Red Shift may be time shift

[Justatruthseeker]

Ha. Would matyre debate be too much to ask for?

I don't know, would it? Then why did you start with the childish attacks if you can't handle it returned? Don't try to play the saint routine with me.

What has been seen from the beginning of the world may not include all you thought it did!

For one, it includes more than "I or anyone" could ever think of, because "I or anyone" am not God.

Garbage talk.

I thought you wanted a mature debate???

The heavens declare God's glory, but man's idea of the heavens is hellish and ugly. If we look at the stars we see the great work of God. If we look at them imagining all the filth of cosmology we see gross darkness and uncreated stars.

Because stars are not thermonuclear controlled bombs, but electrical. A star has either enough energy flowing through it to be visible, or may not have had and the current increases and what was not visible is now visible. It's not my fault they want to ignore that energy everywhere.

Invisible is right. Not sure what you think that meant. To try to pretend it involves godless science is foul.

Except we know its energy - the same thing that enables us to think. To imply the very thing that is God which became everything material and immaterial that we observe and measure is then Godless, is beyond comprehension. Get thee back....

From the beginning we never saw cosmological whoppers! To understand what we do see, we need to exorcise science from us!

No, you need to exorcise the Fairie Dust out of the science, the science that will lead them to God, so that they no longer have an excuse. I asked you to quit confusing modern cosmological theories with science did I not?

It is called science,

No, it's called "cosmology"

and when you rattle on about an electric smectric universe or the theory of relativity applying to time in the far universe, you are talking about science falsely so called.

No, electricity/energy exists everywhere, that's a fact whether you close your eyes or not. Ignore those things God made at your own peril.

The theory of Relativity forbids them to do what they claim, we've already discussed this, so why do you keep mixing up science with myth like they do?

So?? They do not know about spiritual energy or anything else. They do not know what the universe is like in basic ways, so that claim is only for earth area, and even then, only in this state!

Except we have no definition of energy in science. Do you know why? Because what image could you make of Him? If you could describe it, you could make an image of it. How do you make an image of your thoughts? But one day they will understand, and in that day excuses will be no more, brought about by their very selves.

You are guessing. That is based on earth rules. Beyond our solar system, maybe there are other rules. That doesn't apply to the universe or the future or the past.

No guess to it, either the same God made everything visible and invisible, or He didn't.

Not in any way does the bible tell us that science is anything like that!

False. Science has no God in it. They confess none. They know nothing like that.

Wrong, science has an open mind, until something is shown to be incorrect. That's the key phrase, "they confess none". Confessions are not science. But if energy makes your thoughts possible, and energy exists everywhere - and transforms into everything we see and back to energy, then how can anyone claim God is not scientifically possible? Why would a being of consciousness - in whose image we are - be scientifically impossible? It wouldn't.

Speculation. The energy in a brain on earth may not be exactly like energy in a star or near one.

Besides strength, show me the difference between energy in your brain from the energy in the atoms is different than any energy emitted or absorbed by any other atom?

Nonsense! God never says all matter does that. Science doesn't know that either.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

So where did the matter come from if not the very energy of God? Call it "power" if you want, that's fine with me. Call it spirit if you want, that's also fine with me. But we are the "image" of God, of whom no image can be made. So think about it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Sorry, but your posts confuse them.

No, I tell them what their own theory says in reality, and they just don't like it. They are confused, because in the back of their head they know I'm right, and so their unconscious mind struggles with their conscious self.

In theory! They never accelerated very far!

Needn't have done so any distance. God is everywhere - infinity - so there is something everywhere too already.

That is based on a string of assumptions and beliefs. Redshift for example. This thread suggests that there may be other reasons for the shifting.

Oh undoubtedly, what we see everyday around us.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Their whole science of cosmology is a fraud, and must be upchucked. If they talk about the sun and moon and planets here, to a certain point...fine. They may not pass any further, and even here it will change soon and did change probably already, and in some areas, like under the earth or in the sun, could be different as we speak.

Not the whole of cosmology - just 95% of it, because only 5% is based upon science. It's different all the time, it's just proportional based upon energy content in any given area of space.

 

[dad]

Because stars are not thermonuclear controlled bombs, but electrical.

Ha. Lay off the comics.

A star has either enough energy flowing through it to be visible, or may not have had and the current increases and what was not visible is now visible. It's not my fault they want to ignore that energy everywhere.

Stop pretending you know what a star is or does.

Except we know its energy - the same thing that enables us to think. To imply the very thing that is God which became everything material and immaterial that we observe and measure is then Godless, is beyond comprehension. Get thee back....

Incoherent rant.

