Video Image

Video URL

http://youtu.be/RBaDmv4Kk1E

Video Description

The Big Bang? Yeah ..."Whatever"! Prove it! Ok......let's start with Redshift!Here we present the evidence that shows we are in an expanding universe,all kindly explained by your friendly, neighbourhood science geeks! Essential Science!

Video Creator Bio

Currently Head of Science at a British Military School, I am a science obsessed dad, husband, ukulele playing sci-fi fan and leader of the fledgling Science Geek video empire on youtube. Our mission? To spread science knowledge around the world with a hint of insanity and a dusting of madcap humour.

3 months later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Mr. Prince,

As I have gone to great lengths to point out in my essay REALITY, ONCE, that appears at url http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1982, the real Universe is unique, once. As I have tactfully pointed out in my video JOE FISHER'S THEOREM OF INERT LIGHT, and as I will point out in my video JOE FISHER'S THEOREM OF INERT LIGHT THE MUSICAL, when it gets posted to this site, because it does not have a surface, light cannot move. Red Shifts and Blue Shifts are mere computational abstractions. Please stop teaching children erroneous scientific propaganda about the so-called "expanding abstract universe."

I did enjoy watching your video and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

With high regards,

Joe Fisher

    Dear Mr Fisher, your theories are complex and well argued. However, as a scientist, unless you can offer me concrete experimental or mathematical proof that your theories are true backed up by reproducible data from other scientists, I regret that I will be forced to continue teaching my students the "erroneous scientific propaganda" that you oppose. It's either that, or I get sacked for peddling unproven philosophical speculation.This is the last thing that I want to happen as it would result in myself and my family experiencing a life of poverty and, as this universe is "unique,once", I would hate to waste this single opportunity starving to death. I enjoyed watching your videos too. They certainly are unique and definitely should only happen once. I searched out your musical version too. Genius. George Formby would be proud. I genuinely hope you do well in the competition.

    Dear Mr. Prince,

    Reality is not experimental. In your video you implied that there are such things as "light waves" You helpingly showed graphic linear waves emitted from a graphic depiction of a galaxy. Real light cannot have a surface; therefore, depicting light as having a regular wave or systematic particularized surface is clearly mendacious propaganda. It is akin to showing angels with wings and halos. Your plea for me to show proof from credentialed physicists concerning my conviction of reality is reminiscent of the absurd myth about the skepticism of Saint Thomas.

    Although my video JOE FISHER'S INERT LIGHT THEOREM THE MUSICAL has been accepted, it will probably not be posted until next week.

    With my highest regards,

    Joe Fisher

    Dear Mr. Fisher,

    1) if reality is not experimental does this mean that nothing can ever be proven to be correct, including your own "light has no surface" claim? In which case....what makes you think you are right, baring in mind you can never actually prove it?

    2) The wave model of light is exactly what it claims to be. It's a "model", it doesn't pretend to be an accurate representation of reality or actually what light "is". Whether light has a surface or not is irrelevant as the model works in many cases which is why we were able to invent spectacles, television, optical fibres and smart phones!

    It is a model that breaks down completely when applied to explaining the photoelectric effect or black body radiation which is the whole reason we are now presented with the "particle model" or theory of quantum physics, which in turn, doesn't work in all cases and lead to the messy idea of wave particle duality and a universe of confused people who don't know whether electrons are particles, waves or both.... Models do not claim to be an accurate description of reality. They are merely a tool for predicting outcome and enable us to make sense of what we observe around us. They actually work pretty well at that and experimental science is the method we use to test them. Are you saying none of this is true or even useful?

    3) A challenge ....Imagine you are a teacher with a class full of thirty 15 year olds sat in front of you.... how would you explain your ideas to them? How would you explain to them that the theory of REDSHIFT and the evidence it provides for the Big Bang are actually, wrong and impossible in your version of reality? How would you explain to them your "Unique universe"...remember 15 year olds...adolescents.....it needs to be simple, concise, involve no big words, probably mention facebook, sex, computer games or a combination of all three, and make complete sense to people with the attention span of a unique goldfish. If you fail, you could potentially cause a riot or even worse, make them become religious as a way of coping with the complexity of it all.... tread carefully, their future is in your hands.... I eagerly await your response...

    with my highest regards also

    Mark Prince

    Dear Mr. Fisher,

    1) if reality is not experimental does this mean that nothing can ever be proven to be correct, including your own "light has no surface" claim? In which case....what makes you think you are right, baring in mind you can never actually prove it?

    2) The wave model of light is exactly what it claims to be. It's a "model", it doesn't pretend to be an accurate representation of reality or actually what light "is". Whether light has a surface or not is irrelevant as the model works in many cases which is why we were able to invent spectacles, television, optical fibres and smart phones!

    It is a model that breaks down completely when applied to explaining the photoelectric effect or black body radiation which is the whole reason we are now presented with the "particle model" or theory of quantum physics, which in turn, doesn't work in all cases and lead to the messy idea of wave particle duality and a universe of confused people who don't know whether electrons are particles, waves or both.... Models do not claim to be an accurate description of reality. They are merely a tool for predicting outcome and enable us to make sense of what we observe around us. They actually work pretty well at that and experimental science is the method we use to test them. Are you saying none of this is true or even useful?

    3) A challenge ....Imagine you are a teacher with a class full of thirty 15 year olds sat in front of you.... how would you explain your ideas to them? How would you explain to them that the theory of REDSHIFT and the evidence it provides for the Big Bang are actually, wrong and impossible in your version of reality? How would you explain to them your "Unique universe"...remember 15 year olds...adolescents.....it needs to be simple, concise, involve no big words, probably mention facebook, sex, computer games or a combination of all three, and make complete sense to people with the attention span of a unique goldfish. If you fail, you could potentially cause a riot or even worse, make them become religious as a way of coping with the complexity of it all.... tread carefully, their future is in your hands.... I eagerly await your response...

    with my highest regards also

    Mark Prince

    Reality does not have to be modeled and reality does not have to be proven. The one real thing that is common to all real objects is that each object has a real surface that is somehow attached to a real sub-surface. All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed. All you have to do is look at a real light source in order to see that real light does not appear to move away from its real source. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn has to be that real light cannot have a real surface.

    Your wonderful abstract modeled light which you claim is made up of a specific number of abstract photons moves in abstract waves or abstract particles in an abstract straight line at an abstract hyper-speed and all of the stars, and all of the planets, and all of the asteroids, and all of the comets, and all of the specs of astral dust, and all real objects move at some sort of inconsistent variable speed which only your experimental acuity can detect.

    I would have no problem explaining reality to any number of children. I am humble enough to believe that my grasp of reality is the same as everyone else's is.

    More puzzling than the fact that your post was published twice is the fact that at this site, the project author's name is usually given in an orange box.

    I am awfully glad that you are responding to my posts.

    Please keep it up,

    Joe Fisher

    2 months later

    Mark,

    What this video needs is... MORE CONVECTION! ;)

    Marc

    P.S. I see what you did here: you tried to make the FQXi people like you by tackling a "modern physics" subject, the cosmological redshift. It won't work: nobody understands what the FQXi people want, or what their plan is. But they have a plan.

    8 years later
    Write a Reply...