Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 94 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2018 4:47 AM
204 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,587 Year: 5,410/29,783 Month: 1,342/1,467 Week: 228/311 Day: 8/89 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1108
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 691 of 736 (827277)
01-21-2018 10:43 PM


What is the possibility for the creation of space to come from multiple points?
As opposed to a single singular starting point?

A Dark Energy start from say 1 million points?

Creationists often make an issue out of this singularity point.

I not so sure there is much mileage to get when once considers that the CMB can be observed.

CMB imaging should have buried this issue once and for all.

This was the only half-decent challenge to come from creationists IMO.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1108
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 692 of 736 (827279)
01-21-2018 11:08 PM


I looked up Arp on Google.
I put "multiple creation points halton arp" into the engine.

Hit 2 was a creationist site.

It appears that Arp's work has more to do with matter being created and not space.

quote:

Arp mentions in particular two major clusters, Virgo and Fornax, one in the northern sky and the other in the southern. See the large spiral structure in the Fornax supercluster shown in Figure 3. He says of these:

‘I am tempted to say that if there is a creator (and if so I would not presume to attribute anthropomorphic properties to it [shows his bias]) we might expect to hear: “Look you dummies, I showed you the Virgo Cluster and you did not believe it so I will show you another one just like it and if you still don’t believe it—well let’s just forget the whole thing”’.

....

The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community. Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang. It also calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts. In the section ‘Alternatives to the big bang’ on page 393 of his book,12 Joseph Silk criticises the (Quasi) Steady State model of Sir Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar (HBN) with some particular observations but admits,

‘Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided’ [my emphasis added].

Silk means that if quasar redshifts do mean that they are reliable as distance indicators then the origin of all matter was in the big bang. Arp disputes this, and, in fact, it is the main thrust of Arp’s observations! They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models.

Stephen Hawking has written a book13 that apparently alleges to be the ‘The theory of everything’. On page 22 he says:

‘The only reasonable explanation [is] … that the galaxies were moving away from us, and the frequency of the light waves from them was being reduced, or red-shifted, by the Doppler effect’.

The use of ‘reasonable’ implies that anyone who has good reason to believe otherwise must be one of those crackpots. Also Hawking knows that it isn’t really Doppler shift in the big bang model, but space expanding causing light waves to stretch. On page 23 of this book, he speaks of Hubble’s discovery writing,

‘… the galaxies all appeared red-shifted. Every single one was moving away from us’. [emphasis added]

Was it too much for him to tell the truth? He must know that the galaxy M31 in Andromeda and a few others in the Virgo cluster have blueshifts and are interpreted as moving towards us. Cosmologically speaking, these are in our backyard, so Hubble would have seen them in 1929. So how can you trust anything else Hawking says?14 Such is typical of the blind adherent defending his cherished belief.

Arp’s position is to call into question all so-called ‘velocity related’ redshifts, except for very small intrinsic motions of galaxies and up to about 0.1c velocities for ejected quasars. He instead assigns a large intrinsic redshift not only to quasars but also to galaxies. HBN are more conservative and though they accept Arp’s interpretation on the redshift of quasars they also accept that the galaxies have a cosmological expansion component. Arp’s interpretation of quasar redshifts, in any case, reduces the distance scale of the most ‘distant’ quasars by a factor of about 100 and their luminosities by a factor of 10,000. A lower luminosity for quasars then resolves the paradox regarding their unbelievable large luminosities.

Question?

But are we really seeing the creation of new galaxies? In my opinion, yes! But it all happened on Day 4 during creation Week. We are looking back into the past, millions or billions of years of astronomical time, but only thousands of years of earth time, to Creation Week and soon after (see ‘A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem’). We are seeing the creation of the cosmos under the agency of God.

‘The heaven declare the glory of God and the firmament [night sky] shows His handiwork’. (Psalm 19:1)

Depending on the exact extent of the time dilation factor (a measure of different rates of flow of time in the universe compared to earth time), we may be seeing creation as it is happening.

The process of quasars being ejected from the centre of active galactic nuclei is a creation ex nihilo event, well beyond our physics to describe, though HBN and Arp have attempted to do so

https://biblescienceforum.com/...s-declare-a-different-story


Not a space issue, or an issue of Dark Energy having many starting points (as opposed to a Big Bang singularity)


    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 693 of 736 (827292)
01-22-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by creation
01-21-2018 2:46 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
If light is moving then there has to be time along the space it is moving across.
Let's accept for the time being that is true. So what!!? I could set a clock, perhaps to move real slow. Or fast. It would still move.

Indeed, proving that the star game shows that we KNOW the distance to the SN. Thanks.

Because your clock affects both paths equally -- they are in the same space, just as our solar system is all in the same space.

If it is not true, then what is actually happening? What is actually happening appears equivalent to it being true. If there is nothing to distinguish between true and not-true, then the concept is pointless and irrelevant.

Let's put it this way

The existence of A is totally explained by theory B
or
The existence of A is explained by theory B modified by concept C, with this modification being completely undescernable, unevidenced and unmeasurable.

Which is the better explanation to use

B or B+C

Well if we subtract B from B+C and have nothing left over that would alter the explanation, then C is irrelevant ...

This, btw, is how Occam's razor works and it is why your fantasy has no legs.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:46 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 694 of 736 (827295)
01-22-2018 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 693 by RAZD
01-22-2018 9:26 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
razd writes:

...

Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite. It would need to be the same at all points to know distances.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 9:26 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2018 10:09 AM creation has responded
 Message 696 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 10:51 AM creation has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6102
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 695 of 736 (827303)
01-22-2018 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by creation
01-22-2018 9:37 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite.

And the evidence for this is zilch, while the evidence against this is both massive and unambiguous.

You seem to have been taken over by some strange form of religious zealotry which blinds you to facts, reason, and logic. You shouldn't be posting in the Science Forums here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:37 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 696 of 736 (827307)
01-22-2018 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by creation
01-22-2018 9:37 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite. ...

Says the person who denies that the game models this, and still ends up with a scientific distance to SN1987A.

Of course, admitting that fact would mean that the fantasy is exposed as the garbage concept it is.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts your belief is delusion.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:37 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7421
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 697 of 736 (827314)
01-22-2018 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by creation
01-21-2018 2:46 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

Movement does not mean moving in time as it is on earth.I could set a clock, perhaps to move real slow. Or fast. It would still move.

If you took the same clock with the same settings to multiple places it would tick at the same rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:46 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:38 AM Taq has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 698 of 736 (827324)
01-22-2018 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by creation
01-21-2018 2:40 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

percy writes:

You're repeating yourself instead of responding to what was said.
The answer hasn't changed. We know how much time passes for objects at great distances because we know how certain processes occur here on Earth,

Hilarious!!

This response indicates a lack of comprehension.

You just admitted you think you know how time is there because you are here and time works a certain way here.

When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs.


and we can observe how fast those processes proceed for distant objects.
NO. You only observe HERE IN time!

We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same.

For example, you can find the spectra of absorption for some common elements at Stellar Spectra, and here's the spectra for hydrogen:

We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space.

So what!!??

We see light here, and apparently it tells us certain elements exist in the star. That does not tell us how much time is involved.

Note: If you want to copy a part of a message that includes dBCodes for images or formatting, click on Peek Mode so you can see the raw text used to create the message.

Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component.


Depends how you define here. Your house? Your neighborhood? Your city? Your country? Your planet? Your solar system? Your galaxy? Your universe? Here in our universe, everywhere we look the laws of nature are the same out there as they are here.

How about what we know? What star have you crossed a street at?

The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up.

I have been generous and called the fishbowl the solar system and area. That is further than you will ever go, or any probe. Remember, your probe is less than a light day away. Get back to us when it is a whole week away!

The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there.

All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs.

Absurdly false.

Patently obvious, actually. You have neither provided evidence nor engaged any evidence offered.

I do not reject what we see here, or the time it takes here to move or etc etc! I reject beliefs that involve what is not seen.

The evidence provided is what we see.


What is true both observationally and theoretically is that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.

Based on what? How do you measure speed of light say, 10 billion light years away?? Ha. You made the claim, so let's see what you got.

c is a fundamental constant of the universe, and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:40 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2018 6:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 703 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:54 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10479
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 699 of 736 (827325)
01-22-2018 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by Percy
01-22-2018 6:25 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component.

I think the more important argument is that it implies that the same processes (the ones that are responsible for the light emission in the first place) are occurring at the same rate. In short by verifying that sun-like stars have spectra that look like our own sun, we have evidence that physics, including the passage of time, is the same as it is here even at places that are monstrous distances away.

The absorptions and emissions that make the spectra look different from a pure blackbody spectrum, are things that we know actually took place at the place where the light was emitted, and are governed by exactly the same physics as we use here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 6:25 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:57 AM NoNukes has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 700 of 736 (827476)
01-26-2018 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Coyote
01-22-2018 10:09 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch. God any actual science?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2018 10:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Percy, posted 01-26-2018 9:58 AM creation has not yet responded
 Message 706 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2018 10:30 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 701 of 736 (827477)
01-26-2018 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by RAZD
01-22-2018 10:51 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
razd writes:

Says the person who denies that the game models this, and still ends up with a scientific distance to SN1987A.

Of course, admitting that fact would mean that the fantasy is exposed as the garbage concept it is.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts your belief is delusion.

Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 10:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by Taq, posted 01-26-2018 11:03 AM creation has responded
 Message 709 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2018 1:24 PM creation has responded
 Message 712 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 8:31 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 702 of 736 (827478)
01-26-2018 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 697 by Taq
01-22-2018 1:36 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
[qs=taq]...[qs]No. You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Taq, posted 01-22-2018 1:36 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by Taq, posted 01-26-2018 11:02 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 703 of 736 (827480)
01-26-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by Percy
01-22-2018 6:25 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
percy writes:

When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs.

Not in any way is that true. The position of lines tells us nothing about time there. Only here. Yes there are elements and gasses out there. However that is only what we see, so who knows what else is also out there that we cannot detect? Science admits seeing only 5% remember? Not only that, but it does no good at all to see some elements when we do not know how far away or big they are! You MUST have time exist the same as here to know distances.

We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same.

IN ALL cases you are in the fishbowl of earth and solar system area! No exceptions. Thus far and no further.


We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space.
It is almost meaningless that the light we see here behaves a certain way here. That tells us nothing about time there. Without time there being as here, no distances/mass/sizes etc etc are known. E=We could get spectra from the space station of hydrogen also...so? That would be significant because we do know how far away that is.


Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component.
Most certainly not actually. The C is only representing light acting and moving IN time HERE. In fact all the symbols and letters in your formula are fishbowl figures!


The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up.
The actual point was that a street on earth is not appropriate in measuring deep space.
.

The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there.

The Voyager is on the fringes (at best) of the fishbowl. That has zero to do with nature in the past.

[qs]
The evidence provided is what we see.[/q] Then you see less than I thought.


c is a fundamental constant of the universe,
You are mistaken as shown. C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe.

and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here.

Not at all. You do not just get to declare the speed of light in the fishbowl some universal constant. The fine constant structure also is a fishbowl concept. So is any force or anything else here. Energy also.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 6:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Percy, posted 01-26-2018 6:40 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 704 of 736 (827481)
01-26-2018 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by NoNukes
01-22-2018 6:52 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
nonukes writes:

..

Too bad none of that tells us anything abut time there. Since we NEED time to exist to know distances and sizes, seeing hydrogen or something doesn't help since we do not know how far away it is.

Also, when we see it here, at any rate....that is the rate here. We only could see it that way here where time exists!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2018 6:52 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2018 9:01 PM creation has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 705 of 736 (827482)
01-26-2018 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by creation
01-26-2018 9:33 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
From your Message 700, Message 701 and Message 702:

creation writes:

The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch.
...
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
...
You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.

Much, much more than zilch evidence has been presented to you. You're just avoiding addressing it.

God any actual science?

Little Freudian typo there?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:33 AM creation has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
484950Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018