Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

[revelarts]

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests
May 23, 2014 by Sci-News.com

According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.

Quote:

<tbody>
in their study, the scientists tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory – that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.

In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.

In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.

So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

“Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence,” Mr Lerner said.

That was not the only startling result of their research. In order to apply the surface brightness test, first proposed in 1930 by physicist Richard C. Tolman, the team had to determine the actual luminosity of the galaxies, so as to match near and far galaxies.

To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.

They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.

“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.

Dr Riccardo Scarpa from the Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain, who is a co-author of the study, added: “again you could take this to be merely coincidental, but it would be a second big coincidence.”

Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.

”However, such a redshift, which is not associated with expansion, could be observed with suitable spacecraft within our own Solar System in the future.”

______

Eric J. Lerner et al. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, published online May 02, 2014; doi: 10.1142/S0218271814500588


Link to article:
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com (http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html)
and the paper (you gotta pay $30 to read the whole thing):
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271814500588


</tbody>

"...a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos..."

OK Wow!
So it's Nobel prize time or ignored and smear the scientist time.

More observational evidence against the big bang.
this is kinda breath taking.

from the article:
"Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."

This is added to other observations in conflict with Big Bang predictions on red shifts (stars at same known distance with different red shifts), lithium and helium abundances, galaxy distribution and old galaxies appearance of age among other topics, which have been ignored or ridiculed, since they don't support the dogma of the big bang.

Cosmology is still the weirdest slipperiest area of science. Collecting the data is great, but explaining it in a uniformed clear way is something no one seems to HONESTLY do that well.

[Noir]

Its no secret that the Math behind the expanding universe models is complex to say the least, it was not the answer scientists wanted, but it was the one the data showed, so we have gone with it...maybe we are to find the answer was not as unexpected as first appeared, but we shall have to wait and see.

As for the actual article


"It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.
We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light"

Ignoring for a moment the unintended humour that results from combining these two parts of the article...this raises many more questions than it answers. Dark Matter, not a thing? And yet we can obverse its effects on the Universe, how will this new theory explain gravitational lensing, orbiting Galaxies etc? Not to mention this new theory needed for changing light.

Much much much more information and explanation needed to challenge the weight of evidence showing expansion.

[darin]

The universe is a powerful creation. I think you hit on what will happen; Just about ANYTHING contrary to the popular narrative is shat-upon.


:)

[revelarts]

Noir,
i'm not sure that they are proposing a full blown new theory. just specifically pointing out that the expansion is not not supported which cripples and kills many of the big bang theories assertions.

it seems there are several puzzle pieces in of data but we don't have a full picture to go by.
but those that believe the big bang picture is correct have to deal with several new piece that show that picture to be wrong.

the question is do scientist have the flexibility to maneuver without a solid or consensus "theory" (dogma) and live in the questions or with competing hypothesis?

However there is a group of cosmologist that have definite alternative theory, and they reject the big bang outright as well.
They believe that the universe wide electromagnetic fields/currents are the main cause of all of the effects seen. And seem to believe the universe is eternal.
They cannot explain nearly everything either, but it seems to me they resort to less reliance on esoteric mathematics. And fewer ad hoc assumptions that go beyond observation and the known boundaries of physics.

their anti-big bang statement was here
https://web.archive.org/web/20120209211131/http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

their theoretical "electric universe model" promotion site is here.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

Of course creationist believe that the universe was created. however scientifically they cannot answer all of the cosmological questions either. But there's nothing scientifically that contradicts the outline of scripture that does not have a (or many) viable alternative explanations which do hold up scientifically.

[revelarts]

1st 15 minutes of this video talks about red shift and the contradictory observation, and a scientist fired for writing about it.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KmotCQCxQEI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Noir]

1st 15 minutes of this video talks about red shift and the contradictory observation, and a scientist fired for writing about it.

So we're also changing our theory on Quasars, Blazars, and Radio Galaxies?
Again i'm seeing more dismissing of current theory, with no solid description of an alternative.

[revelarts]

So we're also changing our theory on Quasars, Blazars, and Radio Galaxies?
Again i'm seeing more dismissing of current theory, with no solid description of an alternative.

well again the observations challenge the theories.
concerning alternative theory see the link above to the thunderbolts project.
you'll find more than enough anti bits on them as well.
no theory has a lock on the all the observations.

