Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

How does it reverse anything? This is simply a 2 dimensional example to show your thinking is wrong. Do you agree that the math would show all objects in 2 dimensions moving away from Hubble but Hubble isn't in the center? Do you also agree that every object on would see red shift compared to every other object?

Your inability to understand simple concepts is what seems rather strange.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

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.

That doesn't even make any sense. I never said it could be anywhere in the time space continuum. Are you incapable of understanding simple concepts without trying to manufacture things to argue against?

Quote:

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.

The Doppler effect is observed in everything that is a wave. You can get the doppler effect by driving a boat into the waves or with the waves. Unless you want to argue that light isn't a wave the Doppler effect applies to light.

Quote:

but it might be some other physical effect of light as well.

If you know of such a physical effect on light then tell us and get your Nobel Prize. Until then you are simply making excuses to not believe what is in front of your face. It shows you to be blind to reality.

Quote:

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.

What is strange is that you would make such a silly argument. No energy is lost in observing Doppler in sound why would it be lost in observing it in light?

Quote:

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.

If that was the case then we would be able to measure it. The amount of energy lost would be enough to measure in our travels around the sun. You propose that we accept your hypothesis without any evidence and replace a theory that is supported by a ton of evidence. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

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??????

Damn that NASA and damn the Russian Space Agency and the European one and the Chinese one as well. How dare they use science to put people in space. Don't they know that Q can get them there with his lack of science.

I keep forgetting, when did you put the first person in space, Q? Can you tell us?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

How does it reverse anything? This is simply a 2 dimensional example to show your thinking is wrong.

On the one side of [H] the Universe 'is expanding' in one direction (according to the calculations), and on the opposite side of observation the Universe 'is expanding' in the opposite direction. How does that happen?

parados wrote:

Do you also agree that every object on would see red shift compared to every other object?

     In order to claim that, you will have to exclude any other options ... for shifting of the frequency of light towards the red part of the spectrum.
     There are two other explanations of frequency shifting (besides the Doppler effect).
     1. The master oscilator of the transmitter (the emitted light of the sky object) may be modulated by another oscillator that is frequency shift keyed (the space of the Universe might have some vibrations, or something may penetrate into the Universe from the Hyperspace, etc.)
     2. The master oscilator of the transmitter is itself shifted in ferquency (as a result of shrinking of the particles with the time, for example).
     In order to claim that the Universe is expanding you have to exclude all the other possibilities for the red shift, and you are not even considering them.

parados wrote:

Your inability to understand simple concepts is what seems rather strange.

     O.K., suppose the Universe is really expanding - how do the different types of matter (vacuum, rocks, gases, etc.) succeed to expand at one and the same rate and nothing is cracking and collapsing. Do you know what will happen when you replace the reinforcing iron of the concrete with a duraluminium alloy, for example - the bridge will collapse from the first rays of the sun.
     Further, what will happen with the galaxies - should they expand in compliance with the expansion of the Universe or not ... and why are they actually shrinking?
What about the orbits of the planets - what should happen to them if the space is expanding ... with acceleration.
     What about your house and your room - how far will they go?
     ... and BTW how much is that rate of expansion ... and how much is its acceleration?

1 Reply

Not that I expect it to do any good, but:

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Not that I expect it to do any good, but:

     Come on, this Noah's Ark has figurative meaning - it is interpreted literally only by the atheists ... exactly in the same way as they are interpreting the red shift of light, ... and how did you come to know that the Ship is not a spaceship, for example.
     The misinterpretations of the Word of God may be outperforming the misinterpretations of the red shift, but the misinterpretations of the atheists about the misinterpretations of the Word of God are outperforming everything.
     So and so you are making various references, why don't you explain to us how exactly ... and why does the telescope change the direction of expansion of the Universe?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

it is interpreted literally only by the atheists

Nope. That would be your lot. Thanks to evidence-gathering, rather than empty rhetoric, we know that:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

Quote:

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

Quote:

figurative meaning

Funny how theists cherrypick the parts of their scripture that makes them feel good and ignore the obvious nonsense. The claim that god is only figurative has equal strength, given the lack of evidence. Wink

Quote:

why does the telescope change the direction of expansion of the Universe?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/535917_4688307301380_2905972891769669721_n.jpg

If you don't like science, all you have to do is come up with something that makes more sense. Waiting...

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Thanks to evidence-gathering, rather than empty rhetoric, we know that

No, you may be thinking that you know, but you don't know anything. Why don't you explain the red shift with a graphical model - where is the point of origin of that Big Bang, where is the center of expansion right now and how much is the rate of expansion and its acceleration?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

If you don't like science

I don't like not the science itself, but rather the people misusing with science ... just like the people misusing with the religion, BTW.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I know that I proved you wrong when you claimed that only atheists take the Noah's Ark story literally, and I used empirical evidence to do so. Now if only you were capable of finding some evidence for your god, you might be able to put together an argument that could challenge the scientific worldview. Too bad you can't come up with anything better; now you're just stuck looking like a gullible fool.

