The Age of the Universe

[sparow]

So how exactly did you arrive at 13.8 billion years of age for the universe?

What exactly do you measure to determine that objects in space are 13.8 billions light years away?

And isn't the age of the universe determined by the distance of those objects?

Why do scientists say the universe is expanding; it seems to be an assumption based on red shift


I believe one claim I have heard of is dependent on the big bang and blobs of matter separating at the speed of light from the point of the big bang. The distance is determined by the red light shift and dividing the distance by the speed of light gives the age or period of time since the big bang. The big question is “is the universe expanding at all and is the only evidence the big red light shift or is the red light shift a big bang in its own right”? What come first the big bang or the red light shift? The red light shift of course exists but what it means is not determined in my opinion. All astronomical theory seems to hinge on the red light shift. Why you mention photon red light shift is a mystery. According to a physics text book I have a photon from the sun, no colour mentioned, can be travelling at seven times the speed of light when it hits the earth’s atmosphere where it loses energy and slows down; when it loses enough energy it becomes an electron; occasionally these photons reach the earth’s surface but in theory they shouldn’t be able to.


A few years back I read an article in a Astronomical Magazine written by a retired Astronomer. When working as an Astronomer he wasn’t able to speak out for fear of losing his job but now that he was retired he was free to do so. He said all astronomical theory was nonsense in particular the red light theories. He gave as his evidence a star obviously in a cluster of stars but its red light shift said it was some ware else.

 

[[serious]]

Since he hasn't even clearly explained why *he personally* believes they are relevant, what's the point? Why would I take my time explaining what a study on *much more redshifted* objects than another study wasn't done exactly the same as someone else? His objection, his responsibility. If he thinks a *lack of* corndog prices is a problem, he needs to *specifically* explain why it's a problem, and how it affects any part of Lerner's work.

His criticisms seem to have a plain reading relevance.

Let's focus on the first two which i think are the strongest criticisms:

3 March 2015 Michael: A flaw in the Lerner et al paper is that it does not use multiple bands as a self-check on their analysis.
18 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is flawed because it ignores changes in surface brightness as galaxies evolve.​

So we have Failure to check different bands, which directly goes to my earlier discussion of frequency dependent sources redshift vs frequency independent redshift due to expansion.

The second is a pretty clear criticism as well. If they are using the surface brightness of galaxies, but not taking into account galaxy age, it may taint their results.

This stuff may look nitpicky to you, but such criticisms are a normal part of peer review. I had a professor doing some work on plant genetics who had a paper get rejected because one of the reviewers felt he hadn't adequately addressed maternal effects (non genetic factors such as the health of the mother that can impact how healthy a child is)

 

[msgd1025]

Wow. You guys just gonna fly right over my post and not respond? (bottom of page 11) Well.......ok then.

 

[[serious]]

Wow. You guys just gonna fly right over my post and not respond? (bottom of page 11) Well.......ok then.

OK, let's take a look:

Guys, I've been reading this thread and it seems to me like you guys are jumping the gun. One first must show THAT the universe came about via natural causes BEFORE he/she starts explaining the characteristics of the universe using natural explanations.

What do I mean? I mean that IF the universe itself had a supernatural beginning, which it would seem to me that it did, then why are you looking for a natural explanation of how light could cross it? All of this "the universe has to be (x) amount of years old because it takes light that long to cross the distance" is circular reasoning. You are assuming that light has always behaved as it does now, when we have a very good reason to believe otherwise, that reason being the supernatural beginning of all things. I myself do not need a natural explanation to why we can see distant stars. I am good with "because God wanted us to see it, so He made it happen." and as such, it doesn't have a natural explanation, because it did not happen naturally. As a follower of Jesus Christ, miracles are right at home in my worldview