No, you need to exorcise the Fairie Dust out of the science, the science that will lead them to God,

?? Science leads to God? Where you been?

No, electricity/energy exists everywhere, that's a fact whether you close your eyes or not. Ignore those things God made at your own peril.

Stop talking as if you know what is on the other side and the far side of the universe. The power that exists may be somewhat different than earth electricity for all we know.

The theory of Relativity forbids them to do what they claim, we've already discussed this, so why do you keep mixing up science with myth like they do?

So you say, but who made you the grand wizard of relativity, and expert of all experts? You want to play with the big boys of relativity, then don't just squawk here about how you claim relativity is far different than the actual experts think! Ever consider maybe you have it wrong?

Except we have no definition of energy in science. Do you know why? Because what image could you make of Him?

Now you call energy God. Pathetic. There are many kinds of energy. I doubt God is the energizer bunny.

No guess to it, either the same God made everything visible and invisible, or He didn't.

You can't see the invisible. The visible we see now is temporal, and doesn't match the future or past. Don't read into Scripture what is in your dreams.

Wrong, science has an open mind, until something is shown to be incorrect.

A true open mind seeks truth before it gets busted for being wrong a lot.

That's the key phrase, "they confess none". Confessions are not science. But if energy makes your thoughts possible, and energy exists everywhere - and transforms into everything we see and back to energy, then how can anyone claim God is not scientifically possible?

Because they are fools. However, what proof have you that our thoughts are made possible by some vague 'energy'??! If you stick your finger in a socket will you think a lot?

Why would a being of consciousness - in whose image we are - be scientifically impossible? It wouldn't.

Yes, if science didn't include the spiritual, it would be impossible and it doesn't. For them truth is impossible.

Besides strength, show me the difference between energy in your brain from the energy in the atoms is different than any energy emitted or absorbed by any other atom?

God inspires thoughts. So cam demons. I never saw an atom with it's head spinning, you?

So where did the matter come from if not the very energy of God?

The bible doesn't say God is energy of some undetermined sort. God is Jesus, and Holy Ghost and Father. We know what Jesus is like, we do not know this supposed 'energy of God' you allude to.

Call it "power" if you want, that's fine with me. Call it spirit if you want, that's also fine with me. But we are the "image" of God, of whom no image can be made. So think about it.

I think you need to work on what being made in His image means.

No, I tell them what their own theory says in reality, and they just don't like it. They are confused, because in the back of their head they know I'm right, and so their unconscious mind struggles with their conscious self.

You think that is what they are thinking? Maybe. Or maybe they figure you are talking above your knowledge quotient and are pushing some agenda for whatever reason. Who knows what they actually think?

Not the whole of cosmology - just 95% of it, because only 5% is based upon science. It's different all the time, it's just proportional based upon energy content in any given area of space.

If 95% of cosmology is bunk, that is more than enough to declare it all junk. Not worth sifting through the trash to find the few gems in the manure.

 

[dad]

What's your basis for that?

A science forum on a Christian site ought to be somewhat about one or the other.

"math ought to be able to cover"... I haven't seen anything that math or logic could not model, given enough work.

I have something it won't cover. I am planning to release a new idea over on the parallax thread tonight. Fasten your seat belts.

I'll even give you "a little simple math". If we assume that the behaviour of time, t, is continuous, then we could describe time which does not depend on the position, p, through:
t'(p,p') = t'(p').
I think that should suffice.

For what?

This isn't anything near what someone who has actually done studying within the actual field, but the principle should be somewhat correct.
Thus, to show your claim, demonstrate that
t'(p,p') =/= t'(p').
Your move.

Time is T and position is P. Now tell us if both or either are near earth? Next, define time, since you want to use it in an equation. Then we can look at the connection you seek to make by numbers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ha. Lay off the comics.

Sigh... I thought you wanted to have a mature debate????? So be it....

Stop pretending you know what a star is or does.

Stop pretending you do. If you say you don't believe anyone knows, which you do indeed claim, then my theory is just as valid as anyone's, until you prove it wrong. But since you claim no one knows, you can't do that either.

Incoherent rant.

Small mind avoiding reality without any chance of comprehension.

?? Science leads to God? Where you been?

Where have you been? Show me one piece of laboratory backed science that doesn't support God? Mutation experiments? Every single e-coli after untold billions of generations, still e-coli. Kind after kind. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely change form. I knew that from the Bible long ago.

Stop talking as if you know what is on the other side and the far side of the universe. The power that exists may be somewhat different than earth electricity for all we know.

Stop talking as if the same God didn't make everything we see. Stick your head deeper in that hole in the sand.

