Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

[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.