Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

Neogaia777 · Nov 4, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
It is your choice. I cannot make you give your reasons.

I think it would be a mute discussion/point.

God Bless!

tas8831 · Nov 5, 2021

Name dropping is cool.
Most of the people I know think Popper was overrated and few follow his maxims.

chad kincham said:
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper's early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offera clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims.

Popper strongly supports the idea that a theory in science must be testable and, for the tests to be valid, they must be capable of falsifying the theory if it is not correct. It follows that a true scientific theory, in order to be tested, must be about a process that can be repeated and observed either directly or indirectly. One-time-only historical events may be true, but they are not part of science for there is no way of repeating them, observing them, and subjecting them to testing. Also, for a theory to be testable, it must be possible for those conducting the tests to use it in making predictions about the outcome of the tests. If a theory is not suitable for use by scientists to make specific predictions, it is not a scientific theory. Many scientists agree with Karl Popper on the testability requirement for a scientific theory because, without testing, there can be no unimpassioned selection among available alternatives.

A major reason that the theory of evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory seems to be that it is so plastic it can explain anything and everything.

Ernst Mayr made some startling admissions about Darwin's original model of mutation and natural selection. He said, "Popper is right; this model is so good that it can explain everything, as Popper has rightly complained." This relates to the requirement in science that a theory or model must make exclusionary predictions. If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions.

On the same subject, Dr. Fraser said, "It would seem to me that there have been endless statements made and the only thing I have clearly agreed with through the whole day has been the statement made by Karl Popper, namely, that the real inadequacy of evolution, esthetically and scientifically, is that you can explain anything you want by changing your variable around.

Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar calls Popper "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived."15 At a seminar held at Cambridge University to discuss Stephen Gould's ideas on evolution (April 30 - May 2, 1984), Medawar summed up the meeting with the observation that no theory, no matter how well-established, can be considered exempt from Popperian challenge.

Herman Bondi has stated, "There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said."18

Is Darwinism Testable Science?

According to the generally accepted requirements of a theory in science, could Charles Darwin's theory qualify as a truly scientific theory? Dr. Patterson did not think so. In his book, Evolution, he wrote, "If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."17

Of course, what Dr. Patterson calls "the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred" is the only question under consideration in an evaluation of the validity of the theories on origins. Is it true that all life evolved from a common ancestor or isn't it? He says that the theory that life evolved is "by definition, not part of science." The second part simply postulates a mechanism for evolution if it did occur--mutations and natural selection. No one denies that mutations occur or that natural selection acts as a preservative principle in nature, but since these concepts are not exclusive tenets of evolution theory, they do not help differentiate that theory from its competitor. The only question remaining to be resolved is whether random changes, with the best ones preserved, could create successively higher levels of complexity, resulting in the entire biosphere.

In his interview, Dr. Patterson said that he agreed with the statement that neither evolution nor creation qualified as a scientific theory since such theories could not be tested. He liked a quote from R.L. Wysong's book The Creation/Evolution Controversy that both ideas had to be accepted on faith. A quote of L.T. More's, corroborating Huxley's comments, was:

The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.18

Dr. Patterson said, in referring to this quotation, "I agree." In one of their audiovisual displays in 1980, the British Museum of Natural History included the statement that evolution was not a scientific theory in the sense that it could not be tested and refuted by experiment. This devastating characterization of evolution brought a flurry of criticism from the scientific establishment and the museum quickly removed it from the display. In any other circumstances the media would have raised the objection "censorship," but in this case they looked the other way.

What does Karl Popper say about evolution theory? In his autobiography Unended Quest he writes:

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme -- a possible framework for testable scientific theories. It suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.

Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is not so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation: it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory but metaphysical. But its value for science as a metaphysical research programme is very great, especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized and improved upon.19

Beverly Halstead, writing in New Scientist magazine, July 17, 1980, commented on Popper's position:

Despite these subtle distinctions, it is not difficult to envisage the enormous encouragement the Creationists take from assertions from the BM(NH) (British Museum display) that the theory of evolution is not scientific.20

Dr. Halstead told the author that his article drew so much attention to the museum display that it was removed from the museum, and that Popper felt compelled to make a public statement that would quiet the storm without reversing or negating his previous pronouncements about the requirements of a scientific theory. In the August 21, 1980, issue of New Scientist, Popper replied:

Some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

SOURCE: a free online book of interviews with evolutionists called Darwin’s Enigma, comprised of interviews with evolutionists:
Darwin's Enigma - Chap# 1

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 5, 2021

chad kincham said:
Except I posted secular sources and a peer reviewed article, stating that the BB violates the laws of thermodynamics - and for your information, there are those scientists who admit the creation of energy violates thermodynamics, but explain it away by stating that the laws of physics for the existing universe didn’t apply then, while the universe and space-time continuum was first forming and expanding.

