• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

are there other universes?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by JoeyArnold, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Anyone can write code to give them the answers they want. From my reading of Holushko's paper (which hasn't been peer reviewed) he doesn't factor in known physics. You have light being absorbed and emitted. The emission will not always occur along the same path as the photon that was absorbed. Where does Holushko incorporate this fact into his calculations?

    You didn't answer my question.

    The Stark effect requires the particles to absorb and emit light. Agree or disagree?

    Then we can throw out Ari's paper and Holushko's paper.

    In the same way that most people use Newton's formulas even though Einstein's are more accurate. Black body curves are a close approximations, but they are not exact for starlight. They are different enough that it would have been observed in the CMB data. It isn't there, as the graphs on the website demonstrate, and you so blithely hadwave them away. I can understand why since you want to cling to the PC model. However, it just doesn't work.

    Your arguments against the CMB data are nothing but one big handwave. The CMB is not starlight. The data demonstrates it.
     
  2. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Right after you supply me those experiments which demonstrate that space is not expanding in the lab as you claim.
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    My coffee cup is exactly where I left it on my desk yesterday, and I have no idea what you even physically mean by the term "space". I lack belief that "space' even exists as separate from spacetime, and therefore I lack belief that "space' does anything, including expansion. If you have empirical evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Just pointing at the sky with invisible friends in your pocket won't cut it because I can already explain those very same observations with physical processes that *do* show up in the lab.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    That's all you're doing with your space expansion claims and your invisible sky entities. You're essentially using "dark magic" to make it fit!

    Baloney. You're just handwaving that claim in there.

    It doesn't have to be! Some light is going to never make it to Earth!

    That would relate to the brightness/scattering effects he *does* account for. It takes a relatively 'bright' event to even be seen at large redshifts due to the additional scattering effects.

    I have answered it many times now. You keep ignoring the difference between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift and you refuse to acknowledge they are completely different "mechanisms". One mechanism enjoys empirical support in the lab, but is not used by astronomers to explain redshift. The other does *not* enjoy empirical support but is used by the mainstream to explain redshift.

    FYI, you're the very last person to be complaining about not answering direct questions. You dodge about every tough question I've put to you, including my question about whether you're even professionally employed as an astronomer, and the age and size of the universe. The fact that you can't or won't distinguish between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift makes it highly unlikely that you're a professional astronomer or even well enough versed on this topic to carry on a legitimate scientific discussion.

    Who cares? Did you see that video about stopping and restarting light in the lab?

    The entire website you handed me was based on a series of false assertions, all of which would also destroy the mainstream position. Nobody claimed that the suns were the emission source of the wavelengths in question to begin with, and his graph was simply therefore "made up". Sun's are simply a 'heat source" for the plasmas of interstellar space. It's the plasmas themselves the emit the black body radiation, not the suns and even that light is scattered and absorbed many times over. You're also ignoring the fact that the mainstream uses the same BB technique to calculate the temperature of suns, and they constantly treat our own sun as a "black body' with an opaque surface!

    Boloney. Your argument that the CMB is related to three different sky entities that are impotent on Earth is one big handwave. You can't relate any of those three sky thingabobs to a "temperature" of anything in a lab. It's all "garbage in, garbage out" mathematical models that have no physical connection to anything in the lab.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
  6. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Again, what are you trying to prove by making physics sound like a religion? The self loathing of theists is quite interesting.

    Secondly, I don't need to change the properties of expansion to prevent blurring and othe problems that PC brings. That is the problem right now. You have plasma absorbing and emitting photons. This will blur distant galaxies. Period. There is no way around it.

    Where does Holushku deal with the sharpness of the image?

    That doesn't answer the question at all. Why can't a Doppler redshift explain the redshift we see in stars? I am not asking what astronomers are actually saying. I am asking you why a difference in velocity is not capable of producing a redshift.

    It should matter to you, but sadly it doesn't. Absorption and emission will blur distant images. There is no way around it. That is why various PC supporters are trying so hard to move away from Compton scattering, and even change the physical constants to get away from these problems. The Stark effect has the same problem. It is a mechanism by which the absorption and emission of spectral lines is split in an electrical field.

