Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Nathan Poe]

Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor.

And yet, people still choose to believe in gods.

 

[sandwiches]

Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor.

It is unbelievable that you'd say this and then go on to promote this invisible, undetected stuff called 'God.'

 

[BananaSlug]

I never said they were. Weather they were billions or hundreds of light years apart makes no difference to the Consensus. They are not supposed to be connected. That’s the point.That is why they are considered “anomalous”.

The milky way is around 100,000 light years across. I cannot see how objects that are only separated by a few hundred light years are a problem.

You speak of dark matter as if you’ve seen it done something before. What?

Then what is your explanation for galaxies having more gravity than their visible mass alone would predict?

Dark matter has not been verified to do anything. God did it.

Observational Evidence

• 1.1 Galactic rotation curves
• 1.2 Velocity dispersions of galaxies
• 1.3 Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
• 1.4 Cosmic microwave background
• 1.5 Sky Surveys and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
• 1.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
• 1.7 Lyman alpha forest
• 1.8 Structure formation

And the evidence for expansion is the fact the red-shift is misinterpreted, which is what our debate is about. So I don’t consider expansion a “fact”. It’s a flaw in understanding.

Anomalous red-shift does not mean that our whole understanding of red-shift is thrown out the window.

Dark energy is an AD HOC explanation to cover up a FAILED prediction, and to cover up the fact that there is a CONTRADICTION in the theory.

Dark energy is an explanation as to why the universe is accelerating in its expansion. Could you please explain what you mean by "contradiction"?

I think that is what Consensus Cosmology amounts to these days, a mere explanation. No evidence.

Except for when we do have evidence?

I propose God did it, and not dark energy, unless you can show me some dark energy as confirmation.

Measurements of the redshift-magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the Universe has been accelerating since the Universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the Universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy". Dark energy is indicated by several other lines of evidence. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the Universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the Universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the Universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density.[18] Since dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy is also required by two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the Universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic ruler.
Matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the Universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.
In the ΛCDM, the best current model of the Big Bang, dark energy is explained by the presence of a cosmological constant in the general theory of relativity. However, the size of the constant that properly explains dark energy is surprisingly small relative to naive estimates based on ideas about quantum gravity. Distinguishing between the cosmological constant and other explanations of dark energy is an active area of current research.

It was mathematics based on real physics, and backed up by physics:

Just like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity!
Though I do think some of these data are intriguing, I find it amusing that mathematics has played a large role in formulating these constructs.

Does dark energy and dark matter have such backed up support?

Yes.

There is nothing “flying apart in such a manner”. That is a flawed interpretation of red-shift among the Consensus.

The "anomalous" red-shift objects are flying apart. How would you explain the observations?

You don’t know what it is, but yet you consider it to be causing the universe to expand?! Amazing!

We have seen its effects. We can infer, based on the observations, that something is causing it. We have never witnessed the Earth rotate around the sun but we know based on inference of observations. We have never witnessed the nucleus of an atom but we know based on inference of observations.

I know who God is. And I say God did it.

I say the Great Mother Salmon did it. Prove that she didn't.

It doesn’t matter if they are billions or tens. They are not supposed to be connected, or even near each other.

Why?

There is nothing factual about that. This is just another flawed explanation based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift. Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, but he wasn’t the most brilliant when it came to cosmology.

Except when he was right? Like the Theory of General Relativity.

Whenever an observation that contradicts the Big Bang theory or Red-Shift theory appears in the sky, instead of looking upon it as a possible sign that the theory might be flawed, they simply make up an ad hoc explanation to fit the flawed theory.

They do see it as a sign of flaws within the theory. The theory can change based on new evidence. Kind of like how the Germ Theory of Disease changed when we discovered viruses, prions, and even genetic disease.

Einstein was a great guy, but he wasn’t the smartest. Even Einstein himself knew that:

“To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein.

There were problems in some of his equations, yet many of his equations have been verified through observation. Like gravitational lensing.

As was discussed before, these are four baby quasars being “shot out” or ejected from their parent galaxy (center). The high red-shift of the quasars is indicative of their “youth”, not distance. So there is no need for gravity to bend light to create an illusion. There is no illusion here. It’s all real.

The high red-shift of the quasers is indicative that they are being "shot out" away relative to our perception of the phenomena.

Gravity can affect the red-shift of an object:


In the theory of general relativity, there is time dilation within a gravitational well. This is known as the gravitational redshift or Einstein Shift. The theoretical derivation of this effect follows from the Schwarzchild solution of the Einstein equations which yields the following formula for redshift associated with a photon traveling in the gravitational field of an uncharged, non-rotating, spherically symmetric mass.
This gravitational redshift result can be derived from the assumptions of special relativity and the equivalence principle; the full theory of general relativity is not required.
The effect is very small but measurable on Earth using the Mossbauer effect and was first observed in the Pound-Rebka experiment.[38] However, it is significant near a black hole, and as an object approaches the event horizon the red shift becomes infinite. It is also the dominant cause of large angular-scale temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation.[39]

What! Gravitational redshift was observed in an actual experiment! Huzzah!

