Science proving the existence of God?

Math is not one of my strong suits either.

Yes, the red shift sounds familiar from my class. So in your opinion, if the big bang proves to be incorrect, that proves that the universe is eternal???

I just can't comprehend the universe always existing. Where did all the matter come from??? Is there anything outside the universe???

And just what is this "gravatational (space time) effect" that has so far eluded reputable physicists and cosmologists? It does not appear to conform to any of the so far accepted laws of physics, which already have yielded a self-consistent explanation for the microwave background radiation.

Thanks akaMechanics as I am not a Physics major but one of my favorite subjects.

As I mentioned in the evolution thread that at some point all the nuclear fuel will be exhausted and all the stars will either disintegrate by exploding in a supernova fashion, implode into a blackhole or whatever. All the blackholes could conceivably agglomerate into a giant blackhole and the universe begin anew with another explosive Big Bang. A series of expansion and contraction.

George mentioned in the evolution thread of a theoretical multi-universe which brings us to the concept of beings in another alternate universe of higher civilization passing themselves off as gods by interfering in our affairs shows that they are more like us only more advanced in science and technology.

Oops, sorry akaMechsmith had avatar name wrong.

George,

That is what I don't know. In a recent course I took on tape there were mentioned a gravitational red shift but it was ignored during the part on quasars. In some 40 plus related popular titles that I have read it has never been quantified.

It is a necessary part of the theory of "Black Holes". ie. when the accelerations of gravity equal the speed of light no light, nor consequently energies, can escape; hence a "Black hole".

In 1919 Eddington went on an eclipse viewing trip to South Africa sanctioned by Einstein and reported quite confidently that light was affected by gravity.

There have been a number of other experiments that showed this. Einstein Crosses have been observed. Gravitational lensing of light has been observed. Radio frequencies have been shown to be distorted etc.

I consequently expect that this effect would be quantified in the literature somewhere. Since every photon that impinges on our recepters has in effect been falling towards the Earth, towards the sun, towards the solar system, towards the Milky Way, towards the local galactic group and so into potentially infinity.

In the last second before coming to our observations the light has been "red shifted" about five parts per 300,000,000. 300,000,000m represents the distance that light would travel if unimpeded. 300,000,000m + 5m represents the distance light would travel if 1/2 the accelerations due to Earths gravity were included. I will admit that this is a very rough outline. I need the calculus to work it out exactly.

But IF the light is shifted by this amount can you imagine what will happen if you calculate the total accellerations for the last 15,000,000,000 years.
The law of gravity indicates that the "force" is calculated as the inverse square of the distance. It does diminish rapidly!

This is how I have approached the problem. Figure out the accellerations at each radius. For instance at Earths radius from the sun the accelerations due to the sun is about 1,000,000 miles per day (90 days--90,000,000 miles or about 11 1/2 miles per second. So at midnight star light will have been red shifted to an observer on Earth roughly 11 1/2 parts per 186,000 miles.

Frankly I suspect that somebody more mathematically adept has already done this. If so; I'd like to know where it is published. If not then there is no justification for assuming a "Big Bang".

I could be all wet but before I get the soap I like to find somebody who KNOWS Perhaps the guy who adjusted the "fine tuning" on the Apollo missions radio would know. He doesn't seem to be here though

Second part is that if the red shift is gravitationally induced then local variations in the densities of mass would account for the anomalies where the shift is at odds with other measurements. There are plenty of them. Particularly around quasars. The gravitational red shift just works so well it excites my mechanical id

That light is affected by gravity is a well-known consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The current cosmological model of the universd includes relativity effects such as this. There are many elements of the model that are as yet incomplete, ranging from some questions about so-called dark matter to the details of the so-called 'inflation' or accelerated expansion of the universe in the first microseconds after the bang. However current measures of the expansion rate of distant objects farly thoroughly rule out and expansion/contraction, and support something like the "big bang" model. All the known data suggests a finite universe, witha definite beginning 14 to 16 billion years ago.

Sorry George,

All the "known" data is popularly "interpreted" as supporting the "Big Bang". Theres a big difference

Just for grins you may be interested in reading a book jointly authored more or less by a person reputed to have an undergraduate degree in physics and a person reputed to have a Phd in Physics, Hans Alfven.

Try a book -- "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner.

I personally have noticed that some of their physics are a little shaky but their conception of a Universe that may never have began, that only evolves, is well worth considering.

There was also a web site named "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened". Worth looking up if you are interested.

I will bring out a couple of more points (OK several) before you consign me to a nuthouse :wink:

One -- The Hubble Constant (or parameter) should be a fairly straightforward problem in algebra and cosmology.Triangulate a few hundred galaxies and see if the predicted redshift correlates with their distances. (they don't except in a most general way) That, If the universe was expanding uniformly should be a dead giveway. It's necessary to triangulate a few hundred to eliminate (average out) "local motion" .

Two-- If the red shift is gravitationally induced I would expect that variation simply due to the different masses of the celestial objects.

Three-- I haven't found anybody who has actually done the math. I've been working on it myself but it's not easy! Thats one reason for my jumping in this thread.