Furthermore, everything you see out past our solar system has an element of illusion to it, which is that it is moving. It is not actually where you think it is. You are seeing where it was when that photon left. So you aren't looking at real-time data. There may or may not be anything actually behind that light, as the star could have, and is, moving. Also, the purpose of the stars is given in the scriptures; they are for signs and seasons and days and years (like a calendar) and to give light on the earth. They ARE NOT for trying to determine the age of the universe, which is where the secular world (and even some believers) have gone astray. You will not find that information via observation and inductive reasoning, but you will succeed in deceiving yourself. It's like trying to explain Jesus resurrection via natural causes, in which case one would be forced to conclude that He didn't rise from the dead. In the same way, when you try to explain features of the creation via natural causes, you wind up denying what Genesis clearly says. Trying to figure the age of the universe based on starlight is circular reasoning, because it assumes a naturalistic description of the characteristics of light. But......when you have good reason to believe a supernatural agent was involved, and especially so when He explicitly says He did this (made stars visible from the earth) why are you hung up on starlight being a problem?

If you use the stars for their stated purpose, then you will be good, but if you start trying to do things with them that they were not intended for, especially based on faulty reasoning, you are going to be out in left field somewhere and you won't even know it.

God bless you all

There are a couple issues here, but I'll focus on the following questions:
1. If we open the door to considering one supernatural explanation, how can we not open it to ALL supernatural explanations? Why not Vishnu, or Odin, or even the flying spaghetti monster?
2. If there is a supernatural explanation, why does it all seem to fit well with a completely natural model? Is the supernatural force deceiving us?
3. If the supernatural force created the natural laws, why must it violate those same laws? It's a bit like cheating at solitaire.

 

[Oafman]

Wow. You guys just gonna fly right over my post and not respond? (bottom of page 11) Well.......ok then.

Oh go on then, seeing as I don't want you to feel left out

I am good with "because God wanted us to see it, so He made it happen."

No interest in how he made it happen?

Also, history shows us that learning about things which have no obvious benefit, beyond the simple idea of understanding for understanding's sake, almost always leads to tangible benefits. Having discovered the atomic nucleus, Ernest Rutherford famously said "Anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine".

The second half of your post seems to be a poorly attempted assault on cosmological reality. These objects are there, astronomers are aware of how long their light takes to reach us, there is plenty of evidence that allows us to determine their age. By all means believe that God started it - nobody can prove otherwise - but don't claim that nothing is as we understand it to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do scientists say the universe is expanding; it seems to be an assumption based on red shift

Redshift is the observation, not the assumption.

The hypothesis is that if the universe is expanding then we should see a correlation between wavelength independent redshift and distance. We test that hypothesis with the observations of such things as type Ia supernovae.

http://supernova.lbl.gov/

There are also other tests, such as the CMB and the Tolman surface brightness test.

I believe one claim I have heard of is dependent on the big bang and blobs of matter separating at the speed of light from the point of the big bang. The distance is determined by the red light shift and dividing the distance by the speed of light gives the age or period of time since the big bang.

The distance is determined by what are called "standard candles". The analogy is that a candle a few feet away is much brighter than the same candle 100 feet away, even though the candle is putting out the same amount of light at both distances. Therefore, if you can find a feature in the universe that puts out the same amount of light, you can use the relative brightness of that feature to determine distance. As it turns out, type Ia supernovae put out the same amount of light. Therefore, we can measure their brightness and determine how far away they are. We can also independently measure the redshift of the galaxies they are found in since luminosity and redshift are separate measurements.

What come first the big bang or the red light shift?

The universe was quite foggy for the first few hundreds thousands years. It wasn't until atoms formed that light could pass freely through the universe. The first light we can see from that event is the CMB. After the first light formed, we started getting stars.

According to a physics text book I have a photon from the sun, no colour mentioned, can be travelling at seven times the speed of light when it hits the earth’s atmosphere where it loses energy and slows down;

Which physics text book is this?

A few years back I read an article in a Astronomical Magazine written by a retired Astronomer. When working as an Astronomer he wasn’t able to speak out for fear of losing his job but now that he was retired he was free to do so. He said all astronomical theory was nonsense in particular the red light theories. He gave as his evidence a star obviously in a cluster of stars but its red light shift said it was some ware else.