    Now you have an even more serious problem. Heating will not be homogenous. You will have heat gradients around galaxies. This is not observed in the CMB data. The CMB is nearly homogenous. There is no CMB temperature gradient consistent with the mechanism you propose.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    PC/EU theory isn't a "religion" it's based on pure empirical physics, all of which shows up in the lab. Only your brand of 'metaphysics' is a "religion" that requires faith in the the unseen (in the lab).

    The fact that you view my statements as "self loathing" is actually more interesting. ;)

    No you just had to change the properties of expansion to include metaphysical kinds of expansion (expansion of space which is physically undefined).

    It's not a "problem" except in your head. Holushko's code demonstrates that fact. Your desire to simply handwave away without any published support is the only real "problem".

    It's in the spectral aging and scattering calculations. Why would it match the spectral aging signatures if it was 'blurry'? When did you demonstrate the "blurring' was even a factor? Oh ya, never. You just keep asserting your personal opinions as fact.

    Doppler redshift cannot explain the redshift that we observe because the the universe is larger than 27.4 billion light years wide, and mainstream astronomers put all the Higgs Bosons of the universe into a volume that was smaller than a breadbox, smaller than an atom in fact. Objects with mass will not and cannot move faster than C.

    You're twisting my words like a pretzel and ignoring the key point. I *am* interested in what astronomers are actually saying, whereas you're just making up stuff as you go apparently.

    You keep asserting this statement as fact yet you have never demonstrated it. It's like your dad mantra or something.

    Sure there is. Do a little reading on the topic for a change.

    Nobody is 'moving away' from anything. We're looking for the 'best' explanation and that may or may not involve some amount of Compton scattering. It could be related to *several* kinds of redshift in fact.

    You mean that same problem of you handwaving away without any published support?

    It's an electric universe.

    Yes it is, it's called a "Bell curve". You don't see a single set of sharp 90 degree angles in that graph do you?

    That's because "scattering happens".

    Completely false. You have completely ignored every single citation I have offered you, you still don't understand the difference between Doppler shift and cosmological redshift, and you keep repeating the same falsified claims over and over again. You're also intent on shifting the burden of proof in terms of your own claims and you simply ignore the questions that bust your show (age and size of universe). I only know of one individual in the whole of cyberspace that behaves like that. You wouldn't be an EU hater from JREF playing cyberstalker on Christian forums would you GM, I mean LM?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Again, you are using religion as a derisive term. Have you ever seen a scientist who attacks creationism by calling it "just another science"? I haven't. You know why? Science stands above religion. You don't need to tear down religion in order to lower it to the level of science. Every time you call scientific theories "religions" you are admitting that science is above religion. So go ahead. Keep it up. You are only supporting the argument that atheists have been making for centuries.

    Laughable at best. Do you really think that space is undefined? Your argument is ridiculous in the extreme.

    Please show that Holushko's code explains the blurred images that would be produced. You can handwave away the problem all you want, but it isn't going anywhere.

    Look up at the sky on a cloudy day. Notice the diffuse light coming from the clouds. Notice how you do not see a sharp image of the sun. That is what I am talking about. That is do to absorption and emission.

    Take a look at adaptive optics as well. Astronomers now have the ability to reduce the distortions caused by our own atmosphere. Small changes in density cause distant images to distort. Plasma would do the same.

    Again, take expansion out of the picture. You certainly don't accept it, so why do you keep including it?

    Why can't the redshift be explained by a Doppler shift?

    I am making up the Doppler shift? Really?

    [quoet]You keep asserting this statement as fact yet you have never demonstrated it. It's like your dad mantra or something.[/quote]

    It is a fact.

    "There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
    Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

    I keep repeating it because you keep handwaving it away.

    The best explanation is not a plasma.

    Where is Holushko's paper published? Where is Ari's paper published?

    That doesn't address the spatial distribution of the energies. According to you, galaxies are heating up the plasma that surrounds them. If this were true then we would see a spatial gradient where CMB radiation closest to the galaxies would be hotter than the CMB radiation far away from the galaxy. This is not what we see.

    So does continual heating.

    [/quote]

    Now you are handwaving away the CMB data as well. BTW, you are confusing me with someone else. I don't know who GM is, and I have never stalked you at JREF.
     
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    It's only a derisive term to an individual that has a derisive belief associated with the term "religion". I don't find it derisive at all, it's simply a statement of hard, cold honest empirical fact. All acts of faith in unseen entities are a form of 'religion', a "faith in the unseen", whereas my computer is an 'empirical fact'. There is a distinct difference between the two.

    Ah, that's where your belief systems related to 'derisive" come from then. You see it as a hierarchy of some sort, whereas I simply see religion as a subset of science. Religion doesn't "stand above", nor below "science". Religion is simply a form *of* science IMO. There's where your emotional reaction comes from and clearly its your problem, not mine.

    I'm not tearing anything down, I'm simply noting which ideas enjoy tangible empirical support and which beliefs are 'acts of faith' on the part of the believer. One is empirical physics, the other is not. If the term 'religion' bothers you, too bad.

    No, that's simply your strawman. I don't even put empirical physics 'above' religion, I just tend to personally prefer empirical physics when possible. In terms of cosmology theory, there simply isn't one that requires less "acts of faith" in unseen entities than PC/EU theory.

    Of course it only seems to bother atheists and they are the only ones that ever seem to complain about the comparison. ;)

    Yes, I think "spacetime" is defined and it can "expand" as the physical massive objects that make up spacetime expand and move. Spacetime includes all distance dimensions as well as time. Space isn't physically defined in GR. What the heck *is* space (physically)? How could it possibly 'expand"? How does it "expand'?

    It's not my problem in the first place, it's yours. You've made a handwave allegation as usual and you're now trying to shift the burden of proof, as usual. Your tactics are simply absurd. You've never shown that blurring is actually a "problem" that in the first place!

    Look at the night sky. :) Give me a break. You're just handwaving away and burden shifting away.

    The density variations are likely to affect all light from one small point source pretty much exactly the same way. We'd still see the light. The light wouldn't even move anyway unless the densities were absurdly high, far higher than anything proposed in tired light theories today.

    I don't try to stuff words in astronomers mouths like you do. When astronomers tell me that the redshift they are talking about is not Doppler redshift but a different kind of redshift, I tend to take them at their word, and at least I try to correctly understand their theory. You seem to be intentionally trying to confuse the two kinds of redshift, and ignore the difference between what astronomers actually say, and what you personally believe. Sorry, physics doesn't work like that. I can't argue that Doppler shift will suffice since the mainstream claims that it will not.

    You're technically asking the wrong guy. Why don't astronomers use ordinary Doppler shift then instead of *cosmic redshift*?

    Yep. You are absolutely making up the notion that astronomers attribute redshift to Doppler shift. They don't. Your claim is moot. Your point is moot. Your understanding of this subject is inadequate to have a meaningful conversation with you because you do not even properly represent mainstream theory, so why would I trust you to even attempt to properly understand plasma redshift theories?

    Prove it. You've never done that. You tossed out *one* paper related to *one* kind of redshift, ignored Wolf's work entirely, ignored Stark redshift entirely and pretty much wave away whatever claim floats your boat, including claims that astronomers don't even make. You're just making up stuff as you go apparently.

    This line is completely false to start with. They momentum change does not result in blurriness, it results in redshift. Only a change in the trajectory of a photon would cause 'blurriness" but 99.9999999 percent of deflected photons would never actually reach Earth, let alone blur any images. Only the photons that happened to be in a finite set of photons that showed almost but not quite no deflection could cause blurriness.

    That author doesn't even know the difference between changes in momentum (redshift/blueshift) and changes in trajectory! Give it a rest.

    You keep repeating the same falsified claims. Momentum loss does not lead to blurriness, it only causes 'redshift'. Oy Vey.

    Sure it is. There isn't one single impotent on Earth sky entity required and every claim in the theory, including redshift, has been demonstrated in the lab.

    Who cares? When did you personally cite a single mathematical flaw in any of their work?

    False. We observe scattering, and we do observe bright things in those raw images which they simply "subtract out" to make it look nice and smooth. It's not actually smooth you know until they 'process out" the bright signals related to our galaxy and other objects.