Four-- Since in some sixty plus years no Hubble Constant has been found ---. Approximations have been found. In some 4,000 years no name of God has been found. Approximations have been found.
I suspect the reason is because neither exists except as an idea

Fifth--Since the "Big Bang" more or less neatly dovetails with Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy ie. "In the Beginning" and better than 50% of the taxpayers that support "Pure research" believe that there was a beginning, the financial incentives to interpret observations in such a manner that supports a beginning may well be overwhelming! Damn, I hate to use "Why" in a scientific type conversation

OK; Just because I am paranoid is not proof that nobody is chasing me

Belief systems run deep in the human psyche. I used to "believe" in the "Big Bang" also. Then (with some stimulus) I embarked on a project to compare what I knew with what I believed. I found that many of my "beliefs" either had no basis in observation or were ambiguous.
Conversations such as we are having are the result

I said the data and current interpretatiions of it "strongly suggest"a finite universe with a beginning 14 to 16 billion years ago. That is true. Period.

Apoparently you are suggesting that gravity affects the frequency of light or radiation. That is a novel concept not consistent with the known laws of physics as I understand them.

The fact is that in 1970 the prevailing view among Cosmologists was of a universe experiencing expansions and contractions. It was only after new data and certain theoretical issues were (partly) worked out (inflaation is one example) that the expansion/contraction model was rulled out. This does not support your cultural affinity theory - indeed it appears to contradict it..

Science offers nothing at all by way of explaining the existence OR the origin of the universe. It seems to me that one is confronted with the necessity of a blind leap to something.

13.8 billion years +/- 0.2 is the best estimate so far.

Gravity wells can cause changes frequency of light. As a black hole starts to form the last escaping light would be very red shifted, whilst light falling into it would be blue shifted to the point you'd see (as we do) alot of x-ray radiation in most galactic centres (e.g. Saggitarus).

Science can give you Universe creation mechanics - be they directed by an intelligence or random fluke (research M-theory membrane interactions as Big Bang starter candidates). We have no way of knowing if a membrane - membrane interaction that creates a reality via a big bang is directed or intelligent event by the way.

akaMechsmith:

Just remembering my old physics. I don't have any textbooks. Just the top of my head

freq=c/wavelength

grav. acc. = del. vel/time = (vel1-vel2)/time = dist/time squared

Since light travels ~180,000 miles per sec take intervals of 1/10 sec and get freq change. The greatest change would be the first 1/10 sec These are just very rough calcs. Maybe you could develop the calculus on these ideas.

Thanks g__day,

George please note his post and then carry it out to a logical conclusion.

Talk 7200, No it seems to be a very smooth acceleration with the force that causes the acceleration increasing as the light nears the observer whom we assume is standing on Earth.

A thought experiment.

Go out in your backyard and build an arch.

At the very peak of the arch hold a set of billiard balls with the eightball smack in the middle. Hold the balls in contact. Solids on one side of the eightball, striped balls on the other.

Release the balls and measure their separation as they hit the ground.

The distance between any two balls will represent "wave length".

Now imagine one end of the arch here on Earth and the other at some planet near Alpha Centauri. Release them at the middle of the ramp.

It's easy to see in your backyard that the balls are always sequentially subject to a steeper part of the arch. Hence the downward pull on the ball makes each one separate (separ-eight) from its successor.

Basically this is how the gravitational "red shift " works with respect to the receiver (observer).

The same thing happens if you throw the balls up. The separations will always increase until the first one stops (ie.a black hole) . If they do not stop (you've thrown very hard , past the escape velocity of this planet.) they will continue to spread until they are infinitely far apart. But probably something else would happen first. One thing seems to be quite sure. At some point the balls (or photons) would be separated by an amount equal to the wavelength of the microwave spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.

Please tell me if I am so far off base as to be irrational. Thanks.

Another thought. The speed of light (c) is a constant. In no way can I figure that Einstein meant that the speed of light is constant.

Since I am not a physicist I was just suggesting. The change would occur with frequency as the speed of light is constant. I was thinking in terms of light emitting from a star. The gravity pull from the star should elongate the light thus the red shift while the observer on earth would see an acceleration due to earth's gravity as a shift not as great as that of a star but lesser in the blue or ultraviolet region as the light is condensed owing to the speeding up effect.

Talk 7200'

The speed of light is not constant as it varies with the medium. Simple wave theory seems to work.

If you define the speed of light as constant you will find that the speed of time varies.(It does get very interesting, believe me ).

The speed of light is "a constant" in which it denotes a speed that nothing can travel faster than.

The speed of light in pure space is approx 300,000 km per second.
In water or glass its a bit different. I suspect that it's also a bit different around "black holes". Thats why prisms work and also probably acounts for the refractions we see at the intersection of air and water.

Ever try to catch a fish with your hand Or watch your fishing line bend where it enters the water

g_day, Am I all wet Happy thoughts All

Re: Science proving the existence of God?
What is your definition of "god"?

Re: Science proving the existence of God?
The fact of evolution does indeed preclude god in certain forms; as per the literal interpretations of numerous religious beliefs.

Re: Science proving the existence of God?


It precludes the literal interpretation of various texts, but it does not preclude the possibility of any supernatural entity, be that Magic Elf or Christian God, which could have used evolution as its tool.

All the controversy is a result of the fact that suddenly, after Darwin, gods were not essential as an explanation for the existence of man.

That went down in church about as well as the previous crisis when some idiot suggested the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around.

So now we hear the theists shouting "why are you spreading hatred against our god?!" at biologists .....who look back in bemusement saying "huh? gods?...I'm interested in plants and animals...?!?"

Re: Science proving the existence of God?


First point taken as agreed
Second point not at issue
All is well

Come on, everyone knows the earth was spawned by *Chumly The Divine Overlord*

Yes exactly Chumly.

After all, that was the task I appointed you when I made you.