There is a huge misinterpretation of what the Cosmic Red Shift is, and this leads to the stupid idea of the infinitely expanding universe. Standard model claims that light is undergoing a doppler effect thus, the universe is expanding at a rate so fast at the "far edges of space" that it actually shifts the frequency of light towards the red spectrum. This is an absolutely retarded assumption.
In reality the cosmic redshift is due to an aspect that literally all waves (other than light apparently) have. Varied attenuation. Over long distances high frequency waves (bluer in the case of light) attenuate faster than low frequency waves(redder). Thus at further distances away, things have a lower frequency.
You don't even need space to be fake or ether to exist for this. This is true in the standard model; According to current science, space is not a pure vacuum... IE space dust etc. Why wouldn't this attenuate the light in the same way that sound waves are attenuated in the atmosphere? Especially over these long cosmic distances?
The doppler effect of light is as retarded as noting that an earthquake sounds deeper the further away from the epicenter you are, and then assuming that the epicenter of the earthquake must be moving away from you at a significant portion of the speed of sound.
This sub was literally created two days ago by the fag that got booted off of Poal by AOU for flat Earth, and came here and sperged out. He deleted his account, so there is no owner. But the main point is you don't have to post here. You can create your own sub or find another sub to post in.
I'm going to kill your analogy here. Waves decrease in amplitude as they travel, they do not change their frequency. Also, while you're right that high frequency waves do attenuate over time, what's being observed is the absorption spectrum of gasses in the atmospheres of stars. The frequencies of these would not shift and attenuation would not change where those bands were observed.
Not saying you're wrong, just saying the expanding universe theory isn't so easily attacked. There are several alternative explanations being worked on. Even Einstein was skeptical about the Big Bang.
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 11:18:59 ago (+2/-1)
Note: OP here I'm probably not going to use this sub as long as its forced anon for thread submission, I didn't even notice it was until it was too late and I don't want to repost//spam. I agree with those claiming that hiding behind anon is retarded.
Yes waves decrease in amplitude as they travel. But at a varied rate. That is to say further distances have an average higher amplitude in the lower(redder) frequencies. You don't have the baseline frequency from where its emitted, so you're assuming it was shifted rather than attenuated. I suppose technically I don't either, so neither of us can be "absolutely sure" so we have to look at the implications of the conclusions and use occam's razor: Is there varied attenuation like every other wave in existence (water waves, sound waves, earthquakes) or is there some fantastical explanation of the universe expanding at a significant proportion of the speed of light?
Again, attenuation doesn't matter, we're looking at absorption spectra.
If you had a really good prism and a really nice light slit and looked at the light coming from the sun you'd notice black lines in the rainbow produced. These are specific frequencies of light that drop out because the gasses surrounding the sun, hydrogen and helium mostly, absorb them. If you look at a far away star those lines are shifted. It's not merely seeing far-away stars looking more red.
Edit: Also upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted just because you're wrong.
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:12:45 ago (+2/-1)
Respect for being sensible
I understand what you're saying, but I don't expect the spectrum to be so ideal as highschool chemistry spectrometry. I'd have to see real data on this though, I could be wrong. Its kind of hard to find it, because searches just give a basic bitch explanation on the doppler effect.
There is another issue that is related though. All the information we have about the stars in the sky are the apparent brightness, and the angular(not actual) size in the sky(and also the spectrometry, but that adds another variable of the object's composition). A bright object could be any combination of close, large, or actually bright, and a dim object could be small, close or very dim.
I understand you can use a reference, such as the sun, but the flat earth argument follows that this uncertainty applies to all cosmological objects, even the sun. Is it small and close? or large and far away? It's a cascading problem, where the size and mechanics of the sun is determined by the gravity equations, and not the other way around. The reason gravity becomes the hard wedge issue in these debates, is because it is the final irreconcilable point.
Flat earthers(the few good ones at least...) see a long chain of bad assumptions piled atop one another to fix the holes that previous ones made. Now we have dark matter, yet again patching holes in the standard model.
Something you're missing about flat earth is that "a long chain of bad assumptions" no longer applies unless you believe a lot of people are actively lying to you, that man never landed on the moon, that there aren't probes on other planets and other s actively flying out of the solar system, and that there either aren't satellites or the way they work is completely different from what is portrayed. Instead of assumptions based on assumptions it'd be lies stacked on lies growing increasingly difficult to keep together.
I haven't measured those spectral lines myself. I haven't photographed the libration of the moon or the rotation of the sun showing they're spherical objects, though those lie within the realm of things I could practically perform. I'm relying on the teachings of others, maybe more than I should, which isn't truly following the scientific method. But at this point with all the information I've parsed I'm not so skeptical that the truth is being presented, simply because of how voluminous it is. There's a lot less argument about it than, say, global warming, where the consensus was obviously politically constructed.
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:54:49 ago (+2/-1)
Fair enough, I do think there are a lot of lies mixed in with the misconceptions, but I'm not going to argue too heavily on that here. I won't deny that it has to go heavily into speculation territory which is usually a pretty shitty angle of argumentation.
In any case I'll leave it there. Still, mad respect for the healthy discussion.
Not my field, but sounds reasonable on the surface.
I know a lot of kikes get into this field because they like to seem smart, and I've seen one plagiarize (on the subject of red shift actually) in real life. (Because they're not smart)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 4 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:24:48 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] nephileon
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:33:11 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 15:07:34 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] nephileon
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 16:31:10 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 8348324 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 11:08:32 ago (+3/-0)
Not saying you're wrong, just saying the expanding universe theory isn't so easily attacked. There are several alternative explanations being worked on. Even Einstein was skeptical about the Big Bang.
[ + ] nephileon
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 11:18:59 ago (+2/-1)
OP here
I'm probably not going to use this sub as long as its forced anon for thread submission, I didn't even notice it was until it was too late and I don't want to repost//spam. I agree with those claiming that hiding behind anon is retarded.
Yes waves decrease in amplitude as they travel. But at a varied rate. That is to say further distances have an average higher amplitude in the lower(redder) frequencies. You don't have the baseline frequency from where its emitted, so you're assuming it was shifted rather than attenuated. I suppose technically I don't either, so neither of us can be "absolutely sure" so we have to look at the implications of the conclusions and use occam's razor: Is there varied attenuation like every other wave in existence (water waves, sound waves, earthquakes) or is there some fantastical explanation of the universe expanding at a significant proportion of the speed of light?
I think the former is a better explanation.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 8348324 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 12:03:47 ago (+3/-0)*
If you had a really good prism and a really nice light slit and looked at the light coming from the sun you'd notice black lines in the rainbow produced. These are specific frequencies of light that drop out because the gasses surrounding the sun, hydrogen and helium mostly, absorb them. If you look at a far away star those lines are shifted. It's not merely seeing far-away stars looking more red.
Edit: Also upvoted because you shouldn't be downvoted just because you're wrong.
[ + ] nephileon
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:12:45 ago (+2/-1)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't expect the spectrum to be so ideal as highschool chemistry spectrometry. I'd have to see real data on this though, I could be wrong. Its kind of hard to find it, because searches just give a basic bitch explanation on the doppler effect.
There is another issue that is related though. All the information we have about the stars in the sky are the apparent brightness, and the angular(not actual) size in the sky(and also the spectrometry, but that adds another variable of the object's composition). A bright object could be any combination of close, large, or actually bright, and a dim object could be small, close or very dim.
I understand you can use a reference, such as the sun, but the flat earth argument follows that this uncertainty applies to all cosmological objects, even the sun. Is it small and close? or large and far away? It's a cascading problem, where the size and mechanics of the sun is determined by the gravity equations, and not the other way around. The reason gravity becomes the hard wedge issue in these debates, is because it is the final irreconcilable point.
Flat earthers(the few good ones at least...) see a long chain of bad assumptions piled atop one another to fix the holes that previous ones made. Now we have dark matter, yet again patching holes in the standard model.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 8348324 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:40:51 ago (+3/-0)
I haven't measured those spectral lines myself. I haven't photographed the libration of the moon or the rotation of the sun showing they're spherical objects, though those lie within the realm of things I could practically perform. I'm relying on the teachings of others, maybe more than I should, which isn't truly following the scientific method. But at this point with all the information I've parsed I'm not so skeptical that the truth is being presented, simply because of how voluminous it is. There's a lot less argument about it than, say, global warming, where the consensus was obviously politically constructed.
[ + ] nephileon
[ - ] nephileon [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 13:54:49 ago (+2/-1)
In any case I'll leave it there. Still, mad respect for the healthy discussion.
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3119302 -1 points 1.9 yearsJun 4, 2022 10:54:44 ago (+1/-2)
I know a lot of kikes get into this field because they like to seem smart, and I've seen one plagiarize (on the subject of red shift actually) in real life. (Because they're not smart)