Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

[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/merc...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/merc...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—about 1% the strength of the Earth's field—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–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'.