Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

zynner · Oct 23, 2005, 10:13 pm

Sonart,

You attacked the person and ignored the evidence he provided for his argument.

That's an ad hominem.

You do it a lot.
- - - - -

Sandy,

You obviously didn't bother to read it. The ultimate conclusion one would reach if this theory were true is that the universe has always existed. That takes away any concept of a god as "creator." So, I doubt he is trying to prove such a thing with this theory.

But, you didn't bother to read it or even find out anything about it, so I understand why you would jump to an uninformed conclusion -- and yet another ad hominem.
- - - - -

SteveA,

The point of Arp's idea is that the current explanation of redshift is wrong (or mostly wrong). If so, then that leaves anything that flows from that wrong explanation open to re-examination, as well.

We already know that stars burn out or die out over time. If there is a process such that new stars form, go through a life cycle, die out, return the basic material to "the universe" and new stars are formed starting the cycle again, then the burn out issue would not be a problem. We know there is a cycle of life here on Earth for organic material. We know that the weather constantly creates new storms (like hurricanes) that have a life cycle of sorts. It doesn't seem such a stretch that galaxies and other matter in the universe do the same sort of thing.

Also, keep in mind that black holes are an assumption. They have not been (probably can't be) proven. But if the mainstream concepts of how the universe works have a fundamental flaw (explanation of redshift), then that opens the possibility that there is no such thing as black holes. It changes much of what is commonly thought about the universe. Much of what is commonly accepted is speculation, some of which might be based on false premises, and some of which doesn't seem to fit with the evidence. The key is: what theory really fits the evidence?

I bring it up because I had never heard of Arp's idea, though it fits with what I have always thought made sense. I'm not a scientist, just interested in the truth. I did not know that there are competing theories that seem to explain the evidence better and that are apparently being shut out of mainstream science for reasons other than the best interests of science itself.
- - - - -

Mostly, I'm interested in what some of the more knowledgable scientist types around here think of it. And in forming an opinion about it, is that opinion based on the evidence first, or on the dogma of a particular theory first?

~ zynner

Oct 23, 2005, 10:13 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
zynner Hot Lava Posts: 817	Sonart, You attacked the person and ignored the evidence he provided for his argument. That's an ad hominem. You do it a lot. - - - - - Sandy, You obviously didn't bother to read it. The ultimate conclusion one would reach if this theory were true is that the universe has always existed. That takes away any concept of a god as "creator." So, I doubt he is trying to prove such a thing with this theory. But, you didn't bother to read it or even find out anything about it, so I understand why you would jump to an uninformed conclusion -- and yet another ad hominem. - - - - - SteveA, The point of Arp's idea is that the current explanation of redshift is wrong (or mostly wrong). If so, then that leaves anything that flows from that wrong explanation open to re-examination, as well. We already know that stars burn out or die out over time. If there is a process such that new stars form, go through a life cycle, die out, return the basic material to "the universe" and new stars are formed starting the cycle again, then the burn out issue would not be a problem. We know there is a cycle of life here on Earth for organic material. We know that the weather constantly creates new storms (like hurricanes) that have a life cycle of sorts. It doesn't seem such a stretch that galaxies and other matter in the universe do the same sort of thing. Also, keep in mind that black holes are an assumption. They have not been (probably can't be) proven. But if the mainstream concepts of how the universe works have a fundamental flaw (explanation of redshift), then that opens the possibility that there is no such thing as black holes. It changes much of what is commonly thought about the universe. Much of what is commonly accepted is speculation, some of which might be based on false premises, and some of which doesn't seem to fit with the evidence. The key is: what theory really fits the evidence? I bring it up because I had never heard of Arp's idea, though it fits with what I have always thought made sense. I'm not a scientist, just interested in the truth. I did not know that there are competing theories that seem to explain the evidence better and that are apparently being shut out of mainstream science for reasons other than the best interests of science itself. - - - - - Mostly, I'm interested in what some of the more knowledgable scientist types around here think of it. And in forming an opinion about it, is that opinion based on the evidence first, or on the dogma of a particular theory first? ~ zynner