His name was Halton Arp, and what he was fooled by is called forced perspective. It is the same effect that produces this picture.

It has since been shown that the light from the quasars are passing through the material in the galaxies demonstrating that the quasars are behind the galaxies, not next to them.

 

[Winepress777]

It is incredible to ponder this incredible creation. And it is all ours! The universe, a gift, billions of years in the making, that is His Pleasure to just give it to us, I so praise Jesus

(1Co 3:21) Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;


(1Co 3:22) Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;


(1Co 3:23) And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

 

[The Cadet]

Ask and you shall receive.

Guys, I've been reading this thread and it seems to me like you guys are jumping the gun. One first must show THAT the universe came about via natural causes BEFORE he/she starts explaining the characteristics of the universe using natural explanations.

Why? Natural causation is, to date, the only form of causation known to exist. It is, to our knowledge, consistent, at least within macro parameters (let's leave aside quantum mechanics for the moment, as causality breaks down somewhat there, albeit not in any way that's meaningful to most fields of science), and we can use it to make highly consistent, highly valid predictions about how the world will work. What's more, why would anyone assume that, given what we know about natural/supernatural explanations and their veracity thus far, the universe's cause is supernatural?

What do I mean? I mean that IF the universe itself had a supernatural beginning, which it would seem to me that it did, then why are you looking for a natural explanation of how light could cross it?

Because the supernatural explanations are functionally useless. But in fact, this is sort of an issue with "miracles". If we allow for supernatural causation, there is literally no way to distinguish between a natural cause and a supernatural one. We're stuck. Did that aspirin work because of how your body works, or did it work because god decided it should? Did the bridge you're driving over stay up because of the laws of physics, or because god willed it so? And more importantly, is there any way we could keep god from not willing it so? The moment we allow for baseless speculation on supernatural explanations, we lose any and all ability to say anything about the natural world.

You are assuming that light has always behaved as it does now, when we have a very good reason to believe otherwise, that reason being the supernatural beginning of all things. I myself do not need a natural explanation to why we can see distant stars. I am good with "because God wanted us to see it, so He made it happen." and as such, it doesn't have a natural explanation, because it did not happen naturally. As a follower of Jesus Christ, miracles are right at home in my worldview

And if everyone held this viewpoint about everything, where would that get us? Would we have any understanding of the world around us? Would we be able to make any sense of anything we're doing? "Why do we get sick?" "Demons." "Why do I bleed?" "Because god wills it." "How can I stop being sick and bleeding?" "Pray to god, he might be merciful."

I mean no disrespect, but your worldview and the way you apply it are the single most effective roadblocks to progress and understanding that could possibly exist. It fundamentally disregards things necessary for the scientific method to function, and as such robs us of our ability to learn more about the world. Heck, how do you know that gravity works, and that if you pray hard enough, God won't just suspend it for a little while so you can shave a few minutes off your daily commute by lazily wafting out the window? It's an epistemological dead end. Every single thing that makes your life good beyond perhaps your religion was crafted by methods that rely on excluding supernatural causation. But then again, I guess none of that matters. After all, maybe your computer only works because your God wants it to, rather than because of the work of countless technicians who understand how electrons flow and how to build microprocessors.

In the same way, when you try to explain features of the creation via natural causes, you wind up denying what Genesis clearly says.

Well.. yes. Because what Genesis says does not line up with what we observe in reality. It's exactly this kind of blinkered anti-intellectualism that is holding America back. I pose the same challenge to you that I've posed to numerous others. Spend a few weeks without the trappings of modern, secular science. I guarantee you it'll be an enlightening experience, assuming you don't die of exposure in a ditch somewhere within the first two weeks.

 

[Michael]

Guys, I've been reading this thread and it seems to me like you guys are jumping the gun. One first must show THAT the universe came about via natural causes BEFORE he/she starts explaining the characteristics of the universe using natural explanations.