I'm sure you can find scientists that make all kinds of fringe claims, but the big bang model doesn't need different laws of physics, General Relativity and quantum field theory are sufficient. Classical physics doesn't cut it - maybe that's what you heard.

And every alternative theoretical cosmological model also disagrees that the BB is viable, so you contradict yourself by claiming you have no problem with competing models, but yet become insulting when I state just one reason the BB is bogus.

There are many alternative cosmologies that include a big bang - most of them describing different ways a big bang scenario can occur, and different potential futures. The one thing they have in common, besides consistency with fundamental physics as currently understood, is that they must account for pretty much the same observations that the current 'standard model' (Lambda-CDM) does. There are also a number of extended versions of the standard model.

So, no.

That link I posted from an astronomer listed 30 reasons why the BB has been falsified, with footnotes to peer reviewed papers for each point, including the point that it violated thermodynamics

People publish lists of things they think are wrong all the time. Publishing a list doesn't make it right; to judge the credence you should give to such lists, assuming some expertise is necessary, you should take account of the views of expert authorities on the subject.

The whole theory is based around red shifting of light being a Doppler effect showing galaxies expanding, that was reverse extrapolated to a singularity, which is falsified by redshifts being quantized.

Er, not exactly. The original hypothesis was motivated on theoretical grounds - Friedmann's solution of Einstein's equations gave an expanding universe (there is no stable static solution), and LeMaitre realised that this could account for unexplained red-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s in the spectra of spiral 'nebulae'. He calculated the expansion, and suggested it could have all started with a primeval atom'. Hubble's rigorous observations of redshifts supported LeMaitre's hypothesis. Later discoveries were all consistent with this model, particularly the cosmic microwave background. Static universe theories were abandoned because they didn't explain the data - and the more data we collect, the less they explain.

The quantization of redshifts is arguable - from what I hear, there are more papers reporting quantization than not, but the early papers used incorrect statistical methods, and the papers showing the most significant results are mutually incompatible. But whether the phenomenon exists or not, it doesn't falsify anything in its own right - the relationship between redshift and distance is consistent with other observations, including luminosity, gravitational waves, etc.

Also equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created, which would have annihilated each other leaving an empty universe - which also falsifies the theory - and there’s no viable explanation for a bias towards matter.

That doesn't falsify the big bang theory, it just means we don't yet understand the precise nature of particle-antiparticle interactions during baryogenesis - it's an inaccuracy of one part in 30 million...

That’s just two of many.

Neither of which do what you claim.

Real science would have abandoned the BB theory already, not perpetuated it as if it was viable.

Not only is there fierce competition between individuals and groups working in observational and theoretical cosmology for recognition and honours, but every few years an enthusiastic new intake of fresh minds come onto the scene, looking for new ideas and discoveries to give their careers a boost. If any of the stuff you've been posting was remotely realistic or useful, it would have been jumped on years ago and made someone's name. But it just doesn't work.

Hans Blaster · Nov 5, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The quantization of redshifts is arguable - from what I hear, there are more papers reporting quantization than not, but the early papers used incorrect statistical methods, and the papers showing the most significant results are mutually incompatible. But whether the phenomenon exists or not, it doesn't falsify anything in its own right - the relationship between redshift and distance is consistent with other observations, including luminosity, gravitational waves, etc.

There is no physical quantization of redshift.

The large scale structure of the Universe contains a network of voids and sheets. (The sheets are like the walls of the voids, or the voids the gaps between sheets.)

If you look in a narrow direction, there will be "clustering" of galaxies in redshift as you see galaxies in the sheets, but not the void. A full sky view will not show over all clustering in redshift (or "quantization"), but a 3D map of the sky plotting galaxy locations in direction (2 angles) and redshift (distance) will show the void structure clearly.

This has been known since Geller and Huchra in the late 1980s, so I don't know this notion persists 30+ years later.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
There is no physical quantization of redshift.

