Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is demonstrated by nuclear power.
I think that all particles, in particular the neutrinos, have a mass at rest. Photon and graviton are not needed by serious theories<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What you mean is that they have found a way to ignore what light is because if they had to deal with it their theories wouldn't work. This is precisely why I have lost faith in "theories" they are designed to circumvent the unexplained rather than deal with it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />

Certainly everyone has the right to understand reality as he or she pleases.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, but it is not science. When a baby falls, he understands that something that we name gravity exists. If he puts his fingers in an electric plug, he experiments electricity, and so on. Science is interested by things which can be observed, then modeled by many people, not by ghosts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy

Certainly everyone has the right to understand reality as he or she pleases.

---

(JMB)Yes, but it is not science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Don't get me wrong, as far as I am concerned correct science is next to the final authority (after observation). My complaint is directed at those who lie or distort in the name of science. But then the advantage of science is that we can find those lies out. Eventually.
But ultimately anything we can say is just symbolic, a metaphor, and perhaps it really isn't that unreasonable to disbelieve everything. OK, singing is the exception.

Let me give you an example. THe Black Hole. THe black hole is a theory which was devised to explain how a body supposedly having a great gravitaional pull can spew out tremendous quantities of matter that is observed opposite to that which is theorized. If one goes to the person who is developing the theory, he admits it is just the only mechanism they can think of to explain what we observe. He states it is a theory. But as one follows the theory from the originator to the commentator to the press to the public, what was a theory becomes a fact, and then we read that the great outpourings of matter from galaxies is proof that a black hole exists there. In essense the falsification has become the proof.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />

Originally posted by Tommy
My complaint is directed at those who lie or distort in the name of science. But then the advantage of science is that we can find those lies out. ... THe Black Hole. ... In essense the falsification has become the proof.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I am not sure it is always a falsification, it may be ignorance of the foundation of the used theory. To make science, a rule should be used: learn enough to go back to the foundations of your thoughts. For instance, if you want to study reasonably an occidental religion, study Amenophis 4 ideas first!
Relativity is founded on Lie groups built using Lie algebra.
Look the simpler example of the groups of transformations which preserve the angles in three dimensions. One of them is obtained by a transformation by which any point M is transformed to m such that the scalar product of parallel vectors <b>OM</b> and <b>Om</b> : <b>OM.Om</b> =constant, with O fixed point. This transformation transforms a large, far region into a small region close to O. O is similar to a black hole! An use of this group to transform space appears absurd while its algebra may lead to acceptable groups.
With an algebra used in relativity, you may build reasonable groups or strange groups having singular points similar to O<b></b>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />

I was a radar tech when I was in the Navy. It took me 30yrs to understand how radiation could travel down a square pipe and not be shorted out.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
To have a propagation into your square pipe, the wavelength of the microwave must be smaller than two times the side of the square. Else, the pipe works as a mirror (fast, exponentially decreasing amplitude of the wave).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not sure it is always a falsification, it may be ignorance of the foundation of the used theory. To make science, a rule should be used: learn enough to go back to the foundations of your thoughts. For instance, if you want to study reasonably an occidental religion, study Amenophis 4 ideas first!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have no wish to study any religion in which the word is the thing...My point about the black hole is simply that what we observe is outflowing matter. But the black hole should be pulling matter in. So to make the foundational theory (gravitation) work they come up with the accretion disk, a mechanism which reflects excess inward moving matter back out and, they say, that is the outpouring matter we observe. Neat trick, but how then do they explain a black hole which does not have a surrounding environment to suck in?