Intellectually speaking, 'where did the Universe come from' is an important question, but it's *usually* (not necessarily always) a question that is left answered by various cosmology theories, just like the origin of life question is typically not a part of evolutionary theory, and not addressed in evolutionary theory.

I agree, we have to ask ourselves those questions, but from an empirical physics perspective, the answer likely won't be forthcoming anytime soon.

What do I mean? I mean that IF the universe itself had a supernatural beginning, which it would seem to me that it did, then why are you looking for a natural explanation of how light could cross it?

Most "natural sciences" begin with the premise and the intent of studying the 'natural' world. God may be the single most 'natural' part of nature for all I know. I wouldn't automatically rule out a *natural* explanation for the universe from the outset, now would I rule out a 'natural' explanation for God.

I guess I'll go where the evidence leads us. If mainstream theory is correct, this universe required at least four supernatural constructs that have never been seen on Earth, and anything using such devices as tools would also be 'supernatural'.

On the other hand, like I said, God himself may simply be the single most "natural' part of nature. I'm simply not prepared to rule anything out just yet.

All of this "the universe has to be (x) amount of years old because it takes light that long to cross the distance" is circular reasoning.

I wouldn't call it circular, but it is based on a few *assumptions* that are worth looking at.

You are assuming that light has always behaved as it does now, when we have a very good reason to believe otherwise,

Define "very good reason"? I certainly don't see it like that.

that reason being the supernatural beginning of all things.

Technically there's scientific merit to your claim because Lambda-CDM expansion is absolutely, positively, *not* limited to the speed of light. Even at faster than C expansion, and four supernatural constructs/tools, the universe would be quite ancient. I'm personally inclined to believe that it's *older* than the mainstream suggests.

I myself do not need a natural explanation to why we can see distant stars. I am good with "because God wanted us to see it, so He made it happen." and as such, it doesn't have a natural explanation, because it did not happen naturally. As a follower of Jesus Christ, miracles are right at home in my worldview

That may be just fine for you personally, but some of us are more empirically curious. I'd still like to know how he did it.

Furthermore, everything you see out past our solar system has an element of illusion to it, which is that it is moving. It is not actually where you think it is.

I agree that the concept of expansion is an illusion based upon a false premise about the *cause* of redshift.

You are seeing where it was when that photon left. So you aren't looking at real-time data. There may or may not be anything actually behind that light, as the star could have, and is, moving. Also, the purpose of the stars is given in the scriptures; they are for signs and seasons and days and years (like a calendar) and to give light on the earth. They ARE NOT for trying to determine the age of the universe, which is where the secular world (and even some believers) have gone astray.

Well, I agree they've gone astray, but I intellectually speaking, it's *possible* they might help determine the age of the universe. The problem is that they don't *necessarily* do so, particularly if redshift is caused by inelastic scattering in a static universe. In that scenario, the universe could be eternal and infinite.

You will not find that information via observation and inductive reasoning,

Your computer is evidence that your assumption is somewhat misguided. Empirical physics has produced useful information, a well as useful consumer products.

but you will succeed in deceiving yourself.

That's always a possibility in science, as demonstrated by the fact that we used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and we created 'epicyles' to fudge the math.

I hear what you're suggesting, but it's only logical to see if we can't find 'natural' explanations for things. That process has served us well in the past. We might confuse ourselves from time to time, but my cellphone is still pretty cool!

 

[Michael]

Wow. You guys just gonna fly right over my post and not respond? (bottom of page 11) Well.......ok then.

I missed it earlier. Happier now?

 

[Michael]

His criticisms seem to have a plain reading relevance.

Let's focus on the first two which i think are the strongest criticisms:​

3 March 2015 Michael: A flaw in the Lerner et al paper is that it does not use multiple bands as a self-check on their analysis.​

Sandage didn't do everything the same as his previous papers, but he got pretty much the same results:

The purpose of the present paper is to continue the discussion made in a second attempt of the test by Lubin & Sandage using Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data (LS01c) by showing more directly that a Tolman signal exists in three remote clusters observed with HST by Oke, Postman, and Lubin. Their photometric data are published in papers by various permutations of the order of the authors (Oke et al. 1998; Postman et al. 1998, 2001; Lubin et al. 1998; L. M. Lubin et al. 2001, in preparation). The analysis by LS01c remains valid but the representation of the data is different here.

