[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

Well, the fun is running out on this one, dad. Apparently you understand nothing of philosophy or science.

Philosophy doesn't enter the picture, and you can't back up your science claims. No one came to your rescue, so, you lose.

 

[Slevin]

Philosophy doesn't enter the picture, and you can't back up your science claims. No one came to your rescue, so, you lose.

Science is philosophy, as is all speculation of the universe. There, again you demonstrate no understanding.

 

[dad]

Science is philosophy, as is all speculation of the universe. There, again you demonstrate no understanding.

Science is not philosophy.
"Science Is Not Philosophy or Theology

Rudy Bernard,
Professor
Michigan State University

I think part of the problem arises from thinking/teaching that science can explain eveything. Science is necessarily materialist in its methodology and in the scope of what is studied (the natural world). It does not necessarily follow that science encompasses all of reality or that science can answer all the questions that humans have about the nature of reality. Science has given us amazing knowledge about the universe, and I am privileged to have spent my life in science, but there are many important things that science is not equipped to deal with. Many writers have used evolutionary theory as an argument against God and religion in general, but this is to take science beyond its realm of competence. It is important not to confuse science with philosophy or theology or to deny the valid role of these areas of thought. I find no opposition between my belief in a Creator God and evolution. Scientists need to spread that word more widely to nonscientists, to the general public. Ken Miller has written a wonderful book on this topic, "Finding Darwin's God," in which he masterfully refutes the intelligent design and irreducible complexity arguments while upholding a religious view. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, nor are all scientists philosophical materialists."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813#161


Apparently, the 'understanding' you think you demonstrate is a few watts short, of a 20 watt bulb.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Science began with Philosophy, one can argue! Democritus, I believe, first came upon the idea of the Atom in the 3rd century BC. Just an Idea! But, a valid ascertainment even then. Intelligent Design is just a science, that one day will be called Information Theory in scientific circles. Slevin presents facts that are knowable and can be proven. You on the other hand demand that we accept your theories, without any evidence to back it up! Philosophy merely means "the love of wisdom." You, however have none, despite your "so-called" Bible Claims. If you think your gonna win us over by your demands, it just won't fly! Move your soapbox somewhere else. Only a brainwashed cultist' would listen to you!

 

[blunthitta4life]

Perhaps Dad will submit his split/merge universe theory into an astronomy jounrnal so his work can be peer-reviewed by individuals who actually have degrees in astronomy and astro-physics.

 

[dad]

Perhaps Dad will submit his split/merge universe theory into an astronomy jounrnal so his work can be peer-reviewed by individuals who actually have degrees in astronomy and astro-physics.

How would they know anything about it? They deal in what now is, and as I said, science can't tell us the state of the future or far past. They simply assume it was always like this, and work from there, and only from there.

 

[dad]

Science began with Philosophy, one can argue!

Right, natural philosopy! And it progressed inot what it is, the study of the natural.

Democritus, I believe, first came upon the idea of the Atom in the 3rd century BC. Just an Idea! But, a valid ascertainment even then. Intelligent Design is just a science, that one day will be called Information Theory in scientific circles. Slevin presents facts that are knowable and can be proven.

No, that is my point, that is false. We both accept science, he just tries to apply it with NO proof whatsoever to the far past and future!!!
I, on the other hand, realize that can't be done, science has limits. It only deals in the natural. But I have spiritual evidences, where he has nothing.

You on the other hand demand that we accept your theories, without any evidence to back it up! Philosophy merely means "the love of wisdom." You, however have none, despite your "so-called" Bible Claims. If you think your gonna win us over by your demands, it just won't fly! Move your soapbox somewhere else. Only a brainwashed cultist' would listen to you!

Hey, believe what you want, but don't pretend it is scienvce, or that you have a bible case! Ther is no convincing needed, you have no case for a same past with science. And I haven't seen you present a bible case in any way to back your snide little false accusations, that my case is 'so called'!
You want to insult, and run, fine. But remember you had nothing at all to say.

 

[blunthitta4life]

Oh I get it, back to being a hypocrite.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? WHERE ARE THE EXPERIMENTS DONE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY?

Seriously, why should the astrological scientific community be worried about your new theory?

Explain to me why your theory is correct with PRECISE DATA AND SPECIFICS.

 

[Darrell dunn]

Over the last 25 years God has told me that He makes up all of the universe, He is not everywhere, BUT THE EVERY WHERE!

And when I asked, He told me as His family grows, so does he.

 

[dad]

Oh I get it, back to being a hypocrite.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? WHERE ARE THE EXPERIMENTS DONE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY?

Oh I get it, back to being a hypocrite.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? WHERE ARE THE EXPERIMENTS DONE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY? You have a sceince claim. It needs natural evidence and support, and testing, and etc! I have a bible claim, and all the support you could dream of.

Seriously, why should the astrological scientific community be worried about your new theory?

I think the astrologists are OK.

Explain to me why your theory is correct with PRECISE DATA AND SPECIFICS.

If you don't believe God and the bible, NO!!! All I will do is expose you as having no proof for your so called science same past claim. Dig?

 

[dad]

Over the last 25 years God has told me that He makes up all of the universe, He is not everywhere, BUT THE EVERY WHERE!

And when I asked, He told me as His family grows, so does he.

