uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 5:05 amI noticed that you have changed some of your wording, in attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic...
No Age, I'm trying to make it clearer.
LOL You are NOT doing a very good job then. For example, what does the word 'it' here refer to EXACTLY?
If you want to make things CLEARER, then say what you ACTUALLY mean.
What, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' say and make clearer here?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
The observations are unambiguous
I KNOW.
I have continually told you this.
I have also continually told you that it is the 'interpretations', which are Wrong, False and Incorrect, and NOT the 'observations', themselves. How many times do I have to inform you of this before this becomes UNDERSTOOD?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
- the more distant the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted.
As I said and wrote previously;
I noticed that you have changed some of your wording,
I also provided the reasons for you changing some of your wording, that is;
in an attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic, but these changed words do NOT hide and conceal what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, and which you are just 'trying to' back up and support.
Oh, and by the way, when did this 'unambiguous observation' change? Last time you wrote it was NOT "the more distant the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted"?
Also, what does "more its light is red-shifted" ACTUALLY MEAN?
Because the 'it' word here infers or implies that 'that' galaxies OWN light is more red-shifted.
Therefore, are you now 'trying to' suggest that the red-shift, and the blue-shift, and that that shift is 'more red' or 'more blue' depending on the distance the galaxy is from earth/the observer, and that this applies to ALL and EVERY galaxy? Or, are you 'trying to' suggest something else here?
If it is the latter, then 'what', EXACTLY, are you now 'trying to' suggest is true, right, and correct?
Is it correct, or incorrect, that there are some galaxies, which are further away than other galaxies are to earth, but which are blue-shifted, while the closer galaxies are red-shifted?
Your completely Honest answer here would be much appreciated.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
The Doppler effect explains red-shift in terms of relative motion. If the Doppler effect is the reason for the observed red-shift, then the more distant the galaxy, the greater the relative velocity.
Considering that this has NOT YET been tested AND verified, then this "the greater the relative velocity" is ONLY what is ASSUMED to be what is happening and occurring, and true.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
That is consistent with an expanding universe.
You, STILL, have NOT YET comprehended what I have be saying and alluding to.
And this is because you just want to be HEARD instead of wanting to LISTEN.
Also, here is now where we get to the original and currently held BELIEF, which is causing all of these added on and extra words, in an attempt to 'try to' and make what you are saying more believable and more realistic/more true.
The 'expanding Universe theory', is just PLAIN Wrong and False, but as I alluded to earlier, this ALL DEPENDS on how one defines the word 'Universe' here.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
My clarifying question to you is which part of that chain of reason is the weakest link? Is it:
1. The galactic red-shift is an illusion?
NO.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
2. The Doppler effect does not explain variations in frequency?
NO.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
3. Expansion does not account for differences in relative motion?
NO.
AND, if these are the ONLY clarifying questions you can ask here, then this just SHOWS OWN BELIEF here, and REVEALS FURTHER just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE.
I am using those pages as references to what I am POINTING OUT and ALLUDING TO.