The large scale structure of the Universe contains a network of voids and sheets. (The sheets are like the walls of the voids, or the voids the gaps between sheets.)

If you look in a narrow direction, there will be "clustering" of galaxies in redshift as you see galaxies in the sheets, but not the void. A full sky view will not show over all clustering in redshift (or "quantization"), but a 3D map of the sky plotting galaxy locations in direction (2 angles) and redshift (distance) will show the void structure clearly.

This has been known since Geller and Huchra in the late 1980s, so I don't know this notion persists 30+ years later.

Thanks for the explanation.

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

sjastro said:
Cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect as the recession velocity is a function of distance, furthermore redshifts being quantized were refuted by observations decades ago.

From BRITTANICA encyclopedia:

redshift
astronomy
BY The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica |View Edit History

redshift, displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is attributed to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results when a given source of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in motion with respect to each other.

You are wrong, I was right.

Now look up what red shifts being quantized means.

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
There is no physical quantization of redshift.

The large scale structure of the Universe contains a network of voids and sheets. (The sheets are like the walls of the voids, or the voids the gaps between sheets.)

If you look in a narrow direction, there will be "clustering" of galaxies in redshift as you see galaxies in the sheets, but not the void. A full sky view will not show over all clustering in redshift (or "quantization"), but a 3D map of the sky plotting galaxy locations in direction (2 angles) and redshift (distance) will show the void structure clearly.

This has been known since Geller and Huchra in the late 1980s, so I don't know this notion persists 30+ years later.

Redshift Quantization in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame
W. G. Tifft1, National Radio Astronomy Observatory2 Green Bank, West Virginia 24944, USA; Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Abstract. Evidence for redshift quantization is reviewed and summar- lized. The cosmic background rest frame appears to be central to the effect. Periods are consistently found to be members of a set predicted by the ninth-root Lehto-Tifft rule which has implications relating to the possible nature of time, particle physics and cosmology. Galaxies can be divided into four morphological families associated with particular classes of periods. Numerous examples are given including recent work where redshifts appear to show evidence of changes between related quantized levels.
Key words. Red shift—galaxies—cosmology. 1. Introduction
My redshift work began in 1970 with initial glimpses of unexpected properties of the redshift. Correlations were found which implied that the redshift could be an intrinsic property of galaxies. Further work uncovered suggestions of a granular ‘quantized’ structure in the redshift. The concept of galaxies as quantized structures connected to a fundamental redshift interval near 72km s–1 was published in three papers (Tifft 1976, 1977a, b) in the mid 1970s. In the 1980s precise 21 cm radio data suggested that a comprehensive global quantization pattern existed. By the late 1980s there was evidence that the redshift was not only quantized, but possibly variable as well (Tifft 1988); several underlying periods were apparent (Tifft 1991). The initial phase, to 1992, is summarized in a 1995 review (Tifft 1995); Fig. 1 is a graphical view of the development with key references.
In 1992, at the suggestion of John Cocke, we examined the connection between the cosmic background radiation (CBR) rest frame and global quantization. We found a much richer pattern than seen in galactocentric studies. In 1993 a more dramatic change occurred. In a subject as controversial as redshift quantization, the normal reaction is that it must be wrong. Bill Napier, working with Bruce Guthrie in England found quite the opposite (Guthrie 1991, 1996), they confirmed effects among spiral galaxies viewed in the galactocentric rest frame

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/joaa/018/04/0415-0433

Hans Blaster · Nov 5, 2021

First (to Chad) note what sjastro actually wrote. The specific wording IS IMPORTANT.

sjastro said:
Cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect as the recession velocity is a function of distance, furthermore redshifts being quantized were refuted by observations decades ago.

(The important notion is "cosmological redshift".)

Then you quote an encyclopedia, which is fine, if the quotation is relevant and you know what you are quoting...

chad kincham said:
From BRITTANICA encyclopedia:

redshift
astronomy
BY The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica |View Edit History

redshift, displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is attributed to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results when a given source of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in motion with respect to each other.

Note that this quotation says *nothing* about cosmology or expansion of the universe, only motion. In this case (or in a cosmological motion) that motion is *relative* to the framework of space-time and separate from any expansion of space-time.

chad kincham said:
You are wrong, I was right.