    That's the whole point. It has an average temperature because it has an average energy source and an average energy state that is distributed by photons.

    No, I've handed you lots of published papers that show that the CMB temperature was better predicted by static universe theories, all of which you've probably never bothered to read. You keep handwaving away as though I've provided no rebuttal at all. It's like the material just goes in one ear and out the other, you refuse to respond to my points, and you keep repeating the same false claims over and over again, including Ned's claim about momentum changes causing blurriness rather than simply "redshift". Duh!

    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Why haven't you even admitted that Ned's very first claim that momentum changes in photons equate to blurriness rather than redshift, was false? Only a deflection of the photon, and a very special one at that, could ever cause "blurriness'. Momentum loss is simply redshift. If you're going to stand by an obviously erroneous fallacy of a claim, from some guys website, what point is there in discussing this topic with you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  11. JoeyArnold

    JoeyArnold Well-Known Member

    +60
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    michael, u think we are god
     
  12. CaliforniaSun

    CaliforniaSun Well-Known Member

    +41
    Atheist
    Private
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I think it would be more correct to say that I believe that we all live inside of God and interact with God physically as beloved children of God. "We" (as individuals) aren't actually 'God' anymore than a virus living inside our body is the full human being. I do however believe Jesus when he said that we can "become one with" God consciously, by communing with God and experiencing the presence of God within us and within all things. As we open up our minds and learn to control and quiet our thoughts, we can begin to commune with God. We can begin to understand that the presence of our living God surrounds us, permeates us, sustains us at every level.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  14. JoeyArnold

    JoeyArnold Well-Known Member

    +60
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    i believe in these things in a way
     
  15. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    +753
    Pantheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Do the "children of God" ever grow up?

    :confused:
     
  16. Jamin4422

    Jamin4422 Member

    +11
    United Ch. of Christ
    In Relationship
    They become mature in the way that a fruit tree becomes mature and will produce fruit. God does not have spoiled children. I wish He did, but He expects us to mature and grow up. Is an adult child any less of a child? You still call them your children no matter what their age is.
     
  17. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    +753
    Pantheist
    Single
    US-Others
    But the fruit is not mature, until it has sprouted and produced other fruit.

    When are you going to grow up?

    :confused:
     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I often wonder if God sometimes asks himself the same question. :)
     
  19. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Because it isn't false. It causes parallel photon paths to become unparallel. That is blurring. We do not observe blurring. Therefore, plasma cosmology is falsified (along with a lot of other reasons).
     
  20. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    You are using it as a derisive term. It is very obvious from the context. You think so little of religious belief that you use religion to smear the work of others.

    Your words and actions say otherwise.

    It is the three spatial dimensions. It is defined by all measuring systems.

    How does it contract in SR and GR? Obviously, spacetime is malleable.

    How can it not be a problem? You have light being abosrbed and then emitted along a different path. That produces blurring. Period. There is no way around it.


    I am asking the wrong guy about what produces EM redshifts? Wow, that is interesting.

    I never said that. Again, why can't the redshift we see in stars be due to a Doppler shift? I am asking you, the supposed expert in what produces redshifts. I am not asking astronomers. I am not saying that astronomers believe that redshifted starlight is due to Doppler shift. I am asking you.

    The Stark effect requires the absorption and emission of photons. Again, blurring will occur.

    It does result in blurriness because the momentum change requires that the emitted photon not be on the same path that it was absorbed on.

    Compton scattering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Talk about shifting the burden of proof.

    You are the one ignoring criticisms that are not peer reviewed when the very papers you are arguing from are not peer reviewed.

    Yes, the subtract out the foreground when measuring the measuring the background. Why is this a problem?

    The fact remains that we do not see the temperature gradient that your mechanism calls for. It is easily understood by anyone. Imagine that you have a stove on one side of the house pumping out heat. What will you notice as you approach the stove? It gets warmer and warmer, right? We should see the same thing with the CMB if your theory is right. We don't. The CMB is the same near a galaxy as it is far away from a galaxy.

    The vast, vast majority of the scientific community disagrees.
     
Loading...