Gravity

[Tomk80]

Inelastic scattering, not expansion. You could still come up with a redshift/distance formula that way, but it would be *nothing even close* to mainstream numbers.

He wasn't talking about redshift or anything along those lines. Please try to follow along. He was talking about AV's inane assertion that the supernova in the picture is not evidence of history.

 

[Michael]

He wasn't talking about redshift or anything along those lines. Please try to follow along. He was talking about AV's inane assertion that the supernova in the picture is not evidence of history.

The thing is......

Dad's "different state past", and AV's notion of light traveling faster than C in spacetime are *exactly* the same kinds of claims made in Lambda-CDM. Dad and AV are just taking it to a more ridiculous extreme than the supporters of inflation and dark energy claims, but it's the same supernatural dance, just a different date/tune.

 

[Tomk80]

The thing is......

Dad's "different state past", and AV's notion of light traveling faster than C in spacetime are *exactly* the same kinds of claims made in Lambda-CDM. Dad and AV are just taking it to a more ridiculous extreme than the supporters of inflation and dark energy claims, but it's the same supernatural dance, just a different date/tune.

Which is all completely irrelevant in this thread, at this point in time. As I and others have stated before, it is completely unnecessarly and also extremely annoying when you drag these topics into every thread by these coattails.

Stop being so obsessed. Please.

 

[CabVet]

Neither one of them is justifiable via empirical physics, and neither creation date is justifiable via empirical physics.

And, as you admitted before, neither is your explanation (if there is one). Anyways, can you leave thread derails to be handled by AV? Two people doing it will really be abit too much.

 

[Michael]

Which is all completely irrelevant in this thread, at this point in time. As I and others have stated before, it is completely unnecessarly and also extremely annoying when you drag these topics into every thread by these coattails.

Stop being so obsessed. Please.

Fine, but I still think it's ironic and hysterical that you have the audacity to try to make a case about the age of the universe when your own beliefs are based on the very same claim that AV is making. You are both claiming that light travels faster than 186,000 miles per second across "spacetime". You're just claiming light doesn't move as fast as AV does, but you're both violating the whole concept of a fixed speed of light that is limited to C!

 

[Michael]

And, as you admitted before, neither is your explanation (if there is one). Anyways, can you leave thread derails to be handled by AV? Two people doing it will really be abit too much.

I'm simply pointing out to you that in terms of distance/object spacetime distances, C isn't limit of the speed of light in AV's opinion, but it's not the limit in your opinion either!

From a true skeptics perspective, you all sound like a bunch of supernatural peas from the same supernatural light speed defying pod, arguing about who's beliefs are more 'supernatural' than the other.

 

[CabVet]

I'm simply pointing out to you that in terms of distance/object spacetime distances, C isn't limit of the speed of light in AV's opinion, but it's not the limit in your opinion either!

I haven't expressed my opinion about this yet.

From a true skeptics perspective, you all sound like a bunch of supernatural peas from the same supernatural light speed defying pod, arguing about who's beliefs are more 'supernatural' than the other.

Exactly as you do. Are you going to continue to derail the thread?

 

[davedajobauk]

Hello It is me [again]

Okay, so I pick up on this thread
and joining it, at 'page three'... I throw a brick in the pool
and observe the ripples of time, space,
and some character / opinion sniping [both of those]

First up "metaphorical miracles" #86

I suppose, due to the brevity of the reply,
that the respondent has a different explanation for his presence here
other than the miracle of birth

Second, I see that for some reason, I should know [or, maybe I shouldn't]
there is some effort, to fit our existence into a 6k year time-frame

Bearing in mind, that the universe can now be imaged as it was @ 389k years of age
[the epoch of recombination]
It must be said, that a great deal of planning had to have taken place
to compose our galaxy amongst the billions of stars we know exists within the universe


Incredible Technology: How to See the Big Bang | Space.com

me?

I must, go and read this 1142
I may very well, 'learn-something'


dave

 

[Michael]

I haven't expressed my opinion about this yet.

You're trying to use mainstream numbers to calculate distance and time aren't you?

Exactly as you do.

Not me. The God that I believe in is the single most "natural" thing in nature. Even awareness shows up on Earth in many forms. More importantly, unlike the invisible sky thingies of Lambda-CDM, I can actually see the God that I believe in every single day.

Are you going to continue to derail the thread?

It's not a derail of the thread to note that you're using the very same "light travels faster than C" claim that AV is making. You're just "expanding space" at different rates.

 

[Tomk80]

Fine </snipped irrelevancies>

See, only a single word in your response was relevant. The rest just a further attempt at derailing.

 

[Michael]

See, only a single word in your response was relevant. The rest just a further attempt at derailing.

The only relevant part is that both the mainstream and AV are making the exact same claim about "space expansion". Same supernatural claim, just different supernatural rates.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

The only relevant part is that both the mainstream and AV are making the exact same claim about "space expansion". Same supernatural claim, just different supernatural rates.

They don't equally line up with observation.

 

[Michael]

They don't equally line up with observation.

None of the numbers line up with observation without a liberal use of supernatural entities, supernatural constructs, and supernatural claims (like 'space expansion).

 

[AV1611VET]

I argued SN1987A before; and I don't plan to do it again.

 

[Michael]

I argued SN1987A before; and I don't plan to do it again.

Their so called "scientific" claims about light traversing spacetime at faster than C are just as dubious as yours my friend.

When they give you grief about your claims AV, just tell them that you think that space expands just like they do, you just think it expands/expanded faster than they do.

 

[CabVet]

I argued SN1987A before; and I don't plan to do it again.

Funny how I argue about evolution every day, and never get tired of it. When logic and reason are on my side it is easy to argue.

 

[CabVet]

Their so called "scientific" claims about light traversing spacetime at faster than C are just as dubious as yours my friend.

When they give you grief about your claims AV, just tell them that you think that space expands just like they do, you just think it expands/expanded faster than they do.

Nah, he should just say that his hypotheses are as bad as Michael's and as dark matter.

 

[Michael]

Funny how I argue about evolution every day, and never get tired of it. When logic and reason are on my side it is easy to argue.

When you can demonstrate that "space expansion" isn't a figment of *both* your imagination, and AV's imagination, then you can claim that logic and reason are on your side.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

None of the numbers line up with observation without a liberal use of supernatural entities, supernatural constructs, and supernatural claims (like 'space expansion).

Rubbish. SN1987a is only 170,000 light years or so away. What the heck does cosmic expansion have to do with it. This is just plain old trigonometry and speed equals distance over time.

 

[CabVet]

When you can demonstrate that "space expansion" isn't a figment of *both* your imagination, and AV's imagination, then you can claim that logic and reason are on your side.

Interesting how I mentioned neither space nor expansion in the post you have answered to. But since you mentioned them, tell me how space expansion (or a lack thereof) is not a figment of your imagination.