This has what to do with what, precisely?

 

[blunthitta4life]

Oh I get it, back to being a hypocrite.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? WHERE ARE THE EXPERIMENTS DONE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY? You have a sceince claim. It needs natural evidence and support, and testing, and etc! I have a bible claim, and all the support you could dream of.

Um I asked you to provide proof first and all you do is I me for proof. I understand if you are unable to provide any specific proof.

I'm not going to argue any further until you explain to me your theory.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So you don't know if the claimed universe expansion is wholly based on redshift, and CMB. OK. Funny, scientists claim it is expanding.

The evidence is based in redshift, but not simply because objects at far distances are redshifted.

Studies have been done of Type Ia supernovae, which always explode in exactly the same way. Because of this the spectral lines they create in a spectroscope will always be the same. But redshift causes the lines to shift to longer wavelengths. Our study of this occurance has led to our current understanding of universal expansion. We believe that the universe is expanding because the amount of redshift of any object in the sky is directly proportional to its distance from us.

It is backed by the bible, will that do?

The problem with biblical support is that its easy to support a number of things that are clearly false using the bible. Pi = 3.0, Earth is flat/Geocentric universe model.

The major problem with any number of the theories you've posited in the past is that the universe would look exactly the same regardless of whether or not you were right, leaving very little to give foundation to your beliefs.

 

[dad]

The evidence is based in redshift, but not simply because objects at far distances are redshifted.

Studies have been done of Type Ia supernovae, which always explode in exactly the same way. Because of this the spectral lines they create in a spectroscope will always be the same. But redshift causes the lines to shift to longer wavelengths. Our study of this occurance has led to our current understanding of universal expansion. We believe that the universe is expanding because the amount of redshift of any object in the sky is directly proportional to its distance from us.

Think about it. You are looking at a certain kind of light. An explosion of a star. You say they always act the same. if all of them actually exploded about the same time, that may explain it. Then, we allow for a split process to happen, that explains a pattern of redshift increasing as they are more distant. No?

The problem with biblical support is that its easy to support a number of things that are clearly false using the bible. Pi = 3.0, Earth is flat/Geocentric universe model.

False. The Pi thing is easily tossed out. And, we are the center of the universe, so the ancients were right. It simply is not apparent now, in this PO state.

The major problem with any number of the theories you've posited in the past is that the universe would look exactly the same regardless of whether or not you were right, leaving very little to give foundation to your beliefs.

The same could be said of your same past myth. As far as the bible goes, we know that the universe is temporary. We know the stste of the physical only will be no more some day.

 

[blunthitta4life]

Think about it. You are looking at a certain kind of light. An explosion of a star. You say they always act the same. if all of them actually exploded about the same time, that may explain it.

I'm not following you? Why would they all have to explode at the same time in order for redshift to occur?

Then, we allow for a split process to happen, that explains a pattern of redshift increasing as they are more distant. No?

Elaborate?

 

[dad]

Elaborate?

Well, they didn't HAVE to. That is an idea I put out. The seperation of the spiritual from the physical, I call the split, happened fairly fast. The change in the state of the universe.
After we got into this physical only state, matter was left in the present state. For some stars, apparently, that meant exploding. If the supernovae happened in the split process, then, that could explain the pattern that was mentioned. Namely, that the further away the supernova was, the more the redshift! Light itself used to get here almost right away. In this state, of the universe, as we know it takes a long time for light to get around.

So, in going from almost instant lightspeeds, to the present state speeds, in the split process, the SN that were further away got more redshifted?

 

[blunthitta4life]

So what evidence is there that the universe was different (spiritual) before the laws of physics as we know came about?

If the supernovae happened in the split process, then, that could explain the pattern that was mentioned. Namely, that the further away the supernova was, the more the redshift! Light itself used to get here almost right away. In this state, of the universe, as we know it takes a long time for light to get around.

I don't think you understand redshift. Redshift is a concept itself that requires an expanding space. It is the space at which galaxies are traveling that is expanding.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

My name is CHUBAKA, I AM a Wookie!

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Shouldn't any discussion, involving greater than light speeds involve Quatum Physics, String Theories, and Multi-Demensional Space? As well as the fact that these particles or waves can be present in two places at once? Which seems to suggest that ... brrrrriiinnng ..... Oh excuse me the phone BRB.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Think about it. You are looking at a certain kind of light. An explosion of a star. You say they always act the same. if all of them actually exploded about the same time, that may explain it. Then, we allow for a split process to happen, that explains a pattern of redshift increasing as they are more distant. No?

No it would not. Type Ia is an event where a neutron star in a binary system siphons off enough mass from its sister star to cause the neutron star to transition into blackhole form. The resultant nova exhibits the same spectra in every case and if I'm not mistaken it can be corroborated to black hole theories.

The evidence this presents to expansion is the fact that for a distant galaxy with these events occuring, we can measure this spectra and observe the shift in wavelength caused by its apparent radial velocity and observe a greater shift in any more distant galaxy because the velocity of recession is v = H*d, that is the Hubble parameter times distance. The fact that there is more space between us and the second galaxy means that more space is expanding and thus gives us an apparent velocity between us and that galaxy.

And, we are the center of the universe, so the ancients were right. It simply is not apparent now, in this PO state.

Your claim is unjustifiable.