Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

rationalwiki????

Just a link?? Really????

LOL

0 Replies

They are getting desperate!!!!

LOL

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

BTW why don't you start putting your own thoughts on paper (or sooner on the screen) instead of copy-pasting some presentations that are made in connection with God-knows-what occasions

I will when you do. Everything you've said so far has been said by (and copied from) others.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The "god of the gaps" is a bit of theological reasoning which invokes divine intervention as a way to understand natural phenomena that science is presently unable to explain

You are not explaining any natural phenomena. If you want to explain the decrease in the energy of the photon with the time and with the run why don't you study the natural phenomenon itself - not the wiki pages. Make a large single mode fiber-optic collider and let a photon travelling at some frequency through it and see what happens with the frequency with the time. The very moment the frequency of the photon drops your favorite theory becomes dead-on-arrival, Bro.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

You are not explaining any natural phenomena.

What's unnatural about the phenomenon of you and your kind commiting this particular logical fallacy?

0 Replies

This was pretty amusing:

0 Replies

@Herald,

ROFLMAO... It doesn't make the Hubble telescope the middle.

Consider this:
.......X.Y.Z.[H].A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.......,

ALL points will see red shift.

X..Y..Z...[H]..A...B.....C....D........E.....F..G.....H.....I

Hubble still sees red shift but it isn't the center. C would be considered center to an outside observer. Hubble could be anywhere on the continuum and it would see red shift with all the other points. You don't seem to understand the simplest things. The distance from each point to the other points is INCREASED from the first example to the next. ALL POINTS see red shift compared to ALL OTHER POINTS. ALL of them are NOT in the CENTER. If you don't understand 6th grade math, how do you expect us to explain anything to you?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Hubble could be anywhere on the continuum and it would see red shift with all the other points.

No, it can't. It can't be in the same place 1 Bya, for example.

parados wrote:

You don't seem to understand the simplest things.

Just like you - I don't understand and you don't even make an effort to read the whole sentence - what is the difference?

parados wrote:

The distance from each point to the other points is INCREASED from the first example to the next.

You are not measuring distance between two object at one and the same time. You are measuring a distance (perhaps, if you succeed to calibrate your light measurement tools - I wonder with what) between a point at present (Hubble) and the place where the sky object has been one year ago (if the 'distance' is 1 ly). You don't know where the sky object is right now - you will get knowing that in an year. What about a sky object at a distance of 13.7 By - when will you get the data about it present position ... and standing?

parados wrote:

ALL POINTS see red shift compared to ALL OTHER POINTS.

Obviously. If one of the sky objects is at a distance of 1 ly and the other is at a distance 10 ly the red shift with the 10-ly object is greater and is actually additional red shift in terms of the 1 ly-object - what is the problem? Greater distance - greater signal loss (for it is exactly what your 'expansion' actually is - it is nothing but a signal loss in the light beam, however it is not loss in power but rather loss in the frequency of the photon - by reason unknown, which I doubt to be expansion of space).
Where do you know from that it is not the Dark Matter shifting the light spectrum? Dark matter may be everywhere - not only at the places of twisted polarization of the light beam. You don't even have any method to virtually calibrate the measuring tools (the light beam and the light spectrum). You cannot calibrate the measuring tools with their own manifestations - you will need some other 'external' reference for the purpose. How did you come to know that the distances are really the ones you are assuming them to be ... when you don't even have means to calibrate and to verify the measuring devices (the telemetric channel from the Hubble). What if the red shift is a systematic error of the measurement method?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

No, it can't. It can't be in the same place 1 Bya, for example.

Are you really arguing that a moving object can't see red shift? Do some reading on the doppler effect.

Quote:

You are not measuring distance between two object at one and the same time.

Red shift occurs because the objects are moving away form each other. Without that movement there is no red shift.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Suzredshift.gif/220px-Suzredshift.gif

Quote:

Doppler effect, yellow (~575 nm wavelength) ball appears greenish (blueshift to ~565 nm wavelength) approaching observer, turns orange (redshift to ~585 nm wavelength) as it passes, and returns to yellow when motion stops. To observe such a change in color, the object would have to be traveling at approximately 5200 km/s, or about 75 times faster than the speed record for the fastest manmade space probe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Let's address your other statements.

Quote:

Greater distance - greater signal loss (for it is exactly what your 'expansion' actually is - it is nothing but a signal loss in the light beam,

That shows a complete failure to understand how red shift is calculated. Signal loss has nothing to do with it and can't affect it. Read the wiki article.

Quote:

Where do you know from that it is not the Dark Matter shifting the light spectrum?

We may not know that. Please present your evidence that the objects farthest away show the most red shift. That might support that theory.

Quote:

You cannot calibrate the measuring tools with their own manifestations - you will need some other 'external' reference for the purpose.

They do have some external reference. They are compared to signatures not moving away.

Quote:

How did you come to know that the distances are really the ones you are assuming them to be

Distance doesn't matter when it comes to red shift. Red shift could care less how far the object is away. Read the wiki article.

