Water burns!
 

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).


That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.


No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

I have personally discarded the "Devine Creation Theory"
and most of the JFK assassination theories. I have also
discarded the "Red-Shift Theory" of the expansion of the
universe as will most astronomers in the near future.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light
isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Water burns!
 

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.

No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

snip remaining word games

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't
red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?

I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

wrote:
Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

Why is it OK to beat me about the head and shoulders
for accidentally omitting an adjective and not OK to
point out your omission of same?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light
isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?


I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.

It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler
shifting on any scale?

73, Jim AC6XG

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

Why is it OK to beat me about the head and shoulders
for accidentally omitting an adjective and not OK to
point out your omission of same?

I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your
life.

All your posts are rather cleverly crafted to produce maximum
consternation, I will give you that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.

It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler
shifting on any scale?

No, primarily on a macro (non-local) scale. Let's
say you had a cable stretching from our galaxy to
a distant red-shifted galaxy. What would be your
conclusion if the red-shift continued without
the cable breaking?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com