1 Reply

@Herald,

By the way, Herald, I just wanted to take a quick time out and try to balance things out a little by telling you that I appreciate the fact that you don't yell your ideas at people. Even if we don't like each other's ideas, I'm glad we can at least communicate without all caps and bolded yelling. So there's that.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I know that I proved you wrong

Do you have the point - the place of birth of the Big Bang? What evidence do you have about that expansion? Do you have a direction of the telescope where:
X.Y..Z...[H]....A.....B......C........
If you don't have any such direction, this automatically will mean that Hubble is into the center of expansion and into the center of the Universe respectively, and you will not be able to explain for life how does that happen ... unless you confess that nothing is expanding and that the red shift might be everything else but Doppler effect and expansion of the Universe.

FBM wrote:

... when you claimed that only atheists take the Noah's Ark story literally

Yes, the atheists are taking the red shift literally (as Doppler effect), what is the problem for them to take the Noah's Ark literally as well?

FBM wrote:

... and I used empirical evidence to do so.

A presentation before some public is not an empirical evidence.

FBM wrote:

Now if only you were capable of finding some evidence for your god

... before that you will have to prove that God is mine, and not ours, for example.

FBM wrote:

... you might be able to put together an argument that could challenge the scientific worldview.

... and what is that scientific worldview, if it is not some secret? Why don't you explain to us how exactly the fake interpretation in the red shift in the light spectrum has created the life on our planet, for example?

FBM wrote:

Too bad you can't come up with anything better; now you're just stuck looking like a gullible fool.

This is just an opinion ... and very personal perception of the things - without any justification, as usual.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Do you have the point - the place of birth of the Big Bang?

Since it's the origin of space-time itself, this is a meaningless question.

Quote:

What evidence do you have about that expansion?

Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered? Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

Quote:

Do you have a direction of the telescope where:

Any ol' direction will do.

Now, all you have to do is come up with a more plausible answer that we can investigate. Got anything?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@FBM,

Bill Nye!!!!

The Biggest science creep I have EVER seem!!

Face it, dude, he is an idiot!

AND only repeating the official PARTY LINE

Gee, what are you trying to prove?????

That 'science' is a RELIGION and this dude shoudn't be used to promote this religion??????

Man o man , I feel for you, I really do!

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

By the way, Herald, I just wanted to take a quick time out and try to balance things out a little by telling you that I appreciate the fact that you don't yell your ideas at people. Even if we don't like each other's ideas, I'm glad we can at least communicate without all caps and bolded yelling. So there's that.

Anyone who claims to be bothered or annoyed by the use of "bold"...or who claims its use is "yelling" (despite being assured it is not intended that way)...probably should not indulge in Internet debate. That kind of person almost certainly is not up to the job.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

By the way, Herald, I just wanted to take a quick time out and try to balance things out a little by telling you that I appreciate the fact that you don't yell your ideas at people. Even if we don't like each other's ideas, I'm glad we can at least communicate without all caps and bolded yelling. So there's that.

Anyone who claims to be bothered or annoyed by the use of "bold"...or who claims its use is "yelling" (despite being assured it is not intended that way)...probably should not indulge in Internet debate. That kind of person almost certainly is not up to the job.

WELL THERE IS A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT CERTAIN WAYS OF POSTING YOUR MESSAGE ARE EQUIVALENT TO YELLING IN PERSON. CONVENTIONAL, YES, BUT NONETHELESS REAL SO FIGURE IT OUT OR BECOME AN IGNORED FOSSIL THAT NOBODY IS WILLING TO ENDURE INTERACTING WITH . LOOK UP THE WORD "OBNOXIOUS." THERE ARE CERTAIN BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

By the way, Herald, I just wanted to take a quick time out and try to balance things out a little by telling you that I appreciate the fact that you don't yell your ideas at people. Even if we don't like each other's ideas, I'm glad we can at least communicate without all caps and bolded yelling. So there's that.

Anyone who claims to be bothered or annoyed by the use of "bold"...or who claims its use is "yelling" (despite being assured it is not intended that way)...probably should not indulge in Internet debate. That kind of person almost certainly is not up to the job.

WELL THERE IS A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT CERTAIN WAYS OF POSTING YOUR MESSAGE ARE EQUIVALENT TO YELLING IN PERSON. CONVENTIONAL, YES, BUT NONETHELESS REAL SO FIGURE IT OUT OR BECOME AN IGNORED FOSSIL THAT NOBODY IS WILLING TO ENDURE INTERACTING WITH . LOOK UP THE WORD "OBNOXIOUS." THERE ARE CERTAIN BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I have assured you that I am not using bold type face to yell at you or anyone else...and have assured you that I do NOT yell in real life or in my Internet persona. I do not...and I try to speak reasonably and courteously to just about everyone.

Since "all caps" seem to be the conventional mode of "yelling" on the Internet (and "caps" are a needed type face function)...why do you suppose there is a "bold type face" function available?

Do you suppose it is there just to allow people to yell?

Do you suppose you would have made the point you were trying to make up above if you had written:

Quote:

Well, there is a general understanding that certain ways of posting your message, are equivalent to yelling in person. Conventional, yes, but nonetheless real so figure it out or become an ignored fossil that nobody is willing to endure interacting with. Look up the word "obnoxious." There are certain behaviors associated with it

I doubt it. No one but someone being petty like you are being would consider that yelling...which I suspect is the reason you went to caps and color.

Anyway...yes, the word "obnoxious" does have certain behavior associated with it, FBM. I would respectfully suggest that "pretending great indignation with the use of bold type face" is one of those behaviors.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Why are you guys yelling so much all the time?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Why are you guys yelling so much all the time?

Could you speak up...I can't read you.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know