Also, if that astral body is a gazillion miles away, how are you going to get two perspectives on it to see if there is parallax or not? Even if you do that, you can't prove it's not a hologram.
Holograms, iphone screens... what are you even on about? Are you alluding to the firmament, e.g. the idea that stars are merely dots of light painted on a surface very near to earth? Have you been reading the bible or something? Read this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax If you're going to wander off into lala land, you at least owe it to yourself to understand the theories and evidence you are casually discarding.
You believe in singularities, but want to accuse me of going bible? Please! Your black holes, heat death, and big bang are all singularities of MATH EQUATIONS, with zero evidence of being real!
Edit, in fact all those singularities are gone if you take infinity out of the equation. Infinity is also not real. Can you prove infinity is real?
In other words, even background radiation and redshift are not provable as NOT being caused by, for instance, the surface of a bubble refracting light in a closed system. That would also explain why there is light going in every direction, aka "everything is moving away from each other" heat death religion.
That's not science, but guesswork built on basic assumptions that are not provable, it's all measurements in a void. If the universe was proven to be a closed system, all that science and your whole cosmology goes in the bin.
We got models. They work pretty good as far as we can measure. That some other model could potentially explain the same measurements doesn't change that fact.
If someone proposes some other model that explains something better, ie with same or better accuracy and/or with less assumptions, then great!
Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities, which are not observable, yet it cannot explain real observations, like missing energy sources and background radiation. No math changes these facts. It's all in your head.
What can you say that proves ANYTHING one way or another? You have nothing.
Anyway, that's a great example of the kind of thing that, indeed, makes conspiracy theories very hard to debunk: at this point you've practically admitted you're not interested in reason. That's why it's not worth it to try. Hence, the existence of the downvote button.
I'm not saying "we can't know" i'm saying YOU CANT KNOW based on your sophistry and unscientific beliefs. You can't think far enough to reason that what I'm saying INVALIDATES YOUR SCIENCE. Start from there. Validate your science against what I have said in these comments (you have to aggregate it across all the others I just debunked).
Instead, in the real world, we go with Occam's razor until we get evidence strong enough to shake us out. It's not perfect, but it beats the crap out anything else we've tried.
FWIW, you're probably not completely wrong about infinity. I rather suspect singularities are not physical, and quantum gravity will erase them. I know there are some mainstream physicists agree. Cosmological distance and event horizons are here to stay, though.
Also, still not a Marxist. That only gets funnier every time you repeat it.
> Occams Razor
Pick one.
My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. My goal is to bust the cosmology everybody is being told. I'm using examples from mine to invalidate the standard, because all I know is the truth, why would I make this up?
You think the cosmology in question satisfies Occam's Razor because it's simple to you based on what you have learned and been told. Sure the model does some neat things, and all of them down here on Earth. Yet the system is clearly anything but simple, it's AN INFINITELY OPEN SYSTEM allowing for a lot of "things that need to be explained". Occam's Razor is precisely why you should be suspicious.
If my cosmology is simpler you won't believe me still. You can't believe anything else until you you cease believing that any real science has ever been done on the cosmos. Observation alone not 'nuff.
FWIW, my cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Expansion is a mirage of light convolution, all the way until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor. (NOTE: The standard model does not prove "everything in the universe is moving away from each other", it extrapolates that from the appearance of redshift in all directions; expansion is not "observed").
A new cosmology doesn't have to explain everything that the standard model does, because most of that is black hole fiction.
The funny thing about my mention of marxism is that most of the cosmological pushback I got came under that comment rather than my first one. It was the marxism that that did it lmao.
And how is it possible that the conspiracy groups can't gather some money to raise a balloon and prove the earth is flat or buy access to an Earth based telescope and prove their ideas using evidence?
NASA is just a church pushing doctrine. I'm challenging their dogma. If it had been the Vatican or Putin, my argument would be the same.
Also maybe you are the only one alive and we all the rest are your dream? We can\t prove to you it is not true so if you are dogmatic about things then we are wasting our time trying to use reason here.
I already told another marxist i'm not arguing for not-knowing, I'm arguing against believing dogma, I'm invalidating your science first, then we can get to mine. You are arguing for your beliefs in the face of invalidation, so you come up with arguments claiming i don't think we can know anything. I didn't say that.
Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?
The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth.
I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together.
You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars.
Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...
Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively.
I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.
I'm not pushing my models or cosmology, I'm destroying the lie of academic cosmology based on weak rational sciences. I cannot convince you of another cosmology if you can't disbelieve what you've been told. You believe science has actually been done on the cosmos, because measurements.
You believe big bang, black holes, entropy and heat death, and infinite space, rather than reckoning those are things that disprove. You believe thermodynamics is universal and eternal, despite the fact that life itself breaks with them, and is older than most of your "stars" in "space". You deny your own existence to believe in scifi universality.
No internet link is going to convince you otherwise.
If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe.
You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe.
I copied from another commend of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day.
My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far).
Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.
Wait until Elon's starships are used for World War and never go that mirage called Mars!
As long as the public believes! That's the way science should work. No, that's how marxism works, sorry I was confused there...
That explains my downvote at least. Not a moderator, but a marxist though.
The quantum never becomes real, it's a toy car, a model that works on small things correctly. Believing it also gets the big things correct is a truly a stretch, and just plain dumb.
Nothing about these cosmos is verifiable, it's all extrapolations and interpolations, in other words rationalization for the unprovable.
Of course they aren't real, that's the entire point.
A model is a simplified mathematical description which, within a specified domain ie range of input values, is able to provide predictions.
The models we care about provide useful predictions, ie ones that match measurements to a sufficient degree, with a limited number of inputs[1].
[1]: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/21/how-to-fit-an-elep...
Without infinity, cosmology as you believe it is cooked. Infinity is just a way of pretending it's not a closed system. Anything is possible in an infinitely open system.
Btw, users downvoted you, not moderators, and one of the site guidelines specifically asks you not to go on about downvotes.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Looking closely at the data from Hubble/Webb is how scientists prove (e.g. [1]) and disprove/adjust (e.g. [2]) the quantum models you speak of.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html
[2] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/20846/20141124/hubble-obs...
Staying WITHIN THE MODEL for all validation is precisely how you come these silly conclusion about the universe (big bang, heat death).
Considering that the Big Old Bang and Heat Death are based off plugging Infinity into quantum models, and therefor not real, these new images may not even be of objects lightyears away (also a model). They can't prove they are not zooming on something closer.