Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:42 am**

Mazzy wrote:
ViviStd wrote:
Mazzy wrote:Hi Paul

...
I have seen better models, such as one based on wave theory, that does not require dark energy and dark matter. The reason why such theories are not taken up is because this one is galactocentric and defies the Copernican Principle.

...
Hi Mazzy.
Could you tell me more about the models? How they don't require dark matter and energy? and how they defy Copernican Principle?
Hi there

I have posted this research elsewhere on this forum so sorry for the repetition for those that have read it.

Such a model defies the Copernican Principle in that it makes the Milky way special. In this model the Milky Way is at or near the centre of the universe. IOW it is a galactocentric model. The Copernical Principle asserts nothing about the earth or Milky Way or its postioning can be special.

This model reconciles with the theory of General relativity without the need to use dark matter or dark energy in its algorithims and equations. N fact, as it uses wave theory, and we now light can a can act both as a particle and a wave, this theory, in my view, is more likely to reconcile eventually with quantum mechanics than Big Bang as it stands. This model also incorporates a big bang but its expanding wave originates close to the Milky Way. It makes more sense that suggesting we are on the outer edge of a ball with no centre.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full

For your information, here is a link that shows physicists questioning if dark matters existence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-gravity/

Here is some info questioning dark energys existence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rgy-exist/

Here below is a more recent article from 2013 suggesting dark energy theory is incompatable with the latest galactic measurements.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -constant/

Morny, do you see my post above. This is called backing up ones opinion rather than flag waving.

It would be more constructive, Morny, if you substantively challenged the material presented. I most certainly will have no problem challenging the current Big Bang theory.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:30 am**

Mazzy wrote:I have posted empirical research to back up a galactocentric universe. I have also offered sound reasoning in afterglow pictures making no sense of a galaxy meant to be on the outer edge of a ball.

The best you appear to have to offer is flag waving and attitude. Why don't you read my links and offer a sensible reply instead of flag waving?

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full

Before discussing Temple and Smoller, you still haven't addressed my simple galaxy velocity/distance evidence. Without agreeing on the implications of that easy to understand evidence, we have no common starting point.

Before the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data caused cosmologists to introduce the concept of dark energy, cosmologists agreed that galactic velocities being proportional to their distance from the Earth, was strong evidence that the Milky Way was not the center of the universe. Do you agree, based on the evidence cosmologists had at the time?

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:21 pm**

Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote:I wish I knew what you were on about.
I'm not surprised.

As far as our telescopes can see, galaxies are receding with velocities proportional to their distance from us. So an astronomer on a distant galaxy sees the same velocity/distance galaxy recession pattern that we see.

And yet you are the one making the claim that the Milky Way is at the privileged center of the universe. You do know that wanting the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe is not evidence for that, yes?

The above is not evidence. It is an opinion. No one has been to another galaxy to confirm. This opinion is the best there is to bolster the view that the earth nor our galaxy is special. Scientists have become philosophers with their Copernican Principle philosophy.

Hubble's constant is a guess that has been revised and argued.

"The value of the Hubble constant initially obtained by Hubble was around 500 km/s/Mpc, and has since been radically revised because initial assumptions about stars yielded underestimated distances. For the past three decades, there have been two major lines of investigation into the Hubble constant. One team, associated with Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Institutions, has derived a value for H around 50 km/s/Mpc. The other team, associated with Gerard DeVaucouleurs of the University of Texas, has obtained values that indicate H to be around 100 km/s/Mpc."

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... stant.html

The most recent best estimates, with the benefit of the Hubble Telescope and the WMAP probe, is around 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec. (It should perhaps be pointed out that the Hubble constant is technically a parameter, NOT a constant, because it will actually change over long periods of time.)

Galaxies are not merely receding from us due to expansion of the universe; they move around in the gravitational ¯eld of other galaxies. This component of motion is called `peculiar velocity' . Peculiar velocities are not expected to have any average value, these are expected to be random.

"What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density. This on its own should already prove the physical impossibility of the expansion idea."

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm

I haven't even started on the myth of Dark matter and energy yet, being a magical insertion value that makes the big bang mess slightly less messy.