If it didn't invalidate his earlier work, then it doesn't invalidate Lerner's work either simply because Sandage did things differently. He does things different too but gets similar results.

Because Lerner is working with lots of high redshift objects, and far redder than Sandage, I m not sure Lerner even has that *luxury* in the first place.

The 'age/evolution of galaxies' argument is a little handwavy and it's not really well supported by recent observations of very 'mature' high redshifted galaxies, even perfect spirals.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...laxy-young-age-mature-old-20150303-story.html
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/03/galaxies-in-the-early-universe-mature-beyond-their-years
http://astrobites.org/2014/08/21/mature-galaxies-in-an-immature-universe/
http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...ly-universe-billion-years-20150225-story.html

RC hasn't really found any errors in Lerner's work, he's simply trying to cast dispersions upon it as being limited in some ways. So? Even Sandage used different methods and achieved similar results. The fact Lerner's method isn't *identical* is really quite irrelevant.

I'm sorry but he still hasn't pointed out any errors in Lerner's math, or any errors in his methodology that your can really claim is wrong, or has an outcome on his findings. Those 'mature' galaxies at high redshift shoot your basic argument in the foot IMO. The mainstream simply *assumes* a galaxy evolution process, yet they are always 'surprised' by how mature the supposedly 'much older' galaxies and quasars look like. Sandage himself used multiple methods and got similar results, so that argument is moot IMO.

 

[Michael]

It is incredible to ponder this incredible creation. And it is all ours! The universe, a gift, billions of years in the making, that is His Pleasure to just give it to us, I so praise Jesus

(1Co 3:21) Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;


(1Co 3:22) Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;


(1Co 3:23) And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

 

[Michael]

The distance is determined by what are called "standard candles".

Except they turn out to be less than "standard", contrary to dark energy *assumptions*.

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/news...ogy-Standard-Candle-Not-So-Standard-After-All
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/11/universe_expanding_slower_rate/

Dark energy claims rest upon a very *shaky* premise, namely that all SN1A supernova events occur in a standard way. Contrary to their assumption however, SN1A events have since been shown to vary and they aren't as "standard" as they assumed. This revelation calls the *amount* of dark energy into question at best case, and it calls the whole concept into question at worst case.

Dark matter claims are in far *worse* shape. The revelations of gross underestimation of baryonic matter in their early lensing studies have been overwhelming. They underestimated the number of stars in given galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star, and the type of galaxy. Earlier lensing studies were *hopelessly* flawed in terms of their wild 'guestimates' of ordinary mass that is present, and laboratory experiments at LHC, LUX, PandaX, and electron roundness tests all saw SUSY theory flunk out!

The analogy is that a candle a few feet away is much brighter than the same candle 100 feet away, even though the candle is putting out the same amount of light at both distances. Therefore, if you can find a feature in the universe that puts out the same amount of light, you can use the relative brightness of that feature to determine distance. As it turns out, type Ia supernovae put out the same amount of light. Therefore, we can measure their brightness and determine how far away they are. We can also independently measure the redshift of the galaxies they are found in since luminosity and redshift are separate measurements.

His name was Halton Arp, and what he was fooled by is called forced perspective.

Or you are, one or the other. Keep in mind that Hubble himself wasn't keen on the concept of expansion