[Noir]

well again the observations challenge the theories. concerning alternative theory see the link above to the thunderbolts project. you'll find more than enough anti bits on them as well. no theory has a lock on the all the observations.

Yeah i've spent (probably too long) reading up on these Thunderbolt Project people, who are proponents of the 'Electric Universe Theory'

Their beliefs include but are not limited too

Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4]

...call me a conformist, but i'm not buying it.

[revelarts]

Yeah i've spent (probably too long) reading up on these Thunderbolt Project people, who are proponents of the 'Electric Universe Theory'

Their beliefs include but are not limited too


...call me a conformist, but i'm not buying it.

conformist

:poke:

I'm not a conformist to any theory of stars at this point.
but i think they make some good points based on the observations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_Z26taV9SWc


concerning other conventional cosmological theories in flux or dead because observations have destroyed them.

Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR:
“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/05/06/181613582/our-very-normal-solar-system-isn-t-normal-anymore)
Quote:

<tbody>
As the discoveries roll in, Mike is getting more and more uncomfortable. ..
Meantime, he is trying to get used to the idea that we live on an unusual planet in an unusual solar system. That's two "unusuals." One more than he's used to. To live doubly-unusual, is to be luckier — and perhaps rarer — than we knew.

"It really is something that I find deeply weird," he writes. "What does it all mean? I don't know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don't even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here."

</tbody>


the observations are SUPPOSE to kill the theories right?
I've been told that's what science is all about.
I'm NOT saying this is you Noir but it seems to me
when we say some theories are like dogma people get upset. they reply "no no, it's open to change and revision.."
when we say a specific theory is basically proven crap they get upset. they say "no no you just don't understand it, it's true, true as true can be..."

the new observations in cosmology do not seem to make for rock solid theories.
there's a lot of room for alternatives if the field was truly open.


I'll give you another Quick one.
your probably familiar with it.
the ORT CLOUD.
Here's my understanding . It's this THEORETICAL cloud of asteroid like ice and rocks surrounding the outside of the solar system
Which Occasionally tosses off stones/ice to create the comets we see today.
the REASON this theory was proposed was because the comets that we see could not have been traveling around our sun since the imagined beginning of our solar system. some 4.6 billion years ago.
the comets would all be LONG gone in just thousands of years. UNLESS ...here comes the theory to the rescue... there's some UNSEEN Cloud of comets ready to kick off a comet or 3 every so often.

this is TOTALLY unproven, Unobserved and has other technical issues (like why is it kicking out comets, how big would this thing have to be to make this work), but it's the conventional wisdom at this point.
God forbid the universe be young. of course Nothing lines up with that ... except comets and .. well that's another story.

[Noir]

I was listening to an astronomy podcast only the other day about the Oort cloud, and what did the professor state from the outset? That the cloud is unobserved and effectively theoretical, with may questions over its shapes, size, and what it could be affecting in terms of observation. Not exactly dogmatic induction y'know.

We'll probably never have definitive proof that the Oort cloud is there, as it would take centuries of testing and investment to confirm.

[revelarts]

I was listening to an astronomy podcast only the other day about the Oort cloud, and what did the professor state from the outset? That the cloud is unobserved and effectively theoretical, with may questions over its shapes, size, and what it could be affecting in terms of observation. Not exactly dogmatic induction y'know.

We'll probably never have definitive proof that the Oort cloud is there, as it would take centuries of testing and investment to confirm.

Not exactly dogmatic, that's very true,
not even close to passion some other theories endear.
But try maintaining that there is no Oort cloud.

[Noir]

Not exactly dogmatic, that's very true, not even close to passion some other theories endear. But try maintaining that there is no Oort cloud.

Maintaining that there is no Oort cloud is not the issue. The replacement theory to explain the comets currently being described as held in the Oort cloud, is.

[revelarts]

Maintaining that there is no Oort cloud is not the issue. The replacement theory to explain the comets currently being described as held in the Oort cloud, is.

see what i mean.

[Noir]

see what i mean.

'I don't believe in your theory but i don't have an alternative' is a poor argument.

[revelarts]

'I don't believe in your theory but i don't have an alternative' is a poor argument.

that's only the way you view it.
see you and others seem to think that you must cover ALL the bases if you have a CORE theory that you believe in strongly.
and add on other ancillary theories which may have far less merit than the core theory but align with it.

It becomes part of the whole.
so an attack on it is an attack on the whole.

To say that there is no good evidence for an Oort cloud, therefore I don't believe there is one.
is NOT strictly an attack on "the whole theory of the big bang."
It is ,Strictly speaking, an attack ONLY on the Oort cloud theory and what it attempts to explain.
Then someone could go on to say that the MOST likely explanation is that the solar system is not 4.6 million years old. THAT Idea aligns better with the OBSERVATIONS of comets.

But the reaction is to that comment brings into question the core theory therefore isn't honestly entertained.
EVEN THOUGH that's what the Data seems to show.

the other alternative is to just say WE DON'T KNOW.
but some how that's a horror for the scientific community as well.
For some reason the scientific community likes AT LEAST to have some guess on why something happens.
BUT will Only allow guesses that go along with their main Theories.

so do you think it make sense to say.
'Based on the evidence , it seems the Oort cloud is bogus, but I don't know how or why there are comets.'
Would that be a scientifically honest thing to say Noir?

or is it more honest to ASSUME 1 very weak idea is true,
and reject out of hand any alternatives or even holding a position of mystery?

Concerning the age of the solar system and the earth for that matter there aare several different data points to choose from to try to determine age. Depending on which ones you choose and what assumptions you make you do end up in very different places.
but you'd 1st have to be open to the idea of looking at data that doesn't conform to the standard models. which the dogma of science culture will not allow folks to do.

[Drummond]

I have to admit that I've only skimmed the contents of this thread. But I've an observation to make that I think might be relevant (?).

Light takes a time to reach us !!! The light from even the nearest star took years to get here, meaning that when we view it, we view it as it appeared years ago !

Now apply that to distant galaxies. We're viewing those galaxies not as they ARE, but as they WERE, once upon a time, literally many millions (or more !) years ago. We are looking at their HISTORICAL appearances, not as they are in the present-day. Viewing a 'real time' Universe is literally an impossibility.

I'll let you decide whether or not this stymies the worth of the current theorising .....

[Noir]

It is ,Strictly speaking, an attack ONLY on the Oort cloud theory and what it attempts to explain. Then someone could go on to say that the MOST likely explanation is that the solar system is not 4.6 million years old. THAT Idea aligns better with the OBSERVATIONS of comets.

But that does not line up with a lot of other observations, of our system, star and planets.

[revelarts]

But that does not line up with a lot of other observations, of our system, star and planets.

So we have conflicting data,
do we toss the data we don't like or massage that data to fit some others?
Or do hold all the data loosely and make the best of it and admit we don't have theory that fits all the data?

to me it seems that's what science should do.

as I mentioned, there's more data out there than the Comets that's bring into question the age of the solar system's as 4 billion plus.

for example
they found that Mercury has a magnetic field and it's deteriorating rapidly.
Base on the Idea that Mercury was extremely old and other factors it was believes that it would NOT have one at all, it'd be long gone. But Since it does, that should mean scientist assume that's it's younger right,
No they've mostly decided that they don't know. even though a at least 1 alt theory scientist predicted it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mercury-s-magnetic-field-was-a-great-surprise

As i mentioned there seems to be are several different dates to come to if we just let the data speak for itself. And we also have to check the assumptions going into the count.

But there is no universal number that all the data seems to conforms to as far as i can tell.
Unless of course you simply embrace the current theories over the data.

[Noir]

So we have conflicting data, do we toss the data we don't like or massage that data to fit some others? Or do hold all the data loosely and make the best of it and admit we don't have theory that fits all the data? to me it seems that's what science should do. as I mentioned, there's more data out there than the Comets that's bring into question the age of the solar system's as 4 billion plus. for example they found that Mercury has a magnetic field and it's deteriorating rapidly. Base on the Idea that Mercury was extremely old and other factors it was believes that it would NOT have one at all, it'd be long gone. But Since it does, that should mean scientist assume that's it's younger right, No they've mostly decided that they don't know. even though a at least 1 alt theory scientist predicted it. http://www.examiner.com/article/mercury-s-magnetic-field-was-a-great-surprise As i mentioned there seems to be are several different dates to come to if we just let the data speak for itself. And we also have to check the assumptions going into the count. But there is no universal number that all the data seems to conforms to as far as i can tell. Unless of course you simply embrace the current theories over the data.