"Despite tantalising early hints of a sighting, the most sensitive search yet for dark matter has come up empty. First results from the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector in South Dakota, announced today, failed to confirm previous potential sightings reported by other detectors. That may spell trouble for elegant recent theories of a shadow universe where myriad particles interact via their own dark forces."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... -bind.html

You may like to read this on big bang, redshift and dark energy theories which has links to articles to support the commentary...

http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm

I prefer the Temple and Smoller model because it does not rely on mysteries and myths and yet still has some big bang components, reconciles with the theory of general relativity, with the Milky Way at or near the centre of the universe.

Posted: **Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:55 pm**

Mazzy wrote:The above is not evidence. It is an opinion. No one has been to another galaxy to confirm.

The astronomical evidence is that the distances to galaxies are proportional to their velocities away from Earth. Logic can determine what distances and velocities other galaxies see. Opinions aren't involved.

A simple example illustrates the idea. Many websites give more details at the cost of simplicity. Consider below our local astronomer standing on The Milky Way ('#") measuring distances to, and velocities for, far away galaxies ('+'), which lie roughly along some line of sight. For math simplicity, without loss of generality, assume that the proportionality constant between distance and velocity is 1. Let's say his data for 8 galaxies (remember, roughly in a line) is:

Code: Select all

          "Is the Milky Way Galaxy at the center?"
          \o/
           |
          / \    A     B     C
           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
Velocity:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

So if galaxy B is twice as far away as galaxy A, then galaxy B is receding twice as fast from Earth as galaxy A. If C is three times as far away as A, then C has three times the recessional velocity. Etc.

Now consider an astronomer, living on that galaxy 4 units distant from Earth, measuring the same galaxies. By simple logic/math from the above data, his data is:

Code: Select all

       "Nuh, uh!"     "The Baby Ruth Galaxy is at the center!"
          \o/         \o/
           |           |
          / \         / \
           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  4  3  2  1  0  1  2  3  4
Velocity:  4  3  2  1  0  1  2  3  4

The Baby Ruth astronomer sees the same expanding universe as The Milky Way astronomer, with the same proportionality between distance and velocity. So our astronomer realizes that he and the other astronomer cannot both be at the center of the expanding universe. Neither astronomer has evidence for a preferred frame of reference. The same logic applies to the other astronomers. Try it! Without a God's-eye view of the entire universe, even the meaning of "center of the universe" is unclear!

How cool is that?! Does everyone see why for decades astronomers have been so excited at what the galactic red-shift measurements mean?

Note that the specific measured function of distance and velocity is important! For example, consider from The Milky Way's perspective, if velocity were something else, let's say, a function of distance squared:

Code: Select all

           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
Velocity:  0  1  4  9 16 25 36 49 64

Now each astronomer would see quite a different expanding universe!

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:07 am**

Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote:The above is not evidence. It is an opinion. No one has been to another galaxy to confirm.
The astronomical evidence is that the distances to galaxies are proportional to their velocities away from Earth. Logic can determine what distances and velocities other galaxies see. Opinions aren't involved.

A simple example illustrates the idea. Many websites give more details at the cost of simplicity. Consider below our local astronomer standing on The Milky Way ('#") measuring distances to, and velocities for, far away galaxies ('+'), which lie roughly along some line of sight. For math simplicity, without loss of generality, assume that the proportionality constant between distance and velocity is 1. Let's say his data for 8 galaxies (remember, roughly in a line) is:
Code: Select all
          "Is the Milky Way Galaxy at the center?"
          \o/
           |
          / \    A     B     C
           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
Velocity:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
So if galaxy B is twice as far away as galaxy A, then galaxy B is receding twice as fast from Earth as galaxy A. If C is three times as far away as A, then C has three times the recessional velocity. Etc.

Now consider an astronomer, living on that galaxy 4 units distant from Earth, measuring the same galaxies. By simple logic/math from the above data, his data is:
Code: Select all
       "Nuh, uh!"     "The Baby Ruth Galaxy is at the center!"
          \o/         \o/
           |           |
          / \         / \
           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  4  3  2  1  0  1  2  3  4
Velocity:  4  3  2  1  0  1  2  3  4
The Baby Ruth astronomer sees the same expanding universe as The Milky Way astronomer, with the same proportionality between distance and velocity. So our astronomer realizes that he and the other astronomer cannot both be at the center of the expanding universe. Neither astronomer has evidence for a preferred frame of reference. The same logic applies to the other astronomers. Try it! Without a God's-eye view of the entire universe, even the meaning of "center of the universe" is unclear!

How cool is that?! Does everyone see why for decades astronomers have been so excited at what the galactic red-shift measurements mean?

