True. Even the Enterprise on Startrek was typically limited to warp 10 and puttering around inside of our own galaxy.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Didn't say you can go that fast, just that's the speed needed to go 92 Billion Light years in 24 Hours
Threshold notwithstanding, though personally that episode should be purged from canon.True. Even the Enterprise on Startrek was typically limited to warp 10 and puttering around inside of our own galaxy.
Yep, and only two theories require faster than light speed expansion of a universe full of matter, YEC and Lambda-CDM.
Science is largely "god neutral". It does debunk certain false beliefs, but people should welcome that. People very often have real questions that they would like the answer to for which the only person to ask is a physicist. Remember that your life depends heavily upon science.
Threshold notwithstanding, though personally that episode should be purged from canon.
Nope, the expansion is not "faster than the speed of light". The result of the expansion can be apparent faster than speed velocities. There is a big difference between the two.
Wrong, try again.That is a statement of faith on your part since you can't demonstrate that claim in a lab.
Science is a beautiful thing.
Remember though, that your eternal life depends on Jesus Christ.
That is a statement of faith on your part since you can't demonstrate that claim in a lab.
I am going to answer this again with a little more depth. Your problem seems to be that you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Not all scientific evidence comes from the laboratory.
Which one(s) might those be?You tend to believe in ideas that are not supported by evidence.
Apparently that's your gig, not mine.You know that this is wrong. You now seem to be projecting this "sin" of yours upon others, that is called projection.
That's fine as long as you don't try to tell me you see invisible unicorns flying around in that telescope and start inventing new forces of nature to suit yourself.The "laboratory" for astronomy is the telescope.
So, I predict that if God exists, more than half of the population of any given society will probably hold belief in God. Some measurable percentage within that population will claim to "experience" God in very unique ways during their lifetimes. These are my "predictions". Does that work for you?Various experiments are done with the predictions from theories and the observations can support or overturn theories.
The problem is that including movement of objects and inelastic scattering there are already two (three if you count time dilation which I do) perfectly logical and acceptable ways to explain photons redshift already. In terms of pure physics, there absolutely is no need for yet another, let alone *three* other "supernatural" ways to explain the photon redshift phenomenon.Here is an article that explains a bit why scientists believe that the universe is expanding:
Evidence mounts that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating - physicsworld.com
Your voice is just one in the crowd. Until you can distinguish your claim from the myriad of other religions (namely by substantiating it), it's just so much white noise.
Science is a beautiful thing.
Remember though, that your eternal life depends on Jesus Christ.
I love how you give some claims a completely free pass in terms of controlled experimental demonstrations, but somehow you think there is no 'evidence' of God? How does that rationalization work exactly? If the evidence comes from human experiences over the course of human history, somehow it doesn't count? Define "evidence" in terms of cause/effect relationships for me, and explain how your claim about photons gets an automatic free pass in your rationalization?
Which one(s) might those be?
Apparently that's your gig, not mine.
That's fine as long as you don't try to tell me you see invisible unicorns flying around in that telescope and start inventing new forces of nature to suit yourself.
So, I predict that if God exists, more than half of the population of any given society will probably hold belief in God. Some measurable percentage within that population will claim to "experience" God in very unique ways during their lifetimes. These are my "predictions". Does that work for you?
The problem is that including movement of objects and inelastic scattering there are already two (three if you count time dilation which I do) perfectly logical and acceptable ways to explain photons redshift already. In terms of pure physics, there absolutely is no need for yet another, let alone *three* other "supernatural" ways to explain the photon redshift phenomenon.
I don't need "God did it' to explain photon redshift. I certainly don't need "invisible God(matter/energy) did it" to explain photon redshift. See the problem in trying to associate *other* supernatural claims to the photon redshift phenomenon?
No, you just need very bad, already debunked physics.
Could the sweeping have created a sound which duplicated a sound frequency the TV's sensor sensed?
Did I say that there was no evidence of God? I may have said that there is no scientific evidence of God. Scientific evidence is a special category of evidence. If you wish to learn what scientific evidence is I will be glad to help you.
I started a thread on that topic too by the way. You're welcome to add your two cents worth:Aren't you one of those "electric universe" believers (ahem massive toning down of the appropriate term). Again, you need to learn what scientific evidence is.
What exactly did you try to "help me learn"? I think if you check around the internet, you'll quickly discover that I never "run away". I've been virtually executed for my heresy a few times, but running away really just isn't my style I'm afraid.Ninth Commandment warning. You know that is not the case. How many times have I offered to help you people learn? Every time you run away.
Sorry to burst your bubble but even the mainstream doesn't make such a ridiculous claim. They add stuff like inflation and dark energy.Nope, that has not been done. Gravity is the only force that is needed.
Considering the fact that supernatural add-ons make up about 95 percent of Lambda-CDM, you're blowing up the irony meter.Nope, you have to justify why that would be. You are trying to fit observation to a theory and that is not good enough on its own.
I have a perfectly sound method for faster-than-light travel. It's called "Negative Trimecular Vastidian Pro-Hawkwind Alignment".
Okay, well I only have the name right now, but PR is important these days. As soon as I find a pencil that works, it's going to be a completely solid theory.
Funny, how this debunked physics is the only proven laboratory results.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...JzUWQ29-F5j2oMw&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc&cad=rja
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
So we now have direct laboratory confirmation that plasma induces redshift. And of course 99% of the universe is plasma. So excuse me if I laugh at your claims of debunked science and choose to believe that what 99% of the universe is made of produces redshift, not Fairie Dust entities never once observed or detected and that only live in the minds of astrophysicists because they ignore that 99% of the universe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?