You change the topic alot 0,o

For Mercury

A deep dynamo generating Mercury's magnetic field
Ulrich R. Christensen
Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Max-Planck-Strasse 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

Mercury has a global magnetic field of internal origin and it is thought that a dynamo operating in the fluid part of Mercury's large iron core is the most probable cause. However, the low intensity of Mercury's magnetic field&mdash;about 1% the strength of the Earth's field&mdash;cannot be reconciled with an Earth-like dynamo. With the common assumption that Coriolis and Lorentz forces balance in planetary dynamos1, a field thirty times stronger is expected. Here I present a numerical model of a dynamo driven by thermo-compositional convection associated with inner core solidification. The thermal gradient at the core&ndash;mantle boundary is subadiabatic2, 3, and hence the outer region of the liquid core is stably stratified with the dynamo operating only at depth, where a strong field is generated. Because of the planet's slow rotation the resulting magnetic field is dominated by small-scale components that fluctuate rapidly with time. The dynamo field diffuses through the stable conducting region, where rapidly varying parts are strongly attenuated by the skin effect, while the slowly varying dipole and quadrupole components pass to some degree. The model explains the observed structure and strength of Mercury's surface magnetic field and makes predictions that are testable with space missions both presently flying and planned.
Nature 444, 1056-1058 (21 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05342; Received 27 August 2006; Accepted 9 October 2006

We'll have to wait until after BepiColombo launches in August 2015 to see if expectations match results, the two part mission has a planetary orbiter and magnetosphere orbiter.

If you want to believe because of some unknowns and data, that the solar system is younger than our earth, you're welcome to do so, but your are going against a lot more knowns and data to do so.

[revelarts]

You change the topic alot 0,o

For Mercury

Nature 444, 1056-1058 (21 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05342; Received 27 August 2006; Accepted 9 October 2006

We'll have to wait until after BepiColombo launches in August 2015 to see if expectations match results, the two part mission has a planetary orbiter and magnetosphere orbiter.

If you want to believe because of some unknowns and data, that the solar system is younger than our earth, you're welcome to do so, but your are going against a lot more knowns and data to do so.

the mercury info you quote was done after the fact.
But before the probes the conventional theory assumed that Mercury had no magnetic field.
and that it would not be deteriorating if it by some miracle did.
the conventional science on the solar system formation and assumed billion + age of Mercury gave them idea that mercury would be dead. Dr Humphrey -- mentioned the the artitle i linked to-- PREDICTED the discovery of the feild, And the rate of magnetic decay by assuming a younger age and other factors.

the conventional science had to create an answer ad hoc after the fact, and it still has problems.

And the the different points i'm bringing up go to fact that the "knowns" are not as known as believed and the unknowns and flat out CONTRADICTORY data should not be ignored if people are to be honest about the science.

just in this thread alone we mention:

•"Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."

•the theory of solar formation "It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."

• the red shift appears not to consistently signify distance.

• that comets appear observably young

there's much more that does NOT conform to the current accepted theories. (i could post a list)
At some point we have to say OK, the core theory has serious issues, so at the least we need to have a few extra theories on the table to try to make sense of all the data. Rather than continually shoe honing everything into one track.

seems to me.

[Gaffer]

the mercury info you quote was done after the fact.
But before the probes the conventional theory assumed that Mercury had no magnetic field.
and that it would not be deteriorating if it by some miracle did.
the conventional science on the solar system formation and assumed billion + age of Mercury gave them idea that mercury would be dead. Dr Humphrey -- mentioned the the artitle i linked to-- PREDICTED the discovery of the feild, And the rate of magnetic decay by assuming a younger age and other factors.

the conventional science had to create an answer ad hoc after the fact, and it still has problems.

And the the different points i'm bringing up go to fact that the "knowns" are not as known as believed and the unknowns and flat out CONTRADICTORY data should not be ignored if people are to be honest about the science.

just in this thread alone we mention:

•"Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."

•the theory of solar formation "It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."

• the red shift appears not to consistently signify distance.

• that comets appear observably young

there's much more that does NOT conform to the current accepted theories. (i could post a list)
At some point we have to say OK, the core theory has serious issues, so at the least we need to have a few extra theories on the table to try to make sense of all the data. Rather than continually shoe honing everything into one track.

seems to me.

Not like you would shoe horn anything.

It boils down to science with theories verses magic belief.

[revelarts]

Not like you would shoe horn anything.

It boils down to science with theories verses magic belief.

I frankly admit that i believe the Bible is true.
And i believe that most of the scientific data agrees with or does not conflict with what it says..
And i actively LOOK for points of agreement. and FIND THEM without twisting the data AT ALL.

but the so called objective scientific community claim they just want to find the truth ..where ever it leads. right?
If it leads to MORE evidence for GOD then that's OK. right?

But no, the "objective" scientific community in general has certain BELIEFS as well,
they BELIEVE that the material universe is all there is.

Is that a proven fact? the honest answer is NO Gaffer.
And as i pointed out elsewhere i believe that science always eventually appeals to what would be called "magic" in any other context and belief in the regular sense is the foundation it works from as well.

what do you call it when someone admits they have NO evidence for something and possibly never will be able to observe it but believe it anyway? most people call that faith. (I call that blind faith)
The "scientific" Oort cloud theory of Comet formation does EXACTLY that.

do you want to talk about the multi verse theory?
Scientist admit that they will NEVER be able to prove it. or Observe it. but they believe it.
Why? because they don't like that fact that the universe observably looks designed and they want an alternative to that concept.

With the big bang how did the universe form? everything from "nothing".
That's magic Gaffer. Rabbit out of the hat. More magical than any miracle in the Bible. the Bible starts with God.
Science starts with "NOTHING" to create Everything, presto chango TA DA!!
Then you get "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics. poof! TA DA!!!
It had to happen ya'll trust us!!

then you get life from non-life POOF! TADA!!!

oh yeah, dark matter & energy . you can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or detect it in anyway at all, but you see it's effects all around you.... it's there... JUST BELIEVE...


and so on and so on.
there no natural explanation, no observable data, no POSSIBLE natural processes to do the above but many BELIEVE it anyway.
it's MAGIC gaffer. just admit it.
Or say you have FAITH that ONE DAY some scientist will figure out how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc were and are broken from time to time by accident to perform the above magical events.

there's belief no matter which way you cut it.

the real question here is,
Which belief system has MORE scientific evidence to back it up?
Is there more evidence of a Creator than there is for Blind chance and matter to explain what we can see, hear, feel, touch, etc today?

I think objectively there's more on the side of God than "nothing".

[Noir]

oh yeah, dark matter & energy . you can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or detect it in anyway at all, but you see it's effects all around you.... it's there... JUST BELIEVE...

You can detect the gravitational effects of dark matter, and use it for gravitational lensing.



I think objectively there's more on the side of God than "nothing".

The problem here lies.
If we proved the existence of the Oort cloud, would that disprove "God"? No, of course not.
The irony here is that the God story can always change to objectively match whatever data you have, or don't have. Which is why it is not relevant in this conversation.

[revelarts]

You can detect the gravitational effects of dark matter, and use it for gravitational lensing.

The problem here lies.
If we proved the existence of the Oort cloud, would that disprove "God"? No, of course not.
The irony here is that the God story can always change to objectively match whatever data you have, or don't have. Which is why it is not relevant in this conversation.

We can see effects that don't align with whats expected, whether or not they are gravitational I'm not sure that's definitive except to those who purpose the dark matter and energy to explain it.

And the God story is a fairly clearly outlined. it doesn't really change.
Scientific data doesn't change but new data does come in and changes ---or should change-- the science and/or the theories. It's true that many Christians bend the Biblical text with the whatever science that's in vogue. But some of us stick with the old text as it is.
we're the one's Dawkins and the like have issue's with.

Also that story is perfectly relevant since the whole scientific process is engaged in discovering the facts of reality and ultimate causation.
If the Biblical God is foundational to causation at any point there should be some tracks that make that case, or defeat it.

I stand by my orgianl statement:

"the real question here is,
Which belief system has MORE scientific evidence to back it up?
Is there more evidence of a Creator than there is for Blind chance and matter to explain what we can see, hear, feel, touch, etc today?

I think objectively there's more on the side of God than "nothing"."

[Noir]

We can see effects that don't align with whats expected, whether or not they are gravitational I'm not sure that's definitive except to those who purpose the dark matter and energy to explain it.

Good golly, the list goes on, so what is bending the light other than gravity?


And the God story is a fairly clearly outlined. it doesn't really change.
Scientific data doesn't change but new data does come in and changes ---or should change-- the science and/or the theories. It's true that many Christians bend the Biblical text with the whatever science that's in vogue. But some of us stick with the old text as it is.
we're the one's Dawkins and the like have issue's with.

Okay, so just to be clear here, are you a 'young earth creationist' who believes the Old Testament is literal?