Note that the specific measured function of distance and velocity is important! For example, consider from The Milky Way's perspective, if velocity were something else, let's say, a function of distance squared:
Code: Select all
           #  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  + ...
Distance:  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
Velocity:  0  1  4  9 16 25 36 49 64
Now each astronomer would see quite a different expanding universe!

Apparently you just like to go around in circles. We all know what astronomers are suggesting and I have pointed out that all the gobble is nothing more than opinion.

Why should I bother to post links when you can't be bothered reading them? The hubble constant is debated and is not science but guesswork and is not constant over time.

Astronomers do not "SEE" an expanding universe. They see complicated numbers they call redshift. I have posted on that as well.

So I suppose if you are going to keep going on about the same thing without addressing what I actually post about it, then you are not going to get anywhere in this discussion.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:26 am**

Mazzy wrote:
Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote:I wish I knew what you were on about.
I'm not surprised.

As far as our telescopes can see, galaxies are receding with velocities proportional to their distance from us. So an astronomer on a distant galaxy sees the same velocity/distance galaxy recession pattern that we see.

And yet you are the one making the claim that the Milky Way is at the privileged center of the universe. You do know that wanting the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe is not evidence for that, yes?
The above is not evidence. It is an opinion. No one has been to another galaxy to confirm. This opinion is the best there is to bolster the view that the earth nor our galaxy is special. Scientists have become philosophers with their Copernican Principle philosophy.

Hubble's constant is a guess that has been revised and argued.

"The value of the Hubble constant initially obtained by Hubble was around 500 km/s/Mpc, and has since been radically revised because initial assumptions about stars yielded underestimated distances. For the past three decades, there have been two major lines of investigation into the Hubble constant. One team, associated with Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Institutions, has derived a value for H around 50 km/s/Mpc. The other team, associated with Gerard DeVaucouleurs of the University of Texas, has obtained values that indicate H to be around 100 km/s/Mpc."

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... stant.html

The most recent best estimates, with the benefit of the Hubble Telescope and the WMAP probe, is around 72 kilometres per second per megaparsec. (It should perhaps be pointed out that the Hubble constant is technically a parameter, NOT a constant, because it will actually change over long periods of time.)

Galaxies are not merely receding from us due to expansion of the universe; they move around in the gravitational ¯eld of other galaxies. This component of motion is called `peculiar velocity' . Peculiar velocities are not expected to have any average value, these are expected to be random.

"What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density. This on its own should already prove the physical impossibility of the expansion idea."

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm

I haven't even started on the myth of Dark matter and energy yet, being a magical insertion value that makes the big bang mess slightly less messy.

"Despite tantalising early hints of a sighting, the most sensitive search yet for dark matter has come up empty. First results from the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector in South Dakota, announced today, failed to confirm previous potential sightings reported by other detectors. That may spell trouble for elegant recent theories of a shadow universe where myriad particles interact via their own dark forces."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... -bind.html

You may like to read this on big bang, redshift and dark energy theories which has links to articles to support the commentary...

http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm

I prefer the Temple and Smoller model because it does not rely on mysteries and myths and yet still has some big bang components, reconciles with the theory of general relativity, with the Milky Way at or near the centre of the universe.

Morny, when you are actually ready to address what I said in reply to you, instead of going around in circles, then we may be able to have a sensible discussion.

Let me be clear about something. Scientists do not even know if the universe is expanding or accelerating. What they know is they have a big hole of nothing to fill in with the latest flavour of the month. They came up with some magical numbers for the first time and viola, stated the universe must be accelerating, although they had never made such a measurement before as a comparison. They they sell this to the public like as if they know what they are talking about. They don't!.

"NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) provided a true watershed moment in humanity's quest to understand the cosmos. Its findings calculated the age of the universe and plotted the curvature of space. It mapped the cosmic microwave background radiation and, in a shocking turn of events, revealed that atoms make up only 4.6 percent of the universe."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... energy.htm

Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

"Association of galaxies at disparate redshifts. There are some amazing cases of objects with wildly different redshifts but showing the appearance of direct interaction. No two seem to be of the same kind, and there are more or less plausible ad hoc conventional interpretations depending on how much of a statistical fluke one is willing to believe out of a given number of galaxies. Some of the most notorious cases are Stephan's Quintet, NGC 4319/Mkn 205, and NGC 7603."