Quote:

What if the red shift is a systematic error of the measurement method?

Why would a systematic error always be in one direction? That is nonsense on your part.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

X..Y..Z...[H]..A...B.....C....D........E.....F..G.....H.....IHubble still sees red shift but it isn't the center.

Yet, it reverses the direction of the hypothetical expansion, which is at least rather strange.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
No, it can't. It can't be in the same place 1 Bya, for example.
Are you really arguing that a moving object can't see red shift? Do some reading on the doppler effect.

You said that it [H] can be anywhere into the time space continuum, and I said to you that it can't be anywhere, for there are some positions in time at which it is impossible to have been, like for example the same position in the past (when several decades ago it haven't even existed). Anyway.
RE: the Doppler effect
     The Doppler effect is observed with sound - can you name some examples of observing Doppler effect with light here, down on the Earth. It might be Doppler effect as a result of some relative movement (not necessary expansion of the space), but it might be some other physical effect of light as well.
     Besides that [H] can neither drive in all directions simultaneously, nor it can change the direction of expansion (if exists) of the space.
     Further, it is not strange and unusual for the photon to lose energy when travelling long enough through space and time. Much more strange would be if it has gained energy. Can't you simply accept a hypothesis that the photon might be losing energy when travelling at sufficiently long distance for sufficiently long time, and that nothing in the space could be expanding.

parados wrote:

Red shift occurs because the objects are moving away form each other. Without that movement there is no red shift.

... that you cannot verify by any other means, except for the measurements themselves ... which is an absurd as a verification test.

1 Reply

This is actually entertaining...heehee...

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

This is actually entertaining...heehee...

Why don'y you tell us something about the water on the Earth? Yes, there are traces of water on Mars, there is sulfuric acid on Venus (made out of water) and there are traces of water on the Moon, but not in such quantities.
If the theory of the water being brought to Earth by meteorites, ice asteroids, and ice comets is true, there must be stochastic distribution of water throughout the planets of the solar system ... or at least on the planets along the path of the meteorites ... and there is nothing of the kind. How does that happen?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Water is hydrogen and oxygen. What's the mystery?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Why don'y you tell us something about the water on the Earth?

It's wet and there's a lot of it. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Quote:

stochastic

You really love this word, don't you? I've got news for you, your ignorance is exposed so abundantly by the content of your posts that no amount of awkwardly placed technical vocabulary is going to convince anybody that you have the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

In the meantime, why don't you tell us something about the god in the sky? Like, why any reasonably intelligent adult in their right mind would buy into such a wild, unsupported idea.

0 Replies

http://www.space.com/23814-alien-planets-water-hubble-telescope.html

Quote:

Signs of Water Found on 5 Alien Planets by Hubble Telescope
By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | December 03, 2013 02:54pm ET

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has detected water in the atmospheres of five planets beyond our solar system, two recent studies reveal.
...
"We're very confident that we see a water signature for multiple planets," Avi Mandell, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., lead author of one of the studies, said in a statement. "This work really opens the door for comparing how much water is present in atmospheres on different kinds of exoplanets — for example, hotter versus cooler ones."
...
The atmospheres of all five planets showed signs of water, with the strongest signatures found in the air of WASP-17b and HD209458b.

"To actually detect the atmosphere of an exoplanet is extraordinarily difficult. But we were able to pull out a very clear signal, and it is water," Drake Deming of the University of Maryland, lead author of the other recent study, said in a statement.
...

Science. What a bitch.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Not the ******* NASA again!!!!!!

What I really don't understand is why all these people here take all this crap on faith????? ******* science is indeed a RELIGION!!!

What else can it be??????

1 Reply

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/another-child-of-faith-healing-creationists-dies/

Quote:

Another Child of Faith-Healing Creationists Dies
Posted on 23-April-2013 | 13 Comments
Some of you may remember this from a couple of years ago: Creationist Parents Guilty in Child’s Death. That was about Herbert and Catherine Schaible, Pennsylvania parents who turned to prayer instead of medicine as their son died of bacteria pneumonia. They were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

In that same post we also provided information about their church — First Century Gospel Church — where Herbert was a teacher. You guessed it — in addition to faith healing, they also believed in creationism. In for a penny, in for a pound.
...
They were given no jail time — just probation and an order to provide medical care for their remaining children. End of story, right? No, unfortunately that’s not right.

We now report what we found at the website of the Fox TV station in Kansas City: Second child dies after parents choose prayer over doctors. Yeah — it happened again. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Philadelphia couple who turned to prayer instead of doctors has lost a second child — violating their probation. Herbert and Catherine Schaible were serving 10 years probation after the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son — who died from pneumonia — when their 8-month-old son died after suffering for days with diarrhea and breathing problems.

Their son suffered for days with diarrhea and breathing problems — and they prayed. Look on the bright side — they didn’t succumb to the false doctrines of science and Darwinism.
...

And you guys are looking to school us on science? Yeah. That's gonna happen.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know