Also that story is perfectly relevant since the whole scientific process is engaged in discovering the facts of reality and ultimate causation.
If the Biblical God is foundational to causation at any point there should be some tracks that make that case, or defeat it.

If you think the case for your god can be defeated by science, fair enough, I don't.

[revelarts]

Good golly, the list goes on, so what is bending the light other than gravity?

FYI the idea that there is no Dark matter or energy is not an idea get from the Bible.
That's my own contrarian thinking based on the speculations pro and con.
But other than gravity there are other forces at work in the universe, electromagnetic fields for instance.
i don't claim to know or have a definite answer but to me, claiming that 90% of the material universe is undetectable and unknown is just to big of bridge to cross.

the emperor has no clothes as far as i can tell.
It's possible i'm wrong here, but I'd be really surprised if i was.



Okay, so just to be clear here, are you a 'young earth creationist' who believes the Old Testament is literal?

short answer, yes,
They are, idioms, poetic language, hyperbole, as well as strait forward literal historical narrative.
Normal reading comprehension and honest assessment of the text and context makes the distinctions clear in most areas.

But Yep, I'm in the young earth creationist camp,
I straddled old and young earth there for a while but now I'm all in.
Was an agnostic and evolutionist before that.



If you think the case for your god can be defeated by science, fair enough, I don't.
I think the case for the God of the Bible can theoretically be defeated, but when actually put to the test can not be.

[Noir]

FYI the idea that there is no Dark matter or energy is not an idea get from the Bible. That's my own contrarian thinking based on the speculations pro and con. But other than gravity there are other forces at work in the universe, electromagnetic fields for instance. i don't claim to know or have a definite answer but to me, claiming that 90% of the material universe is undetectable and unknown is just to big of bridge to cross. the emperor has no clothes as far as i can tell. It's possible i'm wrong here, but I'd be really surprised if i was.

So you think that electromagnetic fields are bending the light? Or another force? To say an answer is unacceptable because you weighed up the 'pros and cons' must surly mean you have some concept of an alternative that has more pros and less cons, no?



short answer, yes, They are, idioms, poetic language, hyperbole, as well as strait forward literal historical narrative. Normal reading comprehension and honest assessment of the text and context makes the distinctions clear in most areas. But Yep, I'm in the young earth creationist camp, I straddled old and young earth there for a while but now I'm all in. Was an agnostic and evolutionist before that.

So the story does change, based on interpretation. i.e. What you consider honest assessment, someone else will not.


I think the case for the God of the Bible can theoretically be defeated, but when actually put to the test can not be.

I'd like you to describe an instance in which a god could be 'theoretically' defeated, because i'm at a loss to think of any.

[revelarts]

So you think that electromagnetic fields are bending the light? Or another force? To say an answer is unacceptable because you weighed up the 'pros and cons' must surly mean you have some concept of an alternative that has more pros and less cons, no?

It means I find all the answers presented have too many cons.
If there's a murder and you have 2 suspects
and you find one wasn't in town the day of the killing.
and the other doesn't have a right hand but the killer was right handed.
Then I can say that both of the proposed killers can be dismissed as innocent, the killer is still at large.
We don't HAVE TO HAVE some suspect before we can move on in the investigation.
correct?



So the story does change, based on interpretation. i.e. What you consider honest assessment, someone else will not.
Sure people, in all honesty, can make wild interpretations.
But consider this.
In school when you read your history book, science book and Shakespeare text.
When you take the test in each class, you don't get points because you've honestly interpreted those books in the way you liked. Rather than what the books generally conveys to everyone using typical reading comprehension.
The Bible is not really any different.
Are there places in the Bible where there's more room for interpretation? Absolutely.
Are most places in the Bible extremely clear? yes.
So clear it pisses a lot of people off.



I'd like you to describe an instance in which a god could be 'theoretically' defeated, because i'm at a loss to think of any.
To defeat the concept of God in general I don't think it can be done.
the specific God of the Bible or the Koran or Hindus that's a bit different.
You've done as much in another thread when u commented on the Mormon historical issues.

Concerning Traditional Christianity it's what Dawkins attempts to do when he presents evolution as the true alternative to Creation. If he were right it'd defeat what many consider several basic tenet of Scripture. Creation, adam, original sin, equality of mankind, dominion of man over the earth and animals etc
If someone somehow found the body of Jesus is another. There are others 'theoretically'.