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.
Same old nonsense, talking out of your posterior. Relativity has been tested on a cosmological scale, and that is just a fact.It is exactly what I follow. I agree it describes non-ionized matter (planetary systems, .1%) quite accurately...
It just fails to describe the other 99.9% of the universe accurately, hence you need 95% ad-hoc theory.
It is exactly what I follow. I agree it describes non-ionized matter (planetary systems, .1%) quite accurately...
It just fails to describe the other 99.9% of the universe accurately, hence you need 95% ad-hoc theory.
So explain how this doesn't fit what I follow?????
And yet you are the one proposing 95% never before seen or found in any experiment..... Imagine that.....
Please show me in any experiment an increase in distance between two objects in which the objects are not accelerating away from one another????
Just what I thought, pseudoscience.....
Now, a boat on a river carried along by the river does not have any acceleration with respect to the water, but it still possess both the kinetic energy and potential energy of the water....
Is this the point in the conversation where they invoke magic nothing as their explanation?????
If they are not an acceleration in the Newtonian sense, then why are they using Hubble's law to discover distance since that law requires red shift to be directly correlated to acceleration???
You see, you can't get around it. Either there is no acceleration and therefore Hubble's Law is invalid in determining distance, or there is acceleration in which case Hubble's Law can be used to determine distance.
So which is it????
Hubble law and the expanding universe
"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."
So either we throw out distances, which destroys their entire timeline of the Big Bang, or we accept those recessional velocities and accept time dilation corrections are required.
Come on, let's hear their pseudoscience excuses for ignoring that recessional velocity while claiming to be able to determine distance due to that recessional velocity.......
But i notice you failed to use any science to back any of your claims, why is that????
Same old nonsense, talking out of your posterior. Relativity has been tested on a cosmological scale, and that is just a fact.
Do any of you actually READ what is written,
Or indeed read up beyond low grade science
He hasn't contested relativity per se which is a useful part of the model, its the entire model struggling.
Convergent evolution, is not about the exact same genetic sequences
Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.
It's called learning; it's a good thing.So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.
Quote: “It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.”
In case you missed the implication, and he has said it often enough elsewhere, General Relativity doesn’t apply beyond our solar system; or at least, it doesn’t apply anywhere it doesn’t want it to apply.
So physical laws are different elsewhere in the universe is the new orthodoxy, is it? I would like to know how you are proposing to do astrophysics on that basis, especially as we would have not a clue what those different physical laws might be.
Quote: “It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.”
In case you missed the implication, and he has said it often enough elsewhere, General Relativity doesn’t apply beyond our solar system; or at least, it doesn’t apply anywhere it doesn’t want it to apply.
So physical laws are different elsewhere in the universe is the new orthodoxy, is it? I would like to know how you are proposing to do astrophysics on that basis, especially as we would have not a clue what those different physical laws might be.
He is correct in saying the properties are all assumed constant, but the fact alternatives are difficult to model , and it appears to be constant in close proximity, doesn't make It viable to model it as constant everywhere and for all time, So you cannot call him wrong for telling it how it really is. Assumption.
He is correct in saying the properties are all assumed constant, but the fact alternatives are difficult to model , and it appears to be constant in close proximity, doesn't make It viable to model it as constant everywhere and for all time, So you cannot call him wrong for telling it how it really is. Assumption.
What we do know is the cosmological sums don't work , and the sticking plaster being used of missing mass is far bigger than the patient! So some profound change is needed to make it work We also know einstein wasn't happy with the cosmological constant ( and therefore model) even he called a blunder.
So the mind games on dark matter are worthwhile, but just because it is the least profound change to the model doesn't make it right, even if it is the only game in town at present, indeed my instinct says the obvious is unlikely. Too much is missing .
The point of the posts using dark matter types as example is that just because they are the thrust of research, dont make them fact, theory or even necessarily a valid hypothesis - even though it is valid research. Jury is out. Indeed the jury has yet to sit on a viable theory.
It is an assumption science necessarily makes. If physical laws are allowed to vary in space, you cannot consistently argue that they must remain constant over time, and then you can’t say anything about anything, except for the present, recent past and near future. You certainly can’t say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So perhaps the creationists are right after all, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.
simply wrong:
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes
can you admit that you were wrong about that?
Be happy about science taking yet another leap forward.So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.
Not exactly, but close enough. However, all frames are in relative motion with each another - that's how they're defined. Which implies the laws of physics are the same in all frames; and empirically, this does appear to be the case.Einstein told you that only in frames moving in relative motion with one another were the laws of physics the same.
There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).And yet, they can still differentiate between the bat and dolphine genes.
Did you even read the article?
It speaks of "similar" mutations. Not "identical".
Yet, evolution sometimes solves the same problem through similar genetic solutions. Yet, they take different evolutionary pathways to get there. Which means that it doesn't add up in the exact same genetic sequences.
There is no reason why two random processes would ever produce anything, let alone identical sequences.... but it is quite logical for a functioning design to be altered by an engineer to be used in a similar but different situation.....There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).
There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).
Not exactly, but close enough. However, all frames are in relative motion with each another - that's how they're defined. Which implies the laws of physics are the same in all frames; and empirically, this does appear to be the case.
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?