tldr

wat. Redshift is an indicator of how far away something is and it is an indicator of how fast something is moving, that is, according to mainstream astrology. Both of those things are what redshift indicates.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Mar 21 2012 03:03pm

It happened

AKA why the sky is red at sunset and blue when the sun is closest to us.

Visible light spectrum was the hardest thing to wrap my head around in astronomy class.

Besides scale.

That's not a result of redshift. That's a result of different altitudes of matter in the atmosphere scattering light from different angles. I.e. a certain part of the atmosphere has more oxygen and nitrogen which makes for a blue shade while the lower in the atmosphere there is a red shade. Google it if you want to know more.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Mar 21 2012 07:00pm

No, I don't mean that at all. If you were merely stating that scientists are wrong then it would be up to the data to decide. You are not merely stating that scientists are wrong, you are stating that "I really don't care if physicists and cosmologists have rejected it. They reject everything that is against the big bang. Duh."

Here's how science works: You have some data. You build a model that fits that data. You then test the predictive power of that model against more data. You modify the model if needed.
Regarding global cooling, the data was superceded and the model of global cooling fell, to be replaced by a better model.
Regarding the big bang, the data has kept pouring in, and the model has been continually adjusted, and our certainty has increased.
Regarding plasma cosmology, the data has kept pouring in, and the model has been found lacking, so it has been largely abandoned.

So yes, scientists reject everything against the big bang. I claim that it is because they are scientists and are following what the data bears out. You are claiming that their testimony doesn't matter because they are doing a big cover up.
That is where Occam's razor comes in to it. It's not about scientists being infallible, it's about scientists being scientists. It's obvious there was no conspiracy regarding global cooling, otherwise the superior model wouldn't have been adopted once the data arose.

too bad he's not crediible

not sure if you knew this but..

"The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist"

if you start googling you find that half the stuff you posted is bullshit

thats actually not true, scientists dont reject everything against the big bang. when there is actually legit evidence that doesnt agree with the current big bang model, they try to adjust the model to accommodate it or offer some other explanation.

one example of this was when they found out the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. The previous model predicted the expansion should be slowing because of gravity. So, they adjusted the standard big bang model and worked in dark energy


scientists dont really pay antention to the stuff aetheric is posting for several reasons:

1) the things he posted arent that big a deal or can be explained
2) the things he posted are bullshit like in the case of arp and lerner

This post was edited by novocane on Mar 21 2012 08:24pm

So apparently as long as the data of a global cooling keeps pouring in while the data of the global warming is being refuted then we can rest our eyes in peace, even though this already happened and we now support the global warming model. Thank you for clarifying that.