1. “It is evident that the observed result, (of applying a blue K-correction of 2.94 zmag) is accounted for if the redshifts are not velocity shifts.” ...(the data are consistent but only if) “the expansion and spatial curvature are either negligible or zero” (Hubble 1936, p. 542).
2. In considering the redshift–distance relation, “The inclusion of recession factors (to the magnitudes) would displace
all the points (in the Hubble diagram) to the left (higher redshifts at a given magnitude), thus destroying the linearity
of the law of redshifts” (Hubble 1937).
3....“if redshifts are not primarily due to velocity shifts ...(then) the velocity–distance relation is linear, the distribution
of nebulae is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion,no trace of curvature, no restriction of the timescale.”
(But) “the unexpected and truly remarkable features are introduced by the additional assumption that redshifts (actually
do) measure recession. The velocity–distance relation deviates from linearity by the exact amount of the postulated
recession. The distribution departs from uniformity by the exact amount of the recession. The departures are
compensated by curvature which is the exact equivalent of the recession. Unless the coincidences are evidence of an
underlying necessary relation between the various factors, they detract materially from the plausibility of the interpretation ...the small scale of the expanding model both in space and time is a novelty, and as such will require
rather decisive evidence for its acceptance” (Hubble 1936,)

Hubble wasn't even enamored by the idea, nor did he agree with the idea, just a few months before his death.

His comments at a Darwin Lecture in 1953:

“When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation
between redshift and distance. When recession factors are included, the distance relation (becomes) nonlinear.”
(If no recession factor is included) “the age of the universe is likely to be between 3000 and 4000 million
years, and thus (again with no recession factor) comparable with the age of the rock crust of the Earth” (Hubble 1953).

 

[Michael]

OK, let's take a look:
There are a couple issues here, but I'll focus on the following questions:
1. If we open the door to considering one supernatural explanation, how can we not open it to ALL supernatural explanations?

It's way too late to worry about that from my perspective. The mainstream has already conjured up a total of four supernatural constructs to do their bidding, so why not a half dozen more?

2. If there is a supernatural explanation, why does it all seem to fit well with a completely natural model?

What 'natural' model might that be? EU/PC theory?

Is the supernatural force deceiving us?

I don't know? Why did the inflation deity leave those hemispheric variations in the CMB anyway? Would the dark energy deity deceive us about 'standard candles'?

3. If the supernatural force created the natural laws, why must it violate those same laws? It's a bit like cheating at solitaire.

Kind of like the inflation genie cheating gravity out of a nice juicy singularity which simply imploded in on itself almost instantly?

I really don't see how you have a "natural" leg to stand on while you keep supporting Lambda-CDM. On the other hand, I know of at least one good empirical alternative.

 

[Michael]

No interest in how he made it happen?

Exactly!

 

[Michael]

Why do scientists say the universe is expanding; it seems to be an assumption based on red shift

True.

I believe one claim I have heard of is dependent on the big bang and blobs of matter separating at the speed of light from the point of the big bang.

It's a question of whether you interpret the redshift as a function of time dilation, or "space expansion".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Keep in mind that only Doppler shift expansion (moving object expansion) has a tangible effect on a photon in a lab. The "space expansion" claims remain an act of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab). Space expansion is an *alleged* cause of photon redshift that defies empirical support in the lab.

The distance is determined by the red light shift and dividing the distance by the speed of light gives the age or period of time since the big bang. The big question is “is the universe expanding at all and is the only evidence the big red light shift or is the red light shift a big bang in its own right”?

I would say no, yes, and no.

All redshift means is that *somehow* the photon *appears* to have lost some of it's energy since it was first emitted. The idea such energy is lost to the plasma/QM medium is called "tired light" theory, and several forms of inelastic scattering are *known* to cause photon redshift. Both Doppler shift and inelastic scattering have been documented as empirical causes of photon redshift. "Space expansion" has not. It's *assumed*.

What come first the big bang or the red light shift?

It ultimately depends on the *cause* of photon redshift. If it's not caused by expansion, then redshift came first.

The red light shift of course exists but what it means is not determined in my opinion.

Hubble himself wasn't particularly keen on the expansion claims by the way.

All astronomical theory seems to hinge on the red light shift.

Yep. If is caused by "space expansion", then Lambda-CDM has merit. If it's caused by inelastic scattering, or moving objects however, EU/PC theory is your best bet.

Why you mention photon red light shift is a mystery. According to a physics text book I have a photon from the sun, no colour mentioned, can be travelling at seven times the speed of light when it hits the earth’s atmosphere

I think I'd like to see that quote. Technically photons, regardless of wavelength, all travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. If you pass light through a medium other than a vacuum, light can be 'slowed down' by it's interaction with that material. Nothing with mass travels faster than light and photons travel *at* the speed of light at best case inside of our solar system.

A few years back I read an article in a Astronomical Magazine written by a retired Astronomer. When working as an Astronomer he wasn’t able to speak out for fear of losing his job but now that he was retired he was free to do so. He said all astronomical theory was nonsense in particular the red light theories. He gave as his evidence a star obviously in a cluster of stars but its red light shift said it was some ware else.

Halton Arp was right about that. Unfortunately the number of jobs in astronomy is still pretty small, and fear of losing one's job is still a motive.

After the last Bicep2 public fiasco, the revelation that 'standard candles' aren't all that standard after all, and all the mass the underestimated in those early "dark matter" studies, Lambda-CDM is looking pretty shabby around the edges. It looks ok from a distance, but as you get closer, it's definitely a supernatural house of cards that is destined to fall sooner or later.

 

[Doveaman]

Why persist with a fantasy that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift when you do not cite the scientific literature where scientists state that inelastic scattering can produce cosmological redshift

Is there an observed difference between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift other than the wavelength?

There are millions of people who claim that the universe is expanding because of the overwhelming evidence that it is expanding.

But is there overwhelming evidence that "space" is expanding.

We know that redshift can occur from objects in space moving away from each other, but how do we know that redshift in cause by the expansion of space itself?

How can we empirically demonstrate that space expansion can cause redshift?

I once heard it said that because we observe redshift, space is expanding, and because space is expanding, we observe redshift.

Sounds like circular reasoning?

 

[msgd1025]

OK, let's take a look:
There are a couple issues here, but I'll focus on the following questions:
1. If we open the door to considering one supernatural explanation, how can we not open it to ALL supernatural explanations? Why not Vishnu, or Odin, or even the flying spaghetti monster?
2. If there is a supernatural explanation, why does it all seem to fit well with a completely natural model? Is the supernatural force deceiving us?
3. If the supernatural force created the natural laws, why must it violate those same laws? It's a bit like cheating at solitaire.

First let me say thank you for responding.

Now, about supernatural explanations; sure, include them all.........and then test them based on what we actually have**** while also keeping in mind that some supernatural agent was involved. Which account most accurately fits the data? And which one can be verified by a trusted authority (and here I mean Jesus of Nazareth, as He is THE force to be reckoned with, as even our calendars are based on Him)?

Second: Why does it all seem to fit with a completely natural model? Because you have successfully deceived yourself. Friend, you are the one making it fit. Here, we can do an experiment to illustrate. Say God created the world around 6000 years ago, just for discussion, and He made it just like the one we are in. He placed all of the stars in their respective places, set them in motion, made the light visible from the earth, and so forth. This is a supernatural creation. Then, 6000 years later, you come along and start asking questions. You look at the stars and see that they appear to be moving away from each other, and then you press rewind in your mind.......and that is where you just made your first mistake, and it turns out to be fatal. What was the mistake? It was a category error. You are asking the wrong types of questions about the thing in question. How exactly? Because you are trying to use naturalistic explanations to explain something that didn't happen naturally. The very first question you should ask yourself is: Do I have good reason to believe that a supernatural agent was involved? and go from there, because it is going to change your whole structure of knowledge. Sure you could track the stars back to a singularity and come up with something along the lines of 14 billion years, but in this case there was no singularity; all of the stars were created along their respective paths 6000 years ago. The singularity only ever existed in your mind. Why? because that is what naturalism forces you to. And you would be completely confident that you are correct, but you could not be more wrong. Is the world set up this way on purpose? I don't know, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that 1) we are wrong about some of the things that we are confident about concerning the universe, and 2) that we are very capable of deceiving ourselves, and I know that we are wrong about a natural explanation of origins, because something cannot come from not anything and this universe is not eternal.

