Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 8:49 PM
33 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 170 (15123)
08-10-2002 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by frank
08-09-2002 8:01 PM


quote:
I suggest it means we don't have it right yet, we need to do more work.

It looks like more work has been done, no quantized redshift found with a larger more complete sample size.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0208117

[This message has been edited by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl, 08-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by frank, posted 08-09-2002 8:01 PM frank has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-11-2002 9:51 AM Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 170 (15194)
08-11-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl
08-10-2002 1:17 AM


^ That paper concerns the special case of pairs of quasars/galaxies that are 'on top of each other' from our line of sight.

The larger all-sky galaxy surveys do 'strongly' find the quantization effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl, posted 08-10-2002 1:17 AM Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 170 (15195)
08-11-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by frank
08-09-2002 8:01 PM


Frank

I will state it utterly clearly:

The Hubble interpretation of redshift quantization is membranes of galaxies centred on us.

Anything else is new physics.

PS 1 - Yes some creationists did believe in non-Hubble interpretaitons of redshifts. I never agreed with them. Having said that I will still allow any crazy idea the possibiity of being right. However, the standard theory is always the 'first port of call' - and that is the Hubble theory.

PS 2 - My scanner has blown up - I'll have to use the work one to scan in a creaitonist article! I hate doing that - I sort of feel like a Watergate burglar. You sort of even have the feeling that the scanner knows it's a creationist article.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by frank, posted 08-09-2002 8:01 PM frank has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 170 (15244)
08-12-2002 2:09 AM


HERE IT IS! We don't need to get my scanner working, AIG has just posted the Humphrey paper:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf


Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by frank, posted 08-12-2002 1:44 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 88 by frank, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 170 (15296)
08-12-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tranquility Base
08-12-2002 2:09 AM


Hope you were not injured in the scanner explosion. ""

Let me give this and Karl's link a read.

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-12-2002 2:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-12-2002 9:19 PM frank has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 170 (15318)
08-12-2002 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by frank
08-12-2002 1:44 PM


^ I think I plugged a printer powerpack into my scanner.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by frank, posted 08-12-2002 1:44 PM frank has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2002 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3846 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 83 of 170 (15322)
08-12-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tranquility Base
08-12-2002 9:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I think I plugged a printer powerpack into my scanner.

JM: Good, one less wacko creationist scanning propaganda!

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-12-2002 9:19 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 170 (15331)
08-13-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
07-18-2002 8:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It would be fascinating to see QM effects this large but as an ex-QM (quantum electrodynamics actually) researcher I doubt it.

Hey TB,

I knew some one must have thought of this besides me That, or I read about it somewhere. Sometimes it is hard to keep track.

"During inflation, these quantum mechanical fluctuations are amplified and due to the accelerating expansion of the universe they are stretched to macroscopic length scales."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 8:40 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-13-2002 12:52 AM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 170 (15332)
08-13-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by John
08-13-2002 12:44 AM


^ Your link doesn't work John.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John, posted 08-13-2002 12:44 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:27 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 170 (15356)
08-13-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tranquility Base
08-13-2002 12:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Your link doesn't work John.


It does now.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-13-2002 12:52 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-13-2002 9:16 PM John has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 170 (15391)
08-13-2002 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by John
08-13-2002 8:27 AM


^ Thanks.

Fascinating.

Maybe that's the origin of these membranes centred on us .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:27 AM John has not yet responded

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 170 (15448)
08-14-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tranquility Base
08-12-2002 2:09 AM


I was actually quite stunned to find the phrase "enemies of God" in a (supposedly) scientific/technical article. I would expect this from Osama bin Laden perhaps, but not here. Is this my mistake or not ?

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-12-2002 2:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-14-2002 10:14 PM frank has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 170 (15453)
08-14-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by frank
08-14-2002 7:16 PM


^ Frank - it wouldn't have been my style. But fundamentally we believe that - at the conscience level - people went the evolutionary route becasue they preferred reason to obedience. Although the reasoning sounds so good, obedience is the one that actually gets you to the truth in our opinions.

This does not for a second have to put anyone in the dark ages or diminish the advances of science. It simply means that if Christianity is correct, then there is something more important than reason. Family life for us is a teacher for all of life. Accountabilty, relational obedience and honouring of each other. Of course we also become smart, thinking beings but that is not what I like about my mother or my son! It is the same for God and us.

How can we make such outrageous statements? Simply becasue we are convinced that life is actualy more like what it feels like than what science tells us.

For example, our conscience tells us that we should be good, that what we do makes a differnce to other people, that what we do affects our own 'spiritual health', it even tells most (all?) people that there is a God. Our conscience tells most (all?) of us that we are not just flesh and blood. These things cannot ever be propoerly studied by reason so of course I can't prove it.

I am as sure that I am not just a walking brain as I am that DNA codes for proteins and yet I can't prove the former to you.

So our message is that if you just go reason you will miss out on the truth, on truly filling out your individual identity - and you will miss out on working out prehistory.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by frank, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 PM frank has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Joe Meert, posted 08-15-2002 7:21 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 93 by frank, posted 08-19-2002 7:28 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3846 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 90 of 170 (15476)
08-15-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Tranquility Base
08-14-2002 10:14 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Frank - it wouldn't have been my style. But fundamentally we believe that - at the conscience level - people went the evolutionary route becasue they preferred reason to obedience. Although the reasoning sounds so good, obedience is the one that actually gets you to the truth in our opinions.
I am as sure that I am not just a walking brain as I am that DNA codes for proteins and yet I can't prove the former to you.
[/QUOTE]

JM: Actually, the message of creationists is to accept 'truth' as defined by a small sect of christianity. You assume that one cannot be a christian and also accept that science got it right. Many christians behold evolution on an old earth being in perfect harmony with an all powerful god and fully consistent with the scriptures because the scriptures are not a scientific treatise. What you are arguing is that you have the singular handle on 'christian truth'. That's a rather pompous and self-serving statement and is inconsistent with the beliefs of many other Christians.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-14-2002 10:14 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-15-2002 7:22 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 170 (15493)
08-15-2002 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Joe Meert
08-15-2002 7:21 AM


--JM: Actually, the message of creationists is to accept 'truth' as defined by a small sect of christianity. You assume that one cannot be a christian and also accept that science got it right. Many christians behold evolution on an old earth being in perfect harmony with an all powerful god and fully consistent with the scriptures because the scriptures are not a scientific treatise. What you are arguing is that you have the singular handle on 'christian truth'. That's a rather pompous and self-serving statement and is inconsistent with the beliefs of many other Christians.

Cheers

Joe Meert--

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible, that Genesis should not be taken literally. Quite the opposite - it is qouted as history all over the old and new testaments.

Faith: Bible is the Word of God
Faith: God wrote the Bible, so we could know Truth
Conclusion: Only God's interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Now, if God wants us to know the truth, what is the only possible way for everyone to come to the same conclusions in the Bible? By reading it in a straight-forward manner -- not using your imaginations/preconcieved ideas.

Based on the above, there is a right way and a wrong way to read the Bible. That is why, one can be firm on a certain conclusion of the Bible, and not at the same time be arrogant. If you want to say Evolution fits in the Bible, you must go about it like this...

"You're going in with six days in mind. But abandon that, and read Genesis the way it was written. Don't you get evolution from it?"

David


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Joe Meert, posted 08-15-2002 7:21 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019