So you say, but who made you the grand wizard of relativity, and expert of all experts? You want to play with the big boys of relativity, then don't just squawk here about how you claim relativity is far different than the actual experts think! Ever consider maybe you have it wrong?

Apparently you think the experts have it wrong, do you not? So have you ever considered maybe you have it wrong, since you too also want to disagree with them? You can't even play on my level, don't think you can play on theirs. Your own argument then invalidates every claim you made against them from the get-go. Trapped by your own lack of understanding, and buried by your own lack of logic.

Now you call energy God. Pathetic. There are many kinds of energy. I doubt God is the energizer bunny.

Really? You mean like different principalities and powers???? Or just different intensities brought about by the same exact thing???

You can't see the invisible. The visible we see now is temporal, and doesn't match the future or past. Don't read into Scripture what is in your dreams.

You can't see energy or spirit, don't read your dreams into scripture.

A true open mind seeks truth before it gets busted for being wrong a lot.

Then why are you always wrong? Perhaps you should open that closed mind.

Because they are fools. However, what proof have you that our thoughts are made possible by some vague 'energy'??! If you stick your finger in a socket will you think a lot?
Yes, if science didn't include the spiritual, it would be impossible and it doesn't. For them truth is impossible.

Jesus drank wine, but I don't think he'd approve of it in excess. So why would you stick your finger in the socket?

And yet one can be revived until that electrical activity in the brain stops - then nothing short of God can put it back again. Because He "remembers" us, and places our thoughts back into newly made bodies.

Even when the heart stops, best hope, electricity.

God inspires thoughts. So cam demons. I never saw an atom with it's head spinning, you?

You've never seen an atom period, what you talking about? You don't see that electrical current running to your computer either, but I bet you use it every day.

The bible doesn't say God is energy of some undetermined sort.

Doesn't say He isn't either.

We know what Jesus is like, we do not know this supposed 'energy of God' you allude to.

You surely better.

John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

I think you need to work on what being made in His image means.

I think maybe you should...

Deuteronomy 4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully,

Isaiah 40:18 With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?

I neither compare Him to anyone, nor do I compare Him to anything any image can be made of.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-22.htm

Only from gaining knowledge (mind) were we considered to be similar to God. The image at first was only knowledge of good, but then knowledge of evil was also gained. But unlike God, we could not overcome those evil thoughts without His help, as some of the angels also could not overcome it because they sought not His glory either...

You think that is what they are thinking? Maybe. Or maybe they figure you are talking above your knowledge quotient and are pushing some agenda for whatever reason. Who knows what they actually think?

They think they are right - just as you do - even when they are wrong - like you are. No difference.

If 95% of cosmology is bunk, that is more than enough to declare it all junk. Not worth sifting through the trash to find the few gems in the manure.

But with science you can put the other 95% right back, no problems whatsoever. Only took a 100 years to mess it up, shouldn't take more than 50 to clean it up once they get rid of the Fairie Dust and accept the science.

EDIT: It is our "thoughts" that lead us to sin, the action not required.

http://biblehub.com/james/1-15.htm

It is our "thoughts" that are the image of God, not anything physical in the slightest. It is our "thoughts" that lead us to redemption or destruction. To believe, one must have the "faith" of a little child. You must "believe" with your mind. For mind is what we are and mind is what God is.

 

[dad]

Stop pretending you do. If you say you don't believe anyone knows, which you do indeed claim, then my theory is just as valid as anyone's, until you prove it wrong. But since you claim no one knows, you can't do that either.

Ha. Argument from ignorance. The bible helps us know actually. It doesn't jive with God being some energy of the sort that powers mammal brains. The bible talks of a real, powerful, kind, merciful, forgiving, loving, just God. Not any vague ether dwelling energy. Watch too much star wars?

Where have you been? Show me one piece of laboratory backed science that doesn't support God?

Show any that does?

Mutation experiments? Every single e-coli after untold billions of generations, still e-coli. Kind after kind.

You are claiming ecoli is a kind!!? Get a grip. Ever consider that some things are badly adapted lesser life forms? Should I believe then, that God called all the ecoli into the ark? Let's try to be reasonable. The use of the word kind relates to animals, not bacteria!

Besides all that, you seem to be placing a limit of how much adapting could happen, in the name of a biblical interpretation that is seemingly unrelated, or at least a matter of strong interpretative range.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely change form. I knew that from the Bible long ago.

Oh? Clue us in to the verses?

Energy cannot be created!!! God created the stars and universe and earth, are you saying that they contained no energy!!? Gong! Science is full of beans.

