Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

While we're on the subject I think we should stop feeding Doveaman until he starts making sense.

Don't you have to feed me so that I can make sense, since you have all the sense and I don't?

 

[BananaSlug]

But since we can’t see stars in this image, any conclusion that they are affecting the background light is just a boldfaced assumption, and makes the interpreter seem desperate for an answer.

So are you saying galaxies do not contain stars?

And, is the light being bent “around” the galaxy, or “through” the galaxy?

Around.

If the light is being bent “around” the galaxy, then why would the stars “within” the galaxy affect it?

Because stars have mass, mass affects gravity, gravity affects light.

They are plenty of plasma arcs in the universe. They are all over the place. The simpler explanation of the universe ought to be based on what we already know, not fictitious lenses – Occam’s Razor.

So why do the plamsa arcs seem to create a circular "lensing" effect?

Maybe it is the “fish eye” lensing that you are mistaking for gravitational lensing. Fail.

So do you think there is something wrong with the Hubble space telescope? Is it plasma arcs or something with the telescope?

I never said gravity is electricity.

I said the underlying physic is electrical, or likely to be electrical, since it is only a theory.

You said "electric gravity".

Gravity will still act as gravity does even though the underlying physics is likely to be electrical.

How would we test that?

There is no competition between Big Bang metaphysics and EU physics. The two don’t compare. One is faith based. The other is physics based. If you want to compare Big Bang theology with something, try religion.
I’ve learnt way back not to “want” anyone to accept anything in this forum. Not my intent. We either accept or we don’t. That’s our prerogative.

I'll take that as you do not have any evidence.

You don’t get it, do you?
Big Bang theology is based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift, which effectively kills the Big Bang hypothesis.

I would have to claim that you are the one who does not get it. The current cosmology is based on more than just red-shift. If redshift was falsified it does not falsify other evidence that is independent of redshift. Gravitational lensing is independent of redshift and was predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity independent of redshift. Secondly, I had asked you a question about the blackbody spectrum recognized by the COBE satelitte and if EU had any explanation for it, to which you replied...

Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437092-59/

I then went to show you that the blackbody spectrum was hypothesized in the early 1900's and discovered recently. The blackbody spectrum has nothing to do with redshift.

The “life blood” of Big Bang theology today is non-existent dark matter, dark energy, and all the other dark invisible unverified stuff you guys like to manufacture and sprinkle with mathemagic dust, which effective makes Big Bang a walking zombie.

And evading my questions certainly does not lend credit to your idea.

You need to come up with a new scientific theory if you expect to explain reality, a scientific theory that relies on the Scientific Method.

I recognize that.

You do remember what the Scientific Method is, right?

Observe, Question, Formulate a Hypothesis, Predict, Observe/Experiment, Analyze Data, Conclusion. If data falsifies your prediction, revise hypothesis.

I am not seeing what you are seeing. But that’s not surprising because where you see two I see five, as shown below:
Only in Big Bang theology with all of its mathemagics and mathematricks does one plus one equal five (1+1=5).

Maybe you need a new pair of lenses of your own.
I asked for an empirical demonstration of your interpretation of “space warping”, and all you do is offer more interpretation?

Let me hear your interpretation but you have to use your own calculations.

• Ultra High Resolution Science Data Extraction for the Gravity Probe B Gyro and Telescope
  Richard Van Patten, Ray DiEsposti, John V. Breakwell, SPIE Proceedings Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
• The Gravity Probe B 'Niobium Bird' Experiment Verifying the Data Reduction Scheme for Estimating the Relativistic Precession of Earth-Orbiting Gyroscopes
  H. Uematsu, B. W. Parkinson, J. M. Lockhart, B. Muhlfelder,Spaceflight Mechanics 1993, Vol. 82, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences.
• The Stanford Relativity Mission, Niobium Bird. Verification of the Science Mission by Experimental Application of a New Nonlinear Estimation Algorithm
  G. T. Haupt, G.Gutt, J. M. Lockhart, N. J. Kasdin, G. M. Keiser, B. W. Parkinson, 18th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, Keystone, Colorado, February 1-5, 1995.
• An Optimal Recursive Iterative Algorithm for Discrete Nonlinear Least-Squares Estimation
  G. Haupt, N. Kasdin, G. Keiser, and B. Parkinson, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, andControl Conference, August 7-10, 1995 AIAA-95-3218.
• Data Reduction, Error and Analysis and Identification of Systemic Errors in the Gravity Probe B Experiment
  M. I. Heifetz. C.W. F. Everitt, G. M. Keiser, A. S. Silbergleit, Proceedings of the Eighth Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity. Ed: Tsvi Piran, World Scientific, Singapore, Part A, pp 259-268, 1999.
• Data Analysis in the Gravity Probe B Relativity Experiment
  M. I. Heifetz, G. M. Keiser, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Fusion, Volume II, FUSION-99.

Here are the papers of the data. Have fun!

I am forced to ask why you guys ask Creationists for empirical evidence of their biblical interpretations when you guys do the exact opposite to what you ask them for in order to verify your “scientific” interpretations.

I gave you what I was expecting to get from you. I provided a link with all of the research papers. Even if you do not accept the conclusion you can still analyze the data.

I think I see a double standard here. Fail.

No double standard at all. Only somebody who cannot put his money where his mouth is and instead cries foul.

Disqualified for cheating. Fail.

I'll be waiting for you to provide some research papers.

 

[Doveaman]

So are you saying galaxies do not contain stars?
Because stars have mass, mass affects gravity, gravity affects light.

The stars are within the galaxy, not around the galaxy where the light is said to be bent. So why should the stars within the galaxy obscure the light around the galaxy?

It is the gravity of the galaxy (including the stars) that is said to be causing the light to bend in the first place. So how could the same stars within the galaxy that created the “lensing” be also obscuring the “lensing” when it was the galaxy (including the stars) that created the “lensing” in the first place?

So why do the plamsa arcs seem to create a circular "lensing" effect?

Charged particles within cosmic plasma shape matter into arcs, filaments and toruses.

So do you think there is something wrong with the Hubble space telescope?

No, something is wrong with the eye balls of the observer.

You said "electric gravity".

Yes I did, meaning that the underlying physics of gravity is likely to be electrical.

How would we test that?

How would we test “dark matter”? How would we test “dark energy”? How would we test “space warping”?

In light of your test failures, you have no credibility to ask for a test.

I would have to claim that you are the one who does not get it. The current cosmology is based on more than just red-shift. If redshift was falsified it does not falsify other evidence that is independent of redshift.

The current cosmology is based on Big Bang. Big Bang is based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift. There is nothing independent of Big Bang in current cosmology, therefore there is nothing independent of red-shift on which the Big Bang is based. Falsify the current interpretation of red-shift and the current Big Bang cosmology falls apart.

Gravitational lensing is independent of redshift and was predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity independent of redshift.

Gravitational lensing is an ad hoc explanation of anomalous red-shift.

I had asked you a question about the blackbody spectrum recognized by the COBE satelitte and if EU had any explanation for it, to which you replied...

Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7437092-59/

I then went to show you that the blackbody spectrum was hypothesized in the early 1900's and discovered recently. The blackbody spectrum has nothing to do with redshift.

It has to do with Big Bang, and Big Bang is based on current red-shift interpretation, and current red-shift interpretation has been falsified, which makes Big Bang theory a zombie theory, and a zombie theory cannot explain anything? All you can do is add your own personal interpretations of observations to the zombie theory so as to make the zombie theory appear to be alive. But the real Cosmologists know the zombie theory is dead having died many years ago.

Observe, Question, Formulate a Hypothesis, Predict, Observe/Experiment, Analyze Data, Conclusion. If data falsifies your prediction, revise hypothesis.

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “dark matter”?

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “dark energy”?

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “space warping”?

Here are the papers of the data. Have fun!

I don’t need papers. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

I gave you what I was expecting to get from you. I provided a link with all of the research papers. Even if you do not accept the conclusion you can still analyze the data.

I don’t need data. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

No double standard at all. Only somebody who cannot put his money where his mouth is and instead cries foul.

Crying foul is very much justified.

I'll be waiting for you to provide some research papers.

And I’ll be waiting for you to provide experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

 

[Nostromo]

There is no competition between Big Bang metaphysics and EU physics. The two don’t compare. One is faith based. The other is physics based.

Most sensible thing you've said so far.

 

[Jnwaco]

I'm a bit lost, but what are the theological implications of one vs the other again?

 

[Nostromo]

None, religion is faith based, remember?

 

[Doveaman]

Most sensible thing you've said so far.

Quote mining. Fail.

 

[Jnwaco]

None, religion is faith based, remember?

That's rather what I would think - probably none.

 

[Nostromo]

Quote mining. Fail.

Attempt to overthrow strongly evidenced standard model with obviously flawed ideas, 'Goddidit' and no knowledge of physics or the scientific method. Fail.

 

[Ellinas]

Steam Driven Universe is also dead. Latest Creationist claim is: Chocolate cookie with fudge Universe! Proof is the theory of Hansel's and Gretel's Cookie house!

 

[AV1611VET]

Steam Driven Universe is also dead. Latest Creationist claim is: Chocolate cookie with fudge Universe! Proof is the theory of Hansel's and Gretel's Cookie house!

Hansel and Gretel didn't own that house; if I remember the story correctly, a witch did.

 

[sandwiches]

Hansel and Gretel didn't own that house; if I remember the story correctly, a witch did.

Until they burned the witch alive in her own oven. Then, they probably just moved into her delicious house of cannibalistic horrors.

 

[Ellinas]

Hansel and Gretel didn't own that house; if I remember the story correctly, a witch did.

The witch was cast into fire for eternity. This is proof that the latest theory is the one and only correct theory of the universe. The Hansel and Gretel theory will prove impossible to refute! Finally a theory that stands!

I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!


HOUSE WAS RIGHT!

 

[AV1611VET]

Steam Driven Universe is also dead. Latest Creationist claim is: Chocolate cookie with fudge Universe! Proof is the theory of Hansel's and Gretel's Cookie house!

Hansel and Gretel didn't own that house; if I remember the story correctly, a witch did.

Until they burned the witch alive in her own oven. Then, they probably just moved into her delicious house of cannibalistic horrors.

The witch was cast into fire for eternity.

But not in Hansel and Gretel's oven, in her own oven, as sandwiches pointed out.

You guys don't take being corrected very well, do you?

 

[Ellinas]

But not in Hansel and Gretel's oven, in her own oven, as sandwiches pointed out.

You guys don't take being corrected very well, do you?

Yes you are absolutely correct that I did not specify clearly my point. Well; It matters not in whose oven the witch was cast into since all fire is purifying and belongs in the domain of the Pink fire eating jellyfish of the 23rd dimension! Therefore we can absolutely and positively conclude that since all fire belongs to the said Jellyfish then the vessel that contains that fire is a trivial detail not worthy of mention even in the lowly world of the nematodes!

HOUSE WAS RIGHT!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes you are absolutely correct that I did not specify clearly my point.

On the contrary --- you specified it very well --- just wrong.

I think it's funny that you submitted it as "proof" too.

Remember?

Proof is the theory of Hansel's and Gretel's Cookie house!

 

[Doveaman]

Attempt to overthrow strongly evidenced standard model with obviously flawed ideas, 'Goddidit' and no knowledge of physics or the scientific method. Fail.

News Flash: Big Bang is DEAD.

 

[sandwiches]

News Flash: Big Bang is DEAD.

Assuming you were right, you do realize that there's still no evidence for a deity or an intelligent creation.

 

[3sigma]

News Flash: Big Bang is DEAD.

So has “God did it” ever been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all? The answer is “no” and the reason why your God has never done anything is because it lacks factual reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

So has “God did it” ever been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

Wow --- John 9 all over again.

No wonder the Bible is called a Living Book.