About violating natural law; think about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When injecting power from outside a closed system, are natural laws violated? Let's see. Go sit in a chair. Now, Newton's law of inertia states that an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force, or in other words, if you are merely physical, then you would remain there until a rock or a strong wind came along and knocked you out of it. Does this apply to you in some way? Yes, that is; you have a physical body, so you would expect natural laws governing physical stuff to apply to you in some form or fashion. Would a giant rock or a strong wind actually knock you out of a chair? Of course, if it has enough energy, but that isn't the whole story is it? Is it true that you remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force? No, because you can freely choose to stand up too, right? without having any prior physical cause, right? Yes. Enter effects of the soul. You see, your body is a physical thing, which is bound by natural law, but your soul is an immaterial agent, who can initiate a new thing without any prior cause, and your soul controls your body. So from the point that you decided to stand up and put your body in motion (brain to muscle commands, pushing down on the chair, the chair pushing back, you rising, etc..) you began with something that natural law does not describe. Why? because natural laws do not describe immaterial agents. So is natural law violated? Not really. Its more that an immaterial agent which transcends natural law did something and you now see physical effects that don't make sense given a purely naturalistic explanation. It is yet again, another category error.

A worldview that includes a supernatural agent has more explanatory power over the world we see, and in that worldview, starlight is not a problem.

 

[msgd1025]

Intellectually speaking, 'where did the Universe come from' is an important question, but it's *usually* (not necessarily always) a question that is left answered by various cosmology theories, just like the origin of life question is typically not a part of evolutionary theory, and not addressed in evolutionary theory.

I agree, we have to ask ourselves those questions, but from an empirical physics perspective, the answer likely won't be forthcoming anytime soon.



Most "natural sciences" begin with the premise and the intent of studying the 'natural' world. God may be the single most 'natural' part of nature for all I know. I wouldn't automatically rule out a *natural* explanation for the universe from the outset, now would I rule out a 'natural' explanation for God.

I guess I'll go where the evidence leads us. If mainstream theory is correct, this universe required at least four supernatural constructs that have never been seen on Earth, and anything using such devices as tools would also be 'supernatural'.

On the other hand, like I said, God himself may simply be the single most "natural' part of nature. I'm simply not prepared to rule anything out just yet.



I wouldn't call it circular, but it is based on a few *assumptions* that are worth looking at.



Define "very good reason"? I certainly don't see it like that.



Technically there's scientific merit to your claim because Lambda-CDM expansion is absolutely, positively, *not* limited to the speed of light. Even at faster than C expansion, and four supernatural constructs/tools, the universe would be quite ancient. I'm personally inclined to believe that it's *older* than the mainstream suggests.



That may be just fine for you personally, but some of us are more empirically curious. I'd still like to know how he did it.



I agree that the concept of expansion is an illusion based upon a false premise about the *cause* of redshift.



Well, I agree they've gone astray, but I intellectually speaking, it's *possible* they might help determine the age of the universe. The problem is that they don't *necessarily* do so, particularly if redshift is caused by inelastic scattering in a static universe. In that scenario, the universe could be eternal and infinite.



Your computer is evidence that your assumption is somewhat misguided. Empirical physics has produced useful information, a well as useful consumer products.



That's always a possibility in science, as demonstrated by the fact that we used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and we created 'epicyles' to fudge the math.

I hear what you're suggesting, but it's only logical to see if we can't find 'natural' explanations for things. That process has served us well in the past. We might confuse ourselves from time to time, but my cellphone is still pretty cool!

Good points. And if you are still about trying to find out how He did it, then keep in mind, you are going to have some unanswered questions. God bless you my friend.

 

[The Cadet]

A worldview that includes a supernatural agent has more explanatory power over the world we see, and in that worldview, starlight is not a problem.

Everything wrong with your post can be boiled down to this simple assumption. It's technically true, in the same way that "magic pixies did it" is technically an explanation for literally any phenomenon. Literally any. On a less superficial level, however, supernatural explanