Philosophy Now Forum

Then:
Yes, you're absolutely correct, it's way over your head, as always!

These are my last words with you, as to this, within this thread, because I refuse to derail Godfree's thread with meaningless off topic drivel just because you have a hard-on for confrontation. ENOUGH!

The "bro" had a different surname , can't recall it but they did show his pic ,
looked just like Einstein , I think they said he was the first of the newly created
public relations office .
deflected light ??? don't you mean "curved space time???
isn't his theory that gravity doesn't bend light ,
but rather gravity bends space and light follows the space,,???
Dr Hannes Alfven got a Nobel prize in physics for his work on ,in
Plasma Cosmology , in 1970
no big bang , universe not expanding , and infinite .
they can't both be right ,,???

Now now boys , lets not throw our toys out of the sandpit ,
Money will be a motivating factor , the government will try not to ,
fund theories and technology that contradicts or challenges their spin,
Look at western society , it's nearly all spin ,
capitalism , trying to con you into this that and the next thing ,
politics doing the same , and then we have religion , the king of spin ,
turn on the TV no surprise more spin and fantasy , spin and fantasy ,
I come here in the hope I can get an honest real response ,
some would say an unrealistic expectation ,
I agree with sob , money is weapon and is used to destroy people ,
many get rich , but usually at a cost to the poor,
I posted years ago that the poor do most of the work , and pay
most of the taxes , was rubbished for my claims ,
and now even Obama admits the rich pay less tax than his secretary ,
Capitalism is a cruel dictator , run by ruthless greedy individuals ,
who only care for themselves

It wasn't Einstein's brother.


The title of the piece was called "A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919" and the point is that it made Einstein famous before the big bang theory was popular.

It's one thing to challenge theories and disregard the generally accepted thinking but if you're going to make historical statements that are easily checked you might do well to make sure your facts are correct.

Well, that's a start. Now, if I can somehow expand your last words to include everybody else, I think I may very well be considered for a Nobel Prize.

I wish you'd use the word "erection."

Yes remembering things from tv doco's can be easily confused ,
but I took note when they showed the pic and it sure looked like Einstein ,
I'm playing detective , a who done it ,
both Einstein and Hubble originally had the universe as,
steady state ,
Hubble thought "tired light was the cause of the red shift",
and Einstein had already published works assuming steady state ,
it's like somebody got to them ,
and J Learner said his work on plasma cosmology ,
after being published in wiki , was then heavily censored by wiki,???
I have done a lot of googling and it was hard to find anything that contradicted the bb , and yet it is not the only model for the universe,
it is simply the most popular ,
according to most of the sites I did find , the observational data doesn't support an expanding universe,
so how did the bb get "popular"
by all the media attention given to Einstein, whos contribution to the theory was considerable , and the theory it's self .
so if you are interested , and have the courage to face it ,
think about the shape of the universe , the pattern of galaxies ,
like a honeycomb and the galaxies are the wax structure ,
galaxies clumped together in strings and bunches ,
sucking the bits out of the gaps in between ,
so what we see is a evenly spaced pattern of galaxies clumping together ,
that is the reality of the observational data ,
now be honest ,
does that sound like everything is expanding away from everything ??????