Stop talking as if the same God didn't make everything we see. Stick your head deeper in that hole in the sand.

Obviously God didn't make all we see at creation, that is worse than screaming lunacy. I wasn't there at creation, were you? My toaster wasn't there either.

Apparently you think the experts have it wrong, do you not? So have you ever considered maybe you have it wrong, since you too also want to disagree with them?

God has it right, and I consider that any who have a different story have it wrong. So no, I do not have it wrong, although my comprehension of why science is wrong and God right may be flawed.

You can't even play on my level, don't think you can play on theirs.

If you guys would lose the diapers and sandboxes of so called science misconceptions, shibboleths, foolish claims, and general handicapped thinking in the box, you could come play on my level.

Really? You mean like different principalities and powers???? Or just different intensities brought about by the same exact thing???

You can't see energy or spirit, don't read your dreams into scripture.

Scripture tells of spirits, are you doubting this? Stop muddying the water, and be clear.

And yet one can be revived until that electrical activity in the brain stops - then nothing short of God can put it back again. Because He "remembers" us, and places our thoughts back into newly made bodies.

???? Any activity in the brain would merely reflect life and not BE life.

Even when the heart stops, best hope, electricity.

Hilarious. Actually, electricity doesn't do a corpse much good.

You've never seen an atom period, what you talking about? You don't see that electrical current running to your computer either, but I bet you use it every day.

Are you suggesting there is no nuclear activity? Who cares what you can see??

I neither compare Him to anyone, nor do I compare Him to anything any image can be made of.

I do. Jesus! Cause that is Who He is.

Only from gaining knowledge (mind) were we considered to be similar to God.

Says who?

God created us before we gained anything! He created us in His image. Gong!

The image at first was only knowledge of good, but then knowledge of evil was also gained. But unlike God, we could not overcome those evil thoughts without His help, as some of the angels also could not overcome it because they sought not His glory either...

Cult nonsense.

But with science you can put the other 95% right back, no problems whatsoever.

Oh? So what is the 95% dark stuff they are missing?

Only took a 100 years to mess it up, shouldn't take more than 50 to clean it up once they get rid of the Fairie Dust and accept the science.

Fairy dust? Quite a conspiracy theory.

It is our "thoughts" that are the image of God, not anything physical in the slightest. It is our "thoughts" that lead us to redemption or destruction. To believe, one must have the "faith" of a little child. You must "believe" with your mind. For mind is what we are and mind is what God is.

Why preach a bunch of personal misconceptions as if they were true?? With the heart man believes unto righteousness. Who says man's thoughts are some image of God?? You seem to have been getting by peddling a lot of nonsense for awhile.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ha. Argument from ignorance. The bible helps us know actually. It doesn't jive with God being some energy of the sort that powers mammal brains. The bible talks of a real, powerful, kind, merciful, forgiving, loving, just God. Not any vague ether dwelling energy. Watch too much star wars?

You mean a God that can "think and feel"? Just like our minds do?

Show any that does?

Any one you pick does. Ever seen them change a dog into something other than a dog? Ever seen them change an e-coli bacteria into something other than an e-coli bacteria?? Nope, don't believe you have. So just what scientific experiment do you think doesn't support kind after kind???

You are claiming ecoli is a kind!!? Get a grip. Ever consider that some things are badly adapted lesser life forms? Should I believe then, that God called all the ecoli into the ark? Let's try to be reasonable. The use of the word kind relates to animals, not bacteria!

It relates to everything. Are you claiming God didn't create bacteria????? Are you sure you want to fall that far from the truth? I see evolution has indeed pervaded your dreams of reality.

Besides all that, you seem to be placing a limit of how much adapting could happen, in the name of a biblical interpretation that is seemingly unrelated, or at least a matter of strong interpretative range.

No, I'm not saying that, science itself says that.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

It's the only thing that has ever been observed.

Oh? Clue us in to the verses?

You don't know them already?

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Energy cannot be created!!! God created the stars and universe and earth, are you saying that they contained no energy!!? Gong! Science is full of beans.

Why are you confusing the things made "by Him and through Him in which He is in all things", with those things? God is everywhere and in everything, there is no place He is not. Of course they contain energy - they are a part of God - who is energy. Mind, consciousness. Of course energy can't be created or destroyed. If you could create energy you could create God, or destroy Him. An impossibility, which science understand quite well.

Obviously God didn't make all we see at creation, that is worse than screaming lunacy. I wasn't there at creation, were you? My toaster wasn't there either.

And not 4 posts ago you were just screaming because someone was implying stars were constantly being made. Now your screaming the exact opposite. Poor deluded soul.