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html

In summary, there is no point putting up your pretty pictures in trying to make any point. The point is, these researchers have absolutely no clue. Anything I present eg Temple and Smollers wave theory model, could not be worse than anything you have to offer to explain what is observed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:34 am**

Mazzy wrote:Astronomers do not "SEE" an expanding universe. They see complicated numbers they call redshift. I have posted on that as well.

Nearly all cosmologists are confident that redshifts reliably indicate the proportional distance/velocity relationship. Finding mainstream technical publications that point out the problems with your fringe references should be relatively easy.

My previous post is for curious readers who may have wanted a simple graphical explanation of why cosmologists think the universe is expanding, and why we're almost surely not at the center. If only one person understood the idea, my time has not been wasted. I was certainly amazed when I first understood the idea.

Posted: **Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:19 am**

Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote:Astronomers do not "SEE" an expanding universe. They see complicated numbers they call redshift. I have posted on that as well.
Nearly all cosmologists are confident that redshifts reliably indicate the proportional distance/velocity relationship. Finding mainstream technical publications that point out the problems with your fringe references should be relatively easy.

My previous post is for curious readers who may have wanted a simple graphical explanation of why cosmologists think the universe is expanding, and why we're almost surely not at the center. If only one person understood the idea, my time has not been wasted. I was certainly amazed when I first understood the idea.

In other words Morny, you refuse to speak to what I have to say. The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous. Cosmologists were also confident they had it right a little over a decade ago before WAP pictures told them they got it wrong. We aren't taking about ancient history here Morny, this is a fairly recent stuff up. Now they are left with over 95% of the matter in the universe missing and 'dark'. 'Dark' in science speak means "have no clue".

What I have offered is a model that explains what is observed without the complication of the ridiculous and mysterious Whether Temple and Smoller are right or wrong their model is more parsinomous. You do not have to like it and you are welcome to put your faith in the current status quo with a belief in mysterious dark matter scientists are unable to find.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:36 am**

Thank Mazzy for the links you have offered. They are useful for an amateur like me. Big Bang would be a good theory if dark matter and dark energy, cosmic microwave background shadows and more were confirmed. However, since many things are still left open, we should be looking for some other theories including the theory of "Big Wave" you have suggested.

In regarding to Big Wave theory, it seems to be based on Einstein's theory. But, I myself don't like Einstein's Relativistic Theory so much since they unify space and time and they make space around a massive object to be curved and more, those ideas are hard to me to be accepted. I am, in particular, searching for other explanations of aberration, Morley-Michelson experiment in order to reject the Relativistic Theory. It would be crazy I am, but I will try with all my best.

PS, sorry for my poor English.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:20 pm**

ViviStd wrote:Thank Mazzy for the links you have offered. They are useful for an amateur like me. Big Bang would be a good theory if dark matter and dark energy, cosmic microwave background shadows and more were confirmed. However, since many things are still left open, we should be looking for some other theories including the theory of "Big Wave" you have suggested.

In regarding to Big Wave theory, it seems to be based on Einstein's theory. But, I myself don't like Einstein's Relativistic Theory so much since they unify space and time and they make space around a massive object to be curved and more, those ideas are hard to me to be accepted. I am, in particular, searching for other explanations of aberration, Morley-Michelson experiment in order to reject the Relativistic Theory. It would be crazy I am, but I will try with all my best.

PS, sorry for my poor English.

Hi there ViviStd. You may also like this information.

"The technical literature of astronomy almost completely ignores a galactocentric cosmos as a possible explanation for redshift quantization.38 Instead, secular astronomers appear to prefer some as-yet-unexplained microscopic phenomenon affecting the light itself, either in its emission from atoms or its transmission through space. Tifft himself actively promotes such an explanation. Invoking a new concept, ‘three-dimensional time’, Tifft says,

‘The redshift has imprinted on it a pattern that appears to have its origin in microscopic quantum physics, yet it carries this imprint across cosmological boundaries.’ 39

Thus secular astronomers have avoided the simple explanation, most not even mentioning it as a possibility. Instead, they have grasped at a straw they would normally disdain, by invoking mysterious unknown physics. I suggest that they are avoiding the obvious because galactocentricity brings into question their deepest worldviews. "

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show

I also don't go much on the theory of general relativity. There is obviously something very wrong with it. It is just a majority belief. However I suppose scientists have to offer their best guesses in making sense of the universe. Theoretical 'science' around Big Bang offers a belief system that results in 95% of the matter in the universe missing and this is recent history. Many theists think these scientists know what they are talking about and suggest God was responsible for the BB. Temple and Smoller are also trying their best, and they are not creationists and possibly not even theists. Atheists in particular, like Hawkins, would rather grab at straws, like universes with no centre, invoke mysteries like dark matter and energy making up over 95% of the universe, than pursue any model that makes our galaxy special.

Here is another link to a published research article you may enjoy reading that suggests the universe may not be expanding after all. You can google this and find more info on it than just the abstract. There are quite a few research articles around that challenge the prevailing bias of an expanding universe.

http://inspirehep.net/record/744604?ln=en

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:17 pm**

Mazzy wrote: The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous.

You're not making sense.

Mazzy wrote:In other words Morny, you refuse to speak to what I have to say.

Temple and Smoller (who are mathematicians, not physicists) agree that the universe is expanding, but only have a problem with the recent discovery of accelerating expansion: "We emphasize that our model implies a verifiable prediction, so it remains to be seen whether the model fits the red-shift vs luminosity data better than the dark energy theory."

I wish them good luck.

Temple also says that The Milky Way need not be in the center of the universe, rather we might be near a local center. (Hmmm... already hedging his bets?)

Avi Loeb, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, sums up the hurdles, "There are many observational tests of the standard cosmological model that the proposed model [of Temple and Smoller] must pass, aside from the late phase of accelerated expansion. These include big bang nucleosynthesis, the quantitative details of the microwave background anisotropies, the Lyman-alpha forest, and galaxy surveys. The authors do not discuss how their model compares to these tests, and whether the number of free parameters they require in order to fit these observational constraints is smaller than in the standard model. Until they do so, it is not clear why this alternative model should be regarded as advantageous."

As does Sean Carroll, physicist at Caltech: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... 6IBfXbLe40

And another summary: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... energy/P2/

Mazzy wrote:You do not have to like it and you are welcome to put your faith in the current status quo with a belief in mysterious dark matter scientists are unable to find.

The evidence for neutrinos was overwhelming, but how long before we actually found them?

You wouldn't have another reason, besides Temple and Smoller, for the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe, would you?

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:02 pm**

Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote: The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous.
You're not making sense.

Actually any geometric shape with nothing in the middle is what does not make sense.

Mazzy wrote:In other words Morny, you refuse to speak to what I have to say.
Temple and Smoller (who are mathematicians, not physicists) agree that the universe is expanding, but only have a problem with the recent discovery of accelerating expansion: "We emphasize that our model implies a verifiable prediction, so it remains to be seen whether the model fits the red-shift vs luminosity data better than the dark energy theory."

I wish them good luck.

Temple also says that The Milky Way need not be in the center of the universe, rather we might be near a local center. (Hmmm... already hedging his bets?)

Avi Loeb, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, sums up the hurdles, "There are many observational tests of the standard cosmological model that the proposed model [of Temple and Smoller] must pass, aside from the late phase of accelerated expansion. These include big bang nucleosynthesis, the quantitative details of the microwave background anisotropies, the Lyman-alpha forest, and galaxy surveys. The authors do not discuss how their model compares to these tests, and whether the number of free parameters they require in order to fit these observational constraints is smaller than in the standard model. Until they do so, it is not clear why this alternative model should be regarded as advantageous."

As does Sean Carroll, physicist at Caltech: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... 6IBfXbLe40

And another summary: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... energy/P2/

Mazzy wrote:You do not have to like it and you are welcome to put your faith in the current status quo with a belief in mysterious dark matter scientists are unable to find.
The evidence for neutrinos was overwhelming, but how long before we actually found them?

You wouldn't have another reason, besides Temple and Smoller, for the Milky Way to be at the center of the universe, would you?

Given the status quo not making any sense and what was 'known' and predicted turned to rubbish a little over a decade ago, what Ave Loab has to say is irrelevant and more a comment on hoping to uphold his own faith.

I have already posted on alternative thinking, apart from Temple and Smoller that also places the Milky Way at or near the the centre of the universe. Here it is again.

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show

From the seed mag you linked, that I had read previously anyway.

"But perhaps the largest objection voiced is that this model would require Earth to be at the center of the universe. In other words, it would violate the Copernican principle, which states that the Earth does not have a special, favored place and that the universe is essentially homogeneous."

As for the nonsense on afterglow....

"The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104549.htm

The link to above re galactocentric universe is also just as good as anything the best supporters of BB have to offer, which is now supported by 95% mystery.

I hope you really get the point Morny. The point being....Any refute or challenge to any galactocentric model or 'support' offered has no credible weight.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:51 am**

Mazzy wrote:
Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote: The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous.
You're not making sense.
Actually any geometric shape with nothing in the middle is what does not make sense.

Each new bigger and better telescope sees an isotropic universe. So as far as we know, with the current evidence, no one can make a scientific claim to being at the center. Some galaxy, maybe even The Milky Way, might actually be at the center, but we just cannot say yet.

And on a related note, when do very well-supported scientific theories have to make sense? Billions of people strongly believe ideas that make no sense and have no well-supported evidence. If you have a serious problem with cosmology making sense, I'm guessing that you're apoplectic with all but a handful of people in the world.

Mazzy wrote:http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show

And finally, the other shoe drops ... citing cosmology via creation.com, whose statement of faith demands a 6 day creation and a few thousand year old universe. The world is so much simpler, being able to trivially dismiss not only evidence, but also expert consensus.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:59 am**

Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote:
Morny wrote:
Mazzy wrote: The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous.
You're not making sense.
Actually any geometric shape with nothing in the middle is what does not make sense.
Each new bigger and better telescope sees an isotropic universe. So as far as we know, with the current evidence, no one can make a scientific claim to being at the center. Some galaxy, maybe even The Milky Way, might actually be at the center, but we just cannot say yet.

And on a related note, when do very well-supported scientific theories have to make sense? Billions of people strongly believe ideas that make no sense and have no well-supported evidence. If you have a serious problem with cosmology making sense, I'm guessing that you're apoplectic with all but a handful of people in the world.

Mazzy wrote:http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show
And finally, the other shoe drops ... citing cosmology via creation.com, whose statement of faith demands a 6 day creation and a few thousand year old universe. The world is so much simpler, being able to trivially dismiss not only evidence, but also expert consensus.

Morny all you seem to like talking about the bluster of the majority. The majority were wrong and now the majority have 95% mystery to uphold their faith. Why do you continue to ignore this SOLID FACT? I'll answer, your faith is strong, and so is mine in special earth. The articles you posted on the Temple Smoller model only help to demonstrate how good it is.

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself. I am an OEC and believe the earth and mankind is special and that is actually what the FACTS supports, no aliens, no noise picked up by SETI, no life on mars that has H2O, no evolutionary reason for one species on earth to be building rockets etc.

What has in fact happened is that bigger and better telescopes etc have caused huge headaches for BB requiring more and more nonsense to be added to save the day and reputations of researchers. The more they 'see' the more complicated and ridiculous the explanations. Dark matter and energy constituting over 95% of the universe, the shortest distance in space is a curve, geometric shapes with nothing in the middle of them, the list goes on and on and on.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above. We are talking about the universe and if you knew anything at all about cosmology the latest flavour of the month is that the Milky Ways' centre is a black hole the vicinity of which is not a good address.

The thing I like best about this discusssion with you is that it gives me more opportunity to provide data that demmonstates more and more researchers are loosing faith in big bang theory. I have posted many articles written by well credentialled researchers.

Here is another big bang for big bang and another article for you to not read.

"Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe - a group of quasars so large it would take 4 billion years to cross it while traveling at speed of light.

The immense scale also challenges Albert Einstein's Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe looks the same from every point of view, researchers said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 1S20130112

When I said galactocentric models could not posibly be worse than the Big Bang model, that was actually a statement you cannot refute on any basis other than your own faith and quoting researchers statements of faith in attempting to save their credibility.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:36 pm**

I read swiftly on the article about 'quantized' redshifts that Mazzy had offered before. It is really interesting me and I think it may be a good evidence for a galactocentric modal because it based on calculations on observational data.

The galactocentric modals have just appeared recently (as I think so) and have not much researches on this domain. I think the modals would be very impressive if it could explain the origin of the universe, the present of CMB, the concentration of matter into solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and so on.

In regard on the 95% of dark matter problem, I wonder why scientists don't turn to a new modal, something such as the low pressure areas of a special 'air' (like ether) that concentrated matter in the way the low pressure areas concentrate dust in a dust storm. If this modal was used it would resolve the dark matter problem, do you think so?

Evidence for God from Science

A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion

Re: A discussion about Science and religion