. No model, no equations, no argument, nothing! “
Sometimes some CAD GIFs that I illustrate my linked rotations MODEL.
Whereas YOU have presented...in 10 years....exactly NOTHING. Just like Odd.
At least nothing I’ve seen.

HVAC posted the odd useful tidbit, even.

But not you, and not Odd.
All you two do, if you’re not the same goofball, is belittle people.

Oh- except Odd one time said he thinks gravity is caused by ‘swarming gravitrons’. THAT was funny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721522

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Picture? Picture?”
> IOW, Odd-
> Present an argument or shut up
> 

I’ve presented articles. Read up or shut up. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721524

Odd
“I’ve presented articles. Read up or shut up. ”
You’ve presented nothing.
You never do.
Piss off

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#721396

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/2018 7:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> “Cite one you think confirmed. ”
>>> Cite one you think refuted.
>>> Show where it refuted.
>>> Can you copy/paste? Didn’t think so
>>> 
>> 
>> Let’s discuss your MO, John. You give a link to something you’ve read, and
>> you dare me to read it. I’ve already read it. I’ve already read the
>> response papers. I give you the link to the response papers. You decide you
>> have no interest in reading anything more.
>> 
> You are a liar. You have given no links. 

Bullshit. I have a link to a web page running a query from the INSPIRES
database, which web page also contained links. Those links lead to papers.
Surely you are not so boneheaded that you can’t click two clicks in to look
around??

> I've asked for jUST ONE LINK TO 
> YOUR BEST RESPONSE PAPER and you provide nothing but not even a list of 
> papers but just a link to place that may provide such a list. Clearly if 
> you were telling the truth and had actually read any of these papers, it 
> would be a simple matter for you to just give us a link to your best 
> argument.

See? You’re incompetent. You can’t find a citation index. You don’t know
how to use one. When someone gives you a query lookup result from one, for
a particular author, you can’t find the linked citation references. 

Let’s make an analogy of this. It’s like you can’t feed yourself a meal. So
you ask someone to cook one for you. When someone relents and serves you a
plate of food, you complain that you can’t eat the meat unless it’s cut up.
If someone then cut up the meat for you, you’d say, do you expect me to eat
this with my hands? And if a nursemaid actually loaded the fork for you,
you’d ask them to pick up the fork and put the BEST piece of meat in your
mouth for you. 

> 
> Obviously you think that bluster, lies and name-calling is what science 
> is all about. You are a fraud and liar and know no science at all. 
> Knowing how to make primitive wooden toys is not the same thing as 
> knowing science. You are a fool and not worth anyone's time.
> 
> John wins. You lose (again).
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720927

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/2018 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/25/2018 8:58 AM, john wrote:
>>>> Odd
>>>> “No, actually, the papers of David F Crawford have been systematically
>>>> repudiated. “
>>>> Reminds me of Halton Arp.
>>>> They don’t like it, they just don’t listen
>>>> 
>>> Hey that's Odd's rule too!  You just say something is wrong without even
>>> reading what it is.
>> 
>> I don’t know why you think I haven’t read Crawford’s papers.
>> 
>>> That way you are never polluted by reading heresy.
> 
> I think so because you have demonstrated this methodology over and over.
> 
> I"m still waiting for that reference that shows Crawford is wrong and a 
> crank. Unlike you I will then read it before I form my opinion.
> 
> 

Crawford isn’t a crank. He is however persistently wrong. 

I’ll point out, however, that you are guilty of what you accused me of.
Just a couple of posts ago, you were lauding Crawford’s paper as definitive
PROOF that the Big Bang model is wrong, no doubt because this is what you
want to be true as well. But you had not read any of the response papers to
Crawford’s. And so you formed your opinion BEFORE reading the literature on
the subject. And it took a woodworker to remind you how to do that
literature research. And you then compounded the error by accusing me of
neither reading Crawford’s paper nor the response papers, and instead of
just dismissing the paper unread. Mistake upon mistake, Ben, all in the
heat of the moment of knee-jerk defense of the fringe element. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720969

On 12/26/2018 9:10 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2018 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/2018 8:58 AM, john wrote:
>>>>> Odd
>>>>> “No, actually, the papers of David F Crawford have been systematically
>>>>> repudiated. “
>>>>> Reminds me of Halton Arp.
>>>>> They don’t like it, they just don’t listen
>>>>>
>>>> Hey that's Odd's rule too!  You just say something is wrong without even
>>>> reading what it is.
>>>
>>> I don’t know why you think I haven’t read Crawford’s papers.
>>>
>>>> That way you are never polluted by reading heresy.
>>
>> I think so because you have demonstrated this methodology over and over.
>>
>> I"m still waiting for that reference that shows Crawford is wrong and a
>> crank. Unlike you I will then read it before I form my opinion.
>>
>>
> 
> Crawford isn’t a crank. He is however persistently wrong.
> 
> I’ll point out, however, that you are guilty of what you accused me of.
> Just a couple of posts ago, you were lauding Crawford’s paper as definitive
> PROOF that the Big Bang model is wrong, no doubt because this is what you
> want to be true as well. But you had not read any of the response papers to
> Crawford’s. And so you formed your opinion BEFORE reading the literature on
> the subject. And it took a woodworker to remind you how to do that
> literature research. And you then compounded the error by accusing me of
> neither reading Crawford’s paper nor the response papers, and instead of
> just dismissing the paper unread. Mistake upon mistake, Ben, all in the
> heat of the moment of knee-jerk defense of the fringe element.

So like any lib you generate some major fantasy and jump into the middle 
of it as "truth" to you. Well enjoy the swim, woodworker.

Truth Is Belief. It is YOUR world, not science. I said that the Crawford 
paper is proof the Big Bang is wrong. But that presupposes that his data 
and measurements are correct. Science does not operate on religious 
beliefs, Odd. You do. Therefore if you can prove his paper is wrong then 
obviously Crawford proves nothing. And you have said over and over again 
(as above) that many response papers have indeed shown that. So I have 
asked you not for all these papers but merely references to your BEST 
refutation of Crawford's paper. JUST ONE. And You produce nothing. Over 
and over you produce nothing.

 From this one can only conclude that not only have you not read 
Crawford's paper but also have not read any of the response papers as 
well. But somehow in spite of this lack of knowledge you find to 
authority to declare Crawford a kook who publishes nothing but mistakes.

There is no knee-jerk here except from you. I ask you again give us the 
reference to the BEST paper that refutes Crawford's paper. More 
name-calling is not science. Don't you want to move from amateur up to 
real scientist? This is how it's done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720970

The universe has reached its size by expanding.
Expanding was from the very beginning.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720856

On 12/25/2018 7:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/24/2018 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Odd
>>>> “How would you reconcile this with coming to realize you’ve made a mistake? ”
>>>>
>>>> What is your thought process, here?
>>>> This is clear proof that BB is the mistake.
>>>> So you just ignore?
>>>> Did you read their work?
>>>> Is the math solid?
>>>
>>> No, not really. But you wouldn’t really be in a position to judge, would
>>> you?
>>>
>>> What you call “clear proof” is anything that appears to agree with you.
>>> Whatever is “proven false” is whatever you don’t like. Nice balance.
>>
>> How would Boinker know anything about science? He is determined to
>> maintain his total ignorance and therefore refuses to even read any
>> ideas that run counter to his ignorance. And that is especially true for
>> any data which disproves his beliefs. How can one argue with such
>> determination to remain stupid? You can't.
>>
>> This paper clearly shows the mistake of the red shift and expanding
>> universe.
> 
> No, actually, the papers of David F Crawford have been systematically
> repudiated. He nevertheless persists in the static universe model, and
> despite your rants that contrarian ideas are suppressed, you see that his
> papers have been published.
> 
> They’ve convinced no one of repute, note.

So what you are saying is that all those of 'repute" agree that his 
theory is "wrong". And they command authority based upon their 
reputations, number of papers they have published, their titles, how 
many awards they've been given and a general "consensus" of those in 
science (especially officers of science trade organizations. rather than 
actual scientists). In other words there is no actual science that shows 
his data to be wrong.

If you want to do science, Odd, rather than religion and politics, point 
us to a paper that shows the Crawford data is wrong. That is the key in 
the world of science.


>> Allow me to explain, John, how this result proves that the BB is the
>> biggest mistake of all physics.  Physics has assumed that the measured
>> Red shift is is due to Doppler and velocity. that infers that the
>> farther ojects are away the more their light gets shifted. And indeed
>> farther objects appear to be shifted more. This has given rise to the
>> theory of an expanding universe. And given an expansion, one can
>> logically run it backwards in time and ask when did it begin and how?
>> And this lead to the assumption of a so-called "big bang". All logical
>> and all consistent and all wrong.
> 
> Notice how differently you use “logical” compared to the way John uses that
> word. John would say that the Big Bang is not logical at all, because his
> mind tells him it can’t happen and therefore it must be against all logic.

You are correct in this. The "big bang" theory is indeed "logical" which 
is why it is widely believed to be true. It just happens to be wrong. 
Fitting most of the data isn't enough for science. A theory must fit all 
the data or it's wrong.

>> And this paper shows WHY! Because as you measure TIME INTERVALS from
>> distance places, namely gamma ray bursts, you find that such time
>> intervals are transmitted without any time dilation. In other words the
>> frequency of LIGHT is shifted down in wavelength but actual time
>> intervals are NOT changed with distance! This is a major key finding.
>>
>> What this says (as can be shown) is that the red shift is due to the
>> geometry of the ANGLE distance objects make with our space and not
>> because of the DISTANCE of the objects from us. The ANGLE changes
>> because of the geometry of distance! It's as simple as that.
>>
>> John, This paper is an excellent and very important find!
>>
>>>> I don’t think you know
>>
>> And as usual Odd is nothing but a senile babbling fool determined to
>> stay as stupid as he can for as long as he can.
>>
>> Hey Odd, you ignorant moron, Just READ that paper and then come back and
>> discuss science instead of puerile name calling.

Well I see this was pissing in the wind. The best "science" you can come 
up with to refute John is Crawford has "convinced no one of repute".

Great science, Odd. I think I'll go with John's imagination instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720922

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/2018 7:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2018 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Odd
>>>>> “How would you reconcile this with coming to realize you’ve made a mistake? ”
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is your thought process, here?
>>>>> This is clear proof that BB is the mistake.
>>>>> So you just ignore?
>>>>> Did you read their work?
>>>>> Is the math solid?
>>>> 
>>>> No, not really. But you wouldn’t really be in a position to judge, would
>>>> you?
>>>> 
>>>> What you call “clear proof” is anything that appears to agree with you.
>>>> Whatever is “proven false” is whatever you don’t like. Nice balance.
>>> 
>>> How would Boinker know anything about science? He is determined to
>>> maintain his total ignorance and therefore refuses to even read any
>>> ideas that run counter to his ignorance. And that is especially true for
>>> any data which disproves his beliefs. How can one argue with such
>>> determination to remain stupid? You can't.
>>> 
>>> This paper clearly shows the mistake of the red shift and expanding
>>> universe.
>> 
>> No, actually, the papers of David F Crawford have been systematically
>> repudiated. He nevertheless persists in the static universe model, and
>> despite your rants that contrarian ideas are suppressed, you see that his
>> papers have been published.
>> 
>> They’ve convinced no one of repute, note.
> 
> So what you are saying is that all those of 'repute" agree that his 
> theory is "wrong". And they command authority based upon their 
> reputations, number of papers they have published, their titles, how 
> many awards they've been given and a general "consensus" of those in 
> science (especially officers of science trade organizations. rather than 
> actual scientists). In other words there is no actual science that shows 
> his data to be wrong.

No, that’s not what I said. 
There have been responses to his papers. They’re easy to look up. 

> 
> If you want to do science, Odd, rather than religion and politics, point 
> us to a paper that shows the Crawford data is wrong. That is the key in 
> the world of science.

That’s easy. Use the citation index. It shows the papers that cite his
paper. 

> 
> 
>>> Allow me to explain, John, how this result proves that the BB is the
>>> biggest mistake of all physics.  Physics has assumed that the measured
>>> Red shift is is due to Doppler and velocity. that infers that the
>>> farther ojects are away the more their light gets shifted. And indeed
>>> farther objects appear to be shifted more. This has given rise to the
>>> theory of an expanding universe. And given an expansion, one can
>>> logically run it backwards in time and ask when did it begin and how?
>>> And this lead to the assumption of a so-called "big bang". All logical
>>> and all consistent and all wrong.
>> 
>> Notice how differently you use “logical” compared to the way John uses that
>> word. John would say that the Big Bang is not logical at all, because his
>> mind tells him it can’t happen and therefore it must be against all logic.
> 
> You are correct in this. The "big bang" theory is indeed "logical" which 
> is why it is widely believed to be true. It just happens to be wrong. 
> Fitting most of the data isn't enough for science. A theory must fit all 
> the data or it's wrong.

Well, it can’t have a clear and unambiguous prediction that is counter to
confirmed observational data. 
Got any examples of that?

> 
>>> And this paper shows WHY! Because as you measure TIME INTERVALS from
>>> distance places, namely gamma ray bursts, you find that such time
>>> intervals are transmitted without any time dilation. In other words the
>>> frequency of LIGHT is shifted down in wavelength but actual time
>>> intervals are NOT changed with distance! This is a major key finding.
>>> 
>>> What this says (as can be shown) is that the red shift is due to the
>>> geometry of the ANGLE distance objects make with our space and not
>>> because of the DISTANCE of the objects from us. The ANGLE changes
>>> because of the geometry of distance! It's as simple as that.
>>> 
>>> John, This paper is an excellent and very important find!
>>> 
>>>>> I don’t think you know
>>> 
>>> And as usual Odd is nothing but a senile babbling fool determined to
>>> stay as stupid as he can for as long as he can.
>>> 
>>> Hey Odd, you ignorant moron, Just READ that paper and then come back and
>>> discuss science instead of puerile name calling.
> 
> Well I see this was pissing in the wind. The best "science" you can come 
> up with to refute John is Crawford has "convinced no one of repute".
> 
> Great science, Odd. I think I'll go with John's imagination instead.

Your choice. That’s what he does too.

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720965

On 12/26/2018 8:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2018 7:56 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2018 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Odd
>>>>>> “How would you reconcile this with coming to realize you’ve made a mistake? ”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your thought process, here?
>>>>>> This is clear proof that BB is the mistake.
>>>>>> So you just ignore?
>>>>>> Did you read their work?
>>>>>> Is the math solid?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, not really. But you wouldn’t really be in a position to judge, would
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> What you call “clear proof” is anything that appears to agree with you.
>>>>> Whatever is “proven false” is whatever you don’t like. Nice balance.
>>>>
>>>> How would Boinker know anything about science? He is determined to
>>>> maintain his total ignorance and therefore refuses to even read any
>>>> ideas that run counter to his ignorance. And that is especially true for
>>>> any data which disproves his beliefs. How can one argue with such
>>>> determination to remain stupid? You can't.
>>>>
>>>> This paper clearly shows the mistake of the red shift and expanding
>>>> universe.
>>>
>>> No, actually, the papers of David F Crawford have been systematically
>>> repudiated. He nevertheless persists in the static universe model, and
>>> despite your rants that contrarian ideas are suppressed, you see that his
>>> papers have been published.
>>>
>>> They’ve convinced no one of repute, note.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that all those of 'repute" agree that his
>> theory is "wrong". And they command authority based upon their
>> reputations, number of papers they have published, their titles, how
>> many awards they've been given and a general "consensus" of those in
>> science (especially officers of science trade organizations. rather than
>> actual scientists). In other words there is no actual science that shows
>> his data to be wrong.
> 
> No, that’s not what I said.
> There have been responses to his papers. They’re easy to look up.
> 
>>
>> If you want to do science, Odd, rather than religion and politics, point
>> us to a paper that shows the Crawford data is wrong. That is the key in
>> the world of science.
> 
> That’s easy. Use the citation index. It shows the papers that cite his
> paper.

Sop you still have nothing. If it's so easy then just give me your BEST 
paper that refutes Crawford and I'll read it. Otherwise there is nothing 
to discuss but a bunch of vague innuendo.

>>>> Allow me to explain, John, how this result proves that the BB is the
>>>> biggest mistake of all physics.  Physics has assumed that the measured
>>>> Red shift is is due to Doppler and velocity. that infers that the
>>>> farther ojects are away the more their light gets shifted. And indeed
>>>> farther objects appear to be shifted more. This has given rise to the
>>>> theory of an expanding universe. And given an expansion, one can
>>>> logically run it backwards in time and ask when did it begin and how?
>>>> And this lead to the assumption of a so-called "big bang". All logical
>>>> and all consistent and all wrong.
>>>
>>> Notice how differently you use “logical” compared to the way John uses that
>>> word. John would say that the Big Bang is not logical at all, because his
>>> mind tells him it can’t happen and therefore it must be against all logic.
>>
>> You are correct in this. The "big bang" theory is indeed "logical" which
>> is why it is widely believed to be true. It just happens to be wrong.
>> Fitting most of the data isn't enough for science. A theory must fit all
>> the data or it's wrong.
> 
> Well, it can’t have a clear and unambiguous prediction that is counter to
> confirmed observational data.
> Got any examples of that?

Crawford says he does unless you can refute his findings.

>>
>>>> And this paper shows WHY! Because as you measure TIME INTERVALS from
>>>> distance places, namely gamma ray bursts, you find that such time
>>>> intervals are transmitted without any time dilation. In other words the
>>>> frequency of LIGHT is shifted down in wavelength but actual time
>>>> intervals are NOT changed with distance! This is a major key finding.
>>>>
>>>> What this says (as can be shown) is that the red shift is due to the
>>>> geometry of the ANGLE distance objects make with our space and not
>>>> because of the DISTANCE of the objects from us. The ANGLE changes
>>>> because of the geometry of distance! It's as simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> John, This paper is an excellent and very important find!
>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t think you know
>>>>
>>>> And as usual Odd is nothing but a senile babbling fool determined to
>>>> stay as stupid as he can for as long as he can.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Odd, you ignorant moron, Just READ that paper and then come back and
>>>> discuss science instead of puerile name calling.
>>
>> Well I see this was pissing in the wind. The best "science" you can come
>> up with to refute John is Crawford has "convinced no one of repute".
>>
>> Great science, Odd. I think I'll go with John's imagination instead.
> 
> Your choice. That’s what he does too.
> 
>>
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web