God has it right, and I consider that any who have a different story have it wrong. So no, I do not have it wrong, although my comprehension of why science is wrong and God right may be flawed.

No, your concept of what science is, is flawed, influenced by those that do not even follow what their own science says.

If you guys would lose the diapers and sandboxes of so called science misconceptions, shibboleths, foolish claims, and general handicapped thinking in the box, you could come play on my level.

What level is that, were we pretend we can't understand anything, so go back to beating stones against rocks to make fire?

Scripture tells of spirits, are you doubting this? Stop muddying the water, and be clear.

Beings of energy that take human form now and then? Some even capable of bodily possessing your mind? Let's see, do I doubt that a being of energy can transform? Nope, don't think I doubt it at all. Why did you ask?

???? Any activity in the brain would merely reflect life and not BE life.

Yet without that activity, you are not you and wouldn't even know if you had life or not.

Hilarious. Actually, electricity doesn't do a corpse much good.
Are you suggesting there is no nuclear activity?

I'm sure not suggesting if someone has a heart attack we try reviving them by sticking them next to a nuclear power plant. Are you?

Who cares what you can see??

Apparently you, your stuck on images, not me.

I do. Jesus! Cause that is Who He is.

Not according to God.

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Says who?

Says God, didn't you read your Bible?

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

God created us before we gained anything! He created us in His image. Gong!

With the knowledge of good, and the knowledge to name every animal on the planet and to speak.

Cult nonsense.

We agree, so why do you follow a cult?

Oh? So what is the 95% dark stuff they are missing?

They ain't missing anything. They are just ignoring electrical forces. And so require more matter to make up for the energy they observe, but ignore.

Fairy dust? Quite a conspiracy theory.

Not a very good conspiracy, since it's not a secret. Only you and mainstream labels it such. Wonder why that is.

Why preach a bunch of personal misconceptions as if they were true?? With the heart man believes unto righteousness. Who says man's thoughts are some image of God?? You seem to have been getting by peddling a lot of nonsense for awhile.

You seem to think God exists but has no mind. You want to make images of Him that no image can be made of. And were warned even to be careful, because you saw no form when He spoke from the fire.

Deuteronomy 4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully,

Be very careful.....

 

[dad]

You mean a God that can "think and feel"? Just like our minds do?

No. My mind doesn't feel. Yours? My heart feels. Inspiration also comes from above and the mind if it doesn't get in the way too much is just a conduit.

Any one you pick does. Ever seen them change a dog into something other than a dog?

In this state evolving is slow, so I would not expect to see a wolf turn into a poodle. However, I see no reason why the dog kind could not have been a wolf.

Ever seen them change an e-coli bacteria into something other than an e-coli bacteria??

Ever seen them turn a Wal Mart shoe into a quantum computer? Both the shoe and the ecoli are likely post flood. If bacteria and viri could adapt and evolve, that would not surprise me, as they are not kinds, and may be able to adapt relatively fast even in this state.

Nope, don't believe you have. So just what scientific experiment do you think doesn't support kind after kind???

Science has never done a 'kind' experiment. The kinds were at creation, and also the time of the flood, and the evolving was near those times, not now. Any evolving in this state is slow and basically after the fact.

It relates to everything. Are you claiming God didn't create bacteria?????

If they are adapted, then they were not the way whatever they started out as being. It seems likely that many viri and bacteria are not what we would have seen in creation week.

Are you sure you want to fall that far from the truth? I see evolution has indeed pervaded your dreams of reality.

I doubt there were poodles at creation week either.

You don't know them already?

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

I said clue us in on the verses that support what you said, not spam random verses as if you had a clue!

Why are you confusing the things made "by Him and through Him in which He is in all things", with those things? God is everywhere and in everything, there is no place He is not. Of course they contain energy - they are a part of God - who is energy. Mind, consciousness. Of course energy can't be created or destroyed. If you could create energy you could create God, or destroy Him. An impossibility, which science understand quite well.

The issue was not what man can create...but what could be created.

And not 4 posts ago you were just screaming because someone was implying stars were constantly being made. Now your screaming the exact opposite. Poor deluded soul.

Of course babies are being made and stars. Work on your comprehension.

No, your concept of what science is, is flawed, influenced by those that do not even follow what their own science says.

Everyone is nuts but you. Got it.

What level is that, were we pretend we can't understand anything, so go back to beating stones against rocks to make fire?

Your level.

Beings of energy that take human form now and then? Some even capable of bodily possessing your mind? Let's see, do I doubt that a being of energy can transform? Nope, don't think I doubt it at all. Why did you ask?

Energizer bunny from space in a vampire body?

Yet without that activity, you are not you and wouldn't even know if you had life or not.

Having electrical impulse as part of our physical body doesn't mean we are those impules any more than it means we are a bag of water....or worse.

Not according to God.

Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

These three are one. Jesus said I and my father are one. Without understanding that Jesus is Lord, you can't have a clue who or what God is.

They ain't missing anything. They are just ignoring electrical forces.

That would be a crime in your mind!

Not a very good conspiracy, since it's not a secret. Only you and mainstream labels it such. Wonder why that is.

Me and the mainstream against you...and that is no secret?!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Apparently YECs are now suggesting that the red shift effect is great enough to INCREASE the speed of light so that 13 billion years has now become 6000 years.

Nutters all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Apparently YECs are now suggesting that the red shift effect is great enough to INCREASE the speed of light so that 13 billion years has now become 6000 years.

Nutters all.

Agreed, similar to suggesting that time must have went faster, or that the universe expanded faster than c during the initial era of the Big Bang. Merely that plasma that pervades the entire universe, increasing in density with distance.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift


Which harkens back to special relativity:

"While special relativity constrains objects in the Universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact. It is thus possible for two objects to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which means that, if the expansion remains constant, the two objects will never come into causal contact. For example, galaxies that are more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us are expanding away from us faster than light."

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you agree that those that hold to the idea of the metric expansion of space are to paraphrase "Nutters all"?

After all, doesn't that idea fit expansion better, since apparently they could get to their claimed distance in 6000 years, since c or time has nothing to do with distance now in modern pseudo-science. All we have to do in either pseudo-scientific theory is pretend space and energy be continually created miraculously at an increasing rate. Which leads us back to why all of you have ignored those frames not similarly situated, yet claiming the same laws of physics still apply? Now we have to violate all of known physics, claiming frames not similarly situated (out of casual contact) are the same, while at the same time claiming frames not similarly situated (out of casual contact) have different laws of physics, so we can apply two different pseudo-scientific ideas to the same set of data.

I mean come on - any expansion theory at all fails on every account and has to claim two opposing ideas at the same time, and accept both, even though they are in direct conflict with one another. Because either they are out of casual contact with us and capable of faster than c expansion, or they are in casual contact with us - in which case the same laws of physics may be applied. Which is it?

 

[dad]

Apparently YECs are now suggesting that the red shift effect is great enough to INCREASE the speed of light so that 13 billion years has now become 6000 years.

Nutters all.

No. The thread here is about time and space being different, so possibly less time is involved, not greater speed. The nutter theories of science under under attack.

 

[Elendur]

To clarify your post, I'd like you to define:
"Lab".
" 'Leaps of faith' ".
" 'Unseen' ".
"Supernatural".
" 'Statement of faith' ".
" *Uncontrolled* ".
"Statement of faith". (Since you've not been consistent about your marking, and I assume that you've got a reason for those)

Your evidence (from the lab)?

I refer you to assumption two.

My point will become evident further down in this post. I'm sure you'll remember it from previous discussions.

Also, are you really sure you don't want to take a discussion about your lab requirement?

IMO this sounds like a convenient excuse as to why the mainstream is simply unable to support their claims *empirically* in controlled experimentation. There are at *least* two *common* and *easy* ways to explain photon redshift that do not require 'leaps of faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab). Why would I look to a "supernatural" explanation for something that is easily and simply explained with *natural* and demonstrated processes?

Convenient excuse? What do you mean by that? It's a necessary consequence.

Those two common alternative ways, they don't happen to be of those you've mentioned to me before? I distinctively remember that there was no proper answer to the questions I raised. I.e. that in my perspective they did not explain the phenomena.

IMO that is simply another "statement of faith" about various ad hoc properties that you've chosen to assign to the 'supernatural' processed called "space expansion". It's like Dad claiming that time changes only occur on large scales. How would you verify or falsify such a claim?

That's not his claim. His claim is that time changes depending on your position. To be more specific: depending on your position relative to earth.

Regarding your claim that it'd be an ad hoc property, you're wrong. It's a property which follows directly from the observations and the proposed explanation.

As for the0verification/ falsification, how about further observations of the scale which it's supposed to be observable?

I think we understand each other on this issue, I just think we see it quite differently. The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the positive claim about 'space expansion'. An *uncontrolled* observation followed by an affirming the consequent fallacy is not "evidence" of space expansion being a cause of photon redshift, it's a "statement of faith".

To generalize your statement here:
The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the non-null claim.
(I.e. positive or negative)

Yep. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to believe it does not occur here or anywhere else.

I refer to the generalized statement in the section above.
Is it that you do not agree with that statement?

I did say that, just as an atheist might "lack belief" in any tangible effects from "God". The empirical difference however is that the concept of God having a tangible effect on humans *could* be lab tested, whereas "space expansion" is simply a statement of faith that must be taken on pure faith in terms of cause/effect justification. It's ultimately nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy run amok.

I've bolded a specific part which is of interest. That analogy does not work. If I were to translate your claim into the corresponding god-related belief:
You believe that god have no effect in the lab.
Note here that a whole lot of significance was lost in the exchange from claim to belief, but otherwise it's meaning have been essentially preserved.

This differs from the atheist stances:
You do not believe that god have no effect in the lab.
You do not believe that god have an effect in the lab.

This is ultimately also the difference between a negative (/positive) claim and the null claim.

Apparently I'm a slow learner. Sorry if you feel I misrepresented your position. I wasn't trying to do so.

Ok.

In terms of assigning various presumed properties to God, space or anything else, what's the empirical (lab tested) difference?

That depends on the property and the object, doesn't it?

 

[Elendur]

A science forum on a Christian site ought to be somewhat about one or the other.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about in general.

I have something it won't cover. I am planning to release a new idea over on the parallax thread tonight. Fasten your seat belts.

Could you link to that?

For what?

To satisfy your demand of "a little math".

Time is T and position is P. Now tell us if both or either are near earth? Next, define time, since you want to use it in an equation. Then we can look at the connection you seek to make by numbers.

See bolded text. You cannot measure the distance between time and position. Not by any definition I'm aware of at least. Is it that you have one I'm unaware of? If so, please provide.
Also, I already provided you with the equation regarding the time. Why involve numbers?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A science forum on a Christian site ought to be somewhat about one or the other.

Why? Do you not believe the same God made everything we see and measure? You can't separate God from science, or science from God. Doing so leads to incorrect assumptions either way, because either stance ignores half the equation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To generalize your statement here:
The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the non-null claim.
(I.e. positive or negative)

Already proven - no laboratory has measured anything, so you must now accept your responsibility of proving a non-null claim - that of expansion.

And Fairie Dust is not an acceptable proof, since it has itself neither been detected nor proven.

And if you claim differently, then prove that ether is not valid, being only null-results were relied upon as that proof of invalidity? What, what's good for the goose suddenly isn't good for the gander? I believe I've heard that double-talk somewhere else.

 

[Elendur]

Already proven - no laboratory has measured anything, so you must now accept your responsibility of proving a non-null claim - that of expansion.

1. "Already proven". Sloppy choice of words, does not fit together with the rest of the sentence.
2. "no laboratory has measured anything". Sloppy choice of words, I know what you're referring to but I would appreciate if you would be more specific.
3. It's not my responsibility. (I've extensively explained that to you before, I do hope you're more responsive this time around)

And Fairie Dust is not an acceptable proof, since it has itself neither been detected nor proven.

Since you've made it clear that you have a specific definition of your Fairie Dust, I won't debate that.

And if you claim differently, then prove that ether is not valid, being only null-results were relied upon as that proof of invalidity? What, what's good for the goose suddenly isn't good for the gander? I believe I've heard that double-talk somewhere else.

Proof is not the correct term.
Also, it's not entirely clear what you're referring to here.

 

[SelfSim]

1. "Already proven". Sloppy choice of words, does not fit together with the rest of the sentence.
2. ... Sloppy choice of words, I know what you're referring to but I would appreciate if you would be more specific.
...
Proof is not the correct term.
Also, it's not entirely clear what you're referring to here.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognises the incoherency of a Justatruthseeker rant.

He seems to expect others to firstly correct his grammar/terminology usage. He then thinks the huge remaining gaps are actually fillable (in order for the other party to decipher his point).

At the end of this struggle, its usually not worth the effort expended.

 

[Elendur]

I'm glad I'm not the only me who recognises the incoherency of a Justatruthseeker rant.

He seems to expect others to firstly correct his grammar/terminology usage. He then thinks the huge remaining gaps are actually fillable (in order for the other party to decipher his point).

At the end of this struggle, its usually not worth the effort expended.

I agree.
Though to be fair, I know from personal experience it's easy enough to fall into a posting habit where one won't type out everything properly.

I like to think I've improved though, and I hold the expectation that he will as well. Eventually.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. "Already proven". Sloppy choice of words, does not fit together with the rest of the sentence.

I'll agree with that, poor choice of words. So we agree then. Neither expansion nor ether has been proven correct or incorrect.

2. "no laboratory has measured anything". Sloppy choice of words, I know what you're referring to but I would appreciate if you would be more specific.

Very well, since you insist. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Expansion, neutron stars, black holes, big bangs. Shall I continue being more specific???

3. It's not my responsibility. (I've extensively explained that to you before, I do hope you're more responsive this time around)

Sure it is, you insist on claiming a non-null result exists. As per your own argument it is that persons responsibility to prove a non-null claim.

"The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the non-null claim.
(I.e. positive or negative)"

You claim a positive expansion - not null as per laboratory results. I claim null - as per laboratory results.

Proof is not the correct term.
Also, it's not entirely clear what you're referring to here.

You know exactly what I am referring to here, don't play coy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I agree.
Though to be fair, I know from personal experience it's easy enough to fall into a posting habit where one won't type out everything properly.

I like to think I've improved though, and I hold the expectation that he will as well. Eventually.

Your both engaging in strawmen, the only thing you can do. Please show me one post where I requested that you correct your grammar/terminology except where science has already defined it? What, can't use the very scientific terms of the science you claim to follow?

And who was it just engaging in the very thing you both complain about now, when it comes to both of you?

"Sloppy choice of words.... I would appreciate if you would be more specific."

Were you requesting that I use proper terminology/grammar????

But... At least one of us admitted it was a poor choice of words, unlike some... who continue with those poor choice of words when asked to correct their grammar/terminology in the use of words and be more specific.

 

[Elendur]

I'll agree with that, poor choice of words. So we agree then. Neither expansion nor ether has been proven correct or incorrect.

You've misunderstood my point. You're the one who has injected the usage of "proof" and "prove".
These are terms reserved for mathematics (and partly to alcohol). The certainty which those terms signify is not found within any of the natural sciences.

You'll note I've not used those terms once within the relevant context.
If I'm mistaken about that, please do show where.

Very well, since you insist. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Expansion, neutron stars, black holes, big bangs. Shall I continue being more specific???

So you think it's something weird with not measuring neutron stars, black holes or big bangs in a lab?
You did include those in the list for a reason, I hope, so don't complain about me singling them out.

Sure it is, you insist on claiming a non-null result exists. As per your own argument it is that persons responsibility to prove a non-null claim.

Your second sentence is entirely correct. However, I repeat that which I have stated several times:
I do not claim anything about the expansion about space.

"The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the non-null claim.
(I.e. positive or negative)"

You claim a positive expansion - not null as per laboratory results. I claim null - as per laboratory results.

This is one misconception and one lie.
I do not claim anything about the expansion.
You do.
You claim it doesn't occur.

I'll repeat that in clear text:
I do not claim it occurs.
You claim it does not occur.

See where the negation differs?
It's that difference which makes you the holder of the burden of proof, not me.

You know exactly what I am referring to here, don't play coy.

I really don't. Why don't you break that section down for me?

"if you claim differently, then prove".
Why does that follow?
"ether".
I haven't mentioned chemistry even once.
"that proof of invalidity".
Your use of "that"" indicates a specific proof, one I don't know of.
"double-talk".
No reference to any specific incidence.

I've reread that section about twenty times now, it's still not evident what you want to say with it. This is in fact a habit which you've repeatedly demonstrated throughout the time I've read your posts. Which is why I've repeatedly pointed that out to you, and most recently criticized you in the post which you most recently responded to.

You make leaps in your reasoning, very often, which are not as easy to see as you might think. Always remember that the reader (and in this case, respondant) do not have the same perspective as you have.

Your both engaging in strawmen, the only thing you can do. Please show me one post where I requested that you correct your grammar/terminology except where science has already defined it? What, can't use the very scientific terms of the science you claim to follow?

You've misunderstood, we were criticizing your posting habit which requires a lot of the reader. Your structure is messy and often confusing.

And who was it just engaging in the very thing you both complain about now, when it comes to both of you?

As written above, it's the opposite.

"Sloppy choice of words.... I would appreciate if you would be more specific."

Were you requesting that I use proper terminology/grammar????

Yes. And preferably less outrageous use of question marks as well. I can read just fine and I don't require additional assistance.

But... At least one of us admitted it was a poor choice of words, unlike some... who continue with those poor choice of words when asked to correct their grammar/terminology in the use of words and be more specific.

1. I appreciate that you did take the time to be more specific.
2. I interpret your latter sentence as you asking me to improve upon my grammar/terminology. Where have you done so? And more specifically, where have you done so and observed my failing to comply?

More often than not, you do not ask. You state. You try to push things onto me, without asking whether it's correct or not.
I've repeatedly touched upon that in the past, I hope you'll see it this time around.