You were not. Cosmological is not motion of objects or a Doppler shift. If you annoy sjastro enough, he might throw down the equations for light in an expanding metric. (Don't say I didn't warn you.)

chad kincham said:
Now look up what red shifts being quantized means.

A fantasy.. That's what quantized (cosmological) redshifts are. They don't exist and the reason for the apparently discrete nature has been known since this:

A Slice of the Universe

Note that the Astrophysical Journal is an actual scientific journal published by an actual scientific society.

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

chad kincham said:
Redshift Quantization in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame
W. G. Tifft1, National Radio Astronomy Observatory2 Green Bank, West Virginia 24944, USA; Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Abstract. Evidence for redshift quantization is reviewed and summar- lized. The cosmic background rest frame appears to be central to the effect. Periods are consistently found to be members of a set predicted by the ninth-root Lehto-Tifft rule which has implications relating to the possible nature of time, particle physics and cosmology. Galaxies can be divided into four morphological families associated with particular classes of periods. Numerous examples are given including recent work where redshifts appear to show evidence of changes between related quantized levels.
Key words. Red shift—galaxies—cosmology. 1. Introduction
My redshift work began in 1970 with initial glimpses of unexpected properties of the redshift. Correlations were found which implied that the redshift could be an intrinsic property of galaxies. Further work uncovered suggestions of a granular ‘quantized’ structure in the redshift. The concept of galaxies as quantized structures connected to a fundamental redshift interval near 72km s–1 was published in three papers (Tifft 1976, 1977a, b) in the mid 1970s. In the 1980s precise 21 cm radio data suggested that a comprehensive global quantization pattern existed. By the late 1980s there was evidence that the redshift was not only quantized, but possibly variable as well (Tifft 1988); several underlying periods were apparent (Tifft 1991). The initial phase, to 1992, is summarized in a 1995 review (Tifft 1995); Fig. 1 is a graphical view of the development with key references.
In 1992, at the suggestion of John Cocke, we examined the connection between the cosmic background radiation (CBR) rest frame and global quantization. We found a much richer pattern than seen in galactocentric studies. In 1993 a more dramatic change occurred. In a subject as controversial as redshift quantization, the normal reaction is that it must be wrong. Bill Napier, working with Bruce Guthrie in England found quite the opposite (Guthrie 1991, 1996), they confirmed effects among spiral galaxies viewed in the galactocentric rest frame

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/joaa/018/04/0415-0433

More on quantized redshifts:

The fact that red shifts appear to be quantized has interesting implications for the study of the universe. This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or a decrease in the speed of light through discrete levels. Maybe there is some other explanation.

The following quotation concerning this phenomenon is from "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts" by William G. Tifft & W. John Cocke, University of Arizona, Sky & Telescope Magazine, Jan., 1987, pgs. 19-21. I thank Mark Stewart for this material:

As the turn of the next century approaches, we again find an established science in trouble trying to explain the behavior of the natural world. This time the problem is in cosmology, the study of the structure and "evolution" of the universe as revealed by its largest physical systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A growing body of observations suggests that one of the most fundamental assumptions of cosmology is wrong.

Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum. Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift". Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift vs. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

Red Shift Riddles

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
Note that this quotation says *nothing* about cosmology or expansion of the universe, only motion. In this case (or in a cosmological motion) that motion is *relative* to the framework of space-time and separate from any expansion of space-time.

Thats hardly my sole source - since you wish to continue trying to disprove incontrovertible facts, this further explains:

The fact that red shifts appear to be quantized has interesting implications for the study of the universe. This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or a decrease in the speed of light through discrete levels. Maybe there is some other explanation.

The following quotation concerning this phenomenon is from "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts" by William G. Tifft & W. John Cocke, University of Arizona, Sky & Telescope Magazine, Jan., 1987, pgs. 19-21. I thank Mark Stewart for this material:

As the turn of the next century approaches, we again find an established science in trouble trying to explain the behavior of the natural world. This time the problem is in cosmology, the study of the structure and "evolution" of the universe as revealed by its largest physical systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A growing body of observations suggests that one of the most fundamental assumptions of cosmology is wrong.

Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum. Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift". Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift vs. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

Red Shift Riddles

That was just a partial quote, you might want to read the entire thing and review and brush up on your science knowledge concerning assumptions about redshifts being a Doppler effect and the implications that being quantized has on the BB theory re. expansion of the universe.