Consensus Cosmology is in the habit of taking illusions and making them real, and taking real and making them illusions so that the Big Bang Frankenstein monster may live on.

We like to call such instances "observational studies".

It disproves the Big Bang by demonstrating that high red-shift objects are indeed in very close proximity to lower red-shift objects, contrary to Big Bang theory.

So those "anomalous" red-shift objects disprove all of the other observations in support of an expanding universe? What new explanations and formulas would you now provide to explain the other evidence that seemed to support the Big Bang?

This contradicts the idea on which the Big Bang theory is based. This is why the observations are being considered “anomalous” in Big Bang cosmology.

Quick correction. They are considered "anomalous" under our current understanding of Big Bang cosmology.

The observations are real, but they do not fit the Big Bang model, they contradict the model, and actually falsified the model, so Big Bang cosmologists simply overlook them, or deny them so that the Big Bang monster may live on.

They do not fit the current Big Bang model, they do not falsify the entire theory.

In Consensus Cosmology, the term “anomalous” usually mean “Yes, the observation contradicts the theory, but we reject the observation in favor of the theory”.

You really have no clue how science works do you? The term "anomalous" means "these observations cannot be explained using our current understanding of the universe. We need to make additional observations and see what happens".

This is done despite the fact that the observation can be scientifically explained by others, but not by Big Bang cosmologists.
Another example of denial.

De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Said by the guy who doesn't believe in the GMS. Her work in shaping our universe is clearly visible.

In Consensus Cosmology, the baby quasar has no right being next to its lower red-shift parent, far less connected.
That’s against Big Bang beliefs because it contradicts the peer-review bible.

If the observations do not fit the belief, reject the observations in favor of the belief, it would seem.

"Electrostatic force" does not hold galaxies together. So it does not predict anything.

"Electromagnetic force" holds the galaxies together.

Since you obviously know so much about this, predict what observations we could find if electromagnetic force holds galaxies together.

The “solar wind” is a current flow. Stars produce current flows. And they themselves are electrically powered externally, as is evidenced by the observation of the corona being millions of degrees hotter that the surface, and the surface being hotter than the even deeper sunspots that are closest to the core --- top down heat.

Stars are not electrically powered. Their energy comes from nuclear fusion. The electricity is caused by movement of conductive plasma, creating a dynamo.

The magnetic field of a star is generated within regions of the interior where convective circulation occurs. This movement of conductive plasma functions like a dynamo, generating magnetic fields that extend throughout the star. The strength of the magnetic field varies with the mass and composition of the star, and the amount of magnetic surface activity depends upon the star's rate of rotation. This surface activity produces starspots, which are regions of strong magnetic fields and lower than normal surface temperatures. Coronal loops are arching magnetic fields that reach out into the corona from active regions. Stellar flares are bursts of high-energy particles that are emitted due to the same magnetic activity.[78]

If the sun’s heat was generated from a nuclear fusion core, then the temperatures generated should be the reverse of what I just explained --- bottom up heat.

Temperature

The surface temperature of a main sequence star is determined by the rate of energy production at the core and the radius of the star and is often estimated from the star's color index.[91] It is normally given as the effective temperature, which is the temperature of an idealized black body that radiates its energy at the same luminosity per surface area as the star. Note that the effective temperature is only a representative value, however, as stars actually have a temperature gradient that decreases with increasing distance from the core.[92] The temperature in the core region of a star is several million kelvins.[93]

The universe is electrically active. There are currents flowing out there, and electromagnetic fields are the result. You cannot have a sustained magnetic field in space unless there be a sustained current flow.

There are zero astronomical observations that support a universe held together by electromagnetism.

Follow the field and you will find the flow. There is nothing 'static' here.
Wiki is not a reliable source for refuting Arp’s work, or any work for that matter - “Citation needed”.

So you really think that "anomalous" objects falsify all of the other observations we have made that verify our predictions?

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Doveaman Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor

And yet, people still choose to believe in gods.

lol...So we can finally burn Occam's Writings now?
It must be the most overused, least scientific slogan out there.
Scientists have spent decades searching for the elusive material known as dark matter, which is believed to make up 25 percent of the universe.Several ways have been proposed to examine dark energy, in hopes of finding out just what it is. The goal is to search for signs of dark energy—the ubiquitous, invisible substance believed to make up 70 percent of the universe.

 

[sandwiches]

Originally Posted by Doveaman Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor


lol...So we can finally burn Occam's Writings now?
It must be the most overused, least scientific slogan out there.
Scientists have spent decades searching for the elusive material known as dark matter, which is believed to make up 25 percent of the universe.Several ways have been proposed to examine dark energy, in hopes of finding out just what it is. The goal is to search for signs of dark energy—the ubiquitous, invisible substance believed to make up 70 percent of the universe.

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one."

Unfortunately for Doveaman and you, the visual similarities between spider webs and plasma experiments does not fulfill Occam's razor. For 'the simplest explanation' to be the right one, it also has to be one that ACTUALLY answers or solves the problem.

For instance, if your computer won't come on, one morning, which explanation is simplest:
1) Your registry files got corrupted by a virus you downloaded from installing an infected file from your friend's computer.
2) A gremlin did it.

While the second explanation is indeed simpler, it does NOT fulfill Occam's Razor. Since you probably haven't understood WHY that is, let's reread it: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." BEYOND NECESSITY. Since the visual similarities are NOT enough to create a link between spider webs and plasma experiments, ANOTHER explanation is NECESSARY.

It's sad that you're having to have Occam's razor fundamentals explained to you, but not entirely unexpected, to be honest. To recap, if you have two or more equally plausible explanations that successfully explain or solve the issue at hand, then the simpler one is most likely the right one.

Now, I await another reply that will clearly show your inability or unwillingness to understand or accept what has been explained to you.

 

[kenblaster5000]

It is unbelievable that you'd say this and then go on to promote this invisible, undetected stuff called 'God.'

You used to until you whimpered away in unbelief. Apostates!

 

[MoonLancer]

So something does not give off light, this must mean it does not exist?

 

[SkyWriting]

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one."
It's sad that you're having to have Occam's razor fundamentals explained to you, but not entirely unexpected, to be honest. To recap, if you have two or more equally plausible explanations that successfully explain or solve the issue at hand, then the simpler one is most likely the right one.
Now, I await another reply that will clearly show your inability or unwillingness to understand or accept what has been explained to you.

Unfortunately for you, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific principal.
What's clear is that you don't see that individual bias in applying such standards to any situation may allow the principal to be useful to a individual in pursuit of their own conclusions, but useless in trying to apply it to others conclusions.
As each person will create their own definition of:
what is the simplest
what is the best
what is necessary.

It's just a flawed logic tool.
And a joke for someone to think it's useful in debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one."

Is is just me, or does anyone else see the irony in a term that is devoted to the principle of simplicity having controversial spelling?

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by sandwiches
"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one."

Is is just me, or does anyone else see the irony in a term that is devoted to the principle of simplicity having controversial spelling?

The logic is flawed and the application, unscientific,
so the spelling follows suit.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by sandwiches
"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one."



The logic is flawed and the application, unscientific,
so the spelling follows suit.

I note you don't actually bother to explain what, specifically, is flawed or unscientific about it.

Argument by declaration is a logical fallacy. A recognised one, not one you just have to take my word on, unlike your point.

 

[Doveaman]

Nature is always found to be the best explanation, not dark, invisible, undetected stuff. - Occam's Razor.

And yet, people still choose to believe in gods.

It is unbelievable that you'd say this and then go on to promote this invisible, undetected stuff called 'God.'

That's because you can't detect Him, but we can.

It's not our fault if you can't.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Rom 1:20.

You guys need to get out more.

 

[Doveaman]

Unfortunately for Doveaman...the visual similarities between spider webs and plasma experiments does not fulfill Occam's razor.

Since the visual similarities are NOT enough to create a link between spider webs and plasma experiments, ANOTHER explanation is NECESSARY.

Now, I await another reply that will clearly show your inability or unwillingness to understand or accept what has been explained to you.

I can see your inability or unwillingness to understand or accept what has been explained in my posts.

 

[Doveaman]

So something does not give off light, this must mean it does not exist?

If it's dark matter and dark energy, yes.

God give off light, by the way. So if light is reality, then God is everywhere in the Universe.

 

[SithDoughnut]

That's because you can't detect Him, but we can.

It's not our fault if you can't.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Rom 1:20.

You guys need to get out more.

You think you can, you don't know you can. I can detect fairies, you know.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If it's dark matter and dark energy, yes.

God give off light, by the way. So if light is reality, then God is everywhere in the Universe.

I thought God made light, not that he is light?

 

[sandwiches]

Unfortunately for you, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific principal.
What's clear is that you don't see that individual bias in applying such standards to any situation may allow the principal to be useful to a individual in pursuit of their own conclusions, but useless in trying to apply it to others conclusions.
As each person will create their own definition of:
what is the simplest
what is the best
what is necessary.

It's just a flawed logic tool.
And a joke for someone to think it's useful in debate.

Like I said: Inability or unwillingness to understand. You counter arguments that that no one has said and without any basis or elaboration on your arguments, I might add.

 

[sandwiches]

If it's dark matter and dark energy, yes.

God give off light, by the way. So if light is reality, then God is everywhere in the Universe.

How does that follow?
Let's assume that your deity does give off light. How does that make him be everywhere in the universe??

1) God gives off light.
?) ???
?) Therefore, God is everywhere in the universe.

Seems like you're missing a few steps there.

If we're going to use unsound logic, then this might as well be logically true:
1) Fireflies give off light.
?) ???
?) Therefore, fireflies are everywhere in the universe.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's because you can't detect Him, but we can.

It's not our fault if you can't.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Rom 1:20.

You guys need to get out more.

And fools couldn't see the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God give off light, by the way.

So does a 40-watt bulb. Can't you do better than this?