Hans Blaster · Nov 5, 2021

chad kincham said:
More on quantized redshifts:

Congratulations! You've found one kind of bad science:

"Individual research over enamored with is old idea that is increasingly at odds with the piles of evidence against it and who will not give it up."

The happy Objectivist · Nov 5, 2021

Curiousaboutthis said:
Hello,

I hope I posted on the right place. English is my second language please excuse my grammar mistakes.

I am genuinely curious if there is any independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world, I would prefer an article published in a well estabilished journal. I mostly looking for sciences like: physics, biology, chemistry etc and not sciences like philosophy.
I am curious and wanted to ask you guys, it looked like a good place to ask. This is just a friendly request and no offense meant.

Thank you in advance,
Kind Regards,
Curious about this

The question of whether there is a god or not is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one, it's an issue of metaphysics, the study of the nature of the universe as a whole.

Since there can be no such thing as a valid argument for "God", then there can not be such a thing as evidence for such a thing. Science is the systematic application of reason to the task of understanding the world. Reason is compliance with reality, essentially. Reason is the identification of reality as it is and not how we'd like it to be, therefore reason and science rest exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. If reason rests exclusively on the primacy of existence it is incompatible with the notion of "God" since the notion of "God" rests exclusively on the primacy of consciousness principle. To attempt to argue for the existence of "God" is to attempt to make use of the primacy of existence to prove its negation. Any attempt to use reason and logic to prove the existence of "God" would refute itself. That's why belief in "God" requires faith. I suggest you stick to faith and forget about proving "God". It's a misuse of logic and reason. You will look in vain and you'll have to either accept that there is no "God" or you'll have resort to fallacy.

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

sjastro said:
You become upset when individuals refer to you as being ignorant yet it’s painfully obvious you are clueless by blindly quoting nonsense such as “red shift being a Doppler effect showing galaxies expanding, that was reverse extrapolated to a singularity, which is falsified by redshifts being quantized”.
Cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect as the recession velocity is a function of distance, furthermore redshifts being quantized were refuted by observations decades ago.
Given your motivation is to support your confirmation bias it really doesn’t matter whether your sources are accurate or not provided they give a narrative to support your bias.
I have pointed out that Gamow eventually came up with estimates of the background temperature that were within 0.3K of the actual temperature which your source conveniently omitted.
So much for the accuracy of that source…..

With regards to your link, if you think this is a peer reviewed article I doubt Mickey Mouse would even peer review such a worthless piece of junk.
Some of the comments made are straight out wrong.
Here are a couple of examples.

The matter energy tensor Tⁿⁱ in the equations explicitly uses density which is not terribly surprising given general relativity is a theory for gravity!!!!!

Or this.

The reason why stars and galaxies formed in the first place the plasma was not “uniformly hot”; the very slight temperature differences led to density variations which ultimately led to the formation of these structures.

Evidently the author doesn’t understand the thermodynamic concepts of an isolated system and adiabatic expansion.
The universe is an example of an isolated thermodynamic system where there is no exchange of energy or matter as there is no “outside” to exchange with.
In this case as the universe expands it undergoes adiabatic cooling where work not heat is transferred to the surroundings and shows why 19th century thermodynamics can be used to understand why the universe cools rather than the thermodynamics being violated.

To review some fundamental astronomy and science, the hypothesis that the universe is expanding came from one line of evidence, only - the assumption that the red shift of light is solely from a Doppler effect - thus when it becomes known that redshifts of galaxies are quantized, and are not a Doppler effect from velocity of receding bodies of light, the theory of expansion of the universe and the BB theory which came from reverse extrapolation of expansion, is called into question.

Quote:

How is it proved that the Universe is expanding?
Astronomers measure the movement of objects relative to us using Doppler shift. When you hear a train coming, its whistle is heard at a different frequency compared to when it is receding, right? In the same way, light also has a Doppler shift, whereby its frequency is shifted depending on the motion of the emitting object.

Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted (shift in the frequency of light towards red color), which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us. This can only be due to the fact that the Universe is expanding.

Further, by measuring the distance to the galaxies, one finds that the velocity of recession is proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us

How is it proved that the Universe is expanding? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Hans Blaster · Nov 5, 2021

chad kincham said:
To review some fundamental astronomy and science,

OK, Chad. This has gotten out of hand here and way off topic. Unless you are planning to tie "quantized redshifts" to evidence that "god" interacts with the world this is way off topic. If you really want to talk about quantized redshifts then start a new thread on this board to discuss them and some one will be around shortly to counter you claims.

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

To review some fundamental astronomy and science, the hypothesis that the universe is expanding came from one line of evidence, only - the assumption that the red shift of light is solely from a Doppler effect - thus when it becomes known that redshifts of galaxies are quantized, and are not a Doppler effect from velocity of receding bodies of light, the theory of expansion of the universe and the BB theory which came from reverse extrapolation of expansion, is called into question.

Quote:

How is it proved that the Universe is expanding?
Astronomers measure the movement of objects relative to us using Doppler shift. When you hear a train coming, its whistle is heard at a different frequency compared to when it is receding, right? In the same way, light also has a Doppler shift, whereby its frequency is shifted depending on the motion of the emitting object.

Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted (shift in the frequency of light towards red color), which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us. This can only be due to the fact that the Universe is expanding.

Further, by measuring the distance to the galaxies, one finds that the velocity of recession is proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us

NxNW said:
I guess you haven't read the explanation.

Redshifts are quantized, which falsifies expansion of the universe being proved by the Doppler effect - no expansion = no Big Bang

chad kincham · Nov 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
OK, Chad. This has gotten out of hand here and way off topic. Unless you are planning to tie "quantized redshifts" to evidence that "god" interacts with the world this is way off topic. If you really want to talk about quantized redshifts then start a new thread on this board to discuss them and some one will be around shortly to counter you claims.

And you are who? I see no staff badge on your identification info to the left.

Enlighten me as to your authority, please.

Kyrani · Nov 5, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
You would have a point if that was how cells are made - but it's not. Cells have always come from parent cells, right back to the simplest proto-cell which likely arose from the products of prior chemical evolution (there are various hypotheses being investigated). We, and all life on Earth, have a long ancestry.

That's right. Cells come from other cells. That is not what I was saying. A cell has many functions and when we examine them we find that they show intelligence. It is not straight forward simple chemistry involved.

Kyrani · Nov 5, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
"I don't know/understand, [therefore intelligence,] therefore God" is (ironically) a canonical argument from incredulity.

That is not what I said. We look at what is happening and we cannot explain it with plain chemistry. There is intelligence in the way cells function. Where does that intelligence come from? There is really only one source and that is God, where all intelligence comes from.

Kyrani · Nov 5, 2021

Hans Blaster said:
What do you mean "nothing happens"?

Do you know what "PCR" stands for? (It is a common type of COVID test, so the term is in wide circulation)

PCR = Polymerase Chain Reaction

It is literally placing polymerase and DNA in a test tube with other chemicals so that the polymerase makes many copies of the DNA segment.

Now you're essentially dismissing the last 100 years or so of work in biochemistry and molecular biology. That work has shown that cellular activity ("life" if you like) is thousands of chemical reactions and reaction feed backs including the production of enzymes and the regulation of DNA transcription.

PCR is a complex chemical reaction in the test tube where the enzyme RNA polymerase is used, together with pimers to pin the start and end point of the piece of DNA to be copied. It is a chain reaction, i.e., it goes on to make millions and billions of copies of the DNA, nothing more. It is not a replication of life in any way shape or form.

Certainly the reactions in a cell involves chemicals of one form or another. However it is not simple chemical reactions. For example a protein coding gene can be used to make several proteins by the removal of certain exons. What exons are removed depends on what is needed by the cell and /or the body as a whole. So we can't put it down to simple chemical reactions.

Kyrani · Nov 5, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
How have you ruled out other possibilities that you may not know about? Where is the demonstration that a god is behind it?

What is the difference between a robot's answer to a question and a human's answer? One is limited to programmed replies, the other has limitless ability to reply and shows intelligence in the response and not simply a programmed answer. You only need to make the observation.
Another observation is found in disease. A person's reactions to negative ideas causes them to react and that reaction is physiological. Thus they develop adverse bodily reactivity, which over time becomes disease. Once the person understands what is at play they can simply stop reacting and sometimes need to resolve some issues that are causing ongoing emotional reactivity, and the disease is gone. They have a spontaneous remission from whatever it is. Or as doctors say "sometimes the disease just goes away by itself". This is not about a meat robot as is supposed by the biomedical scientists. It shows intelligence at play. This intelligence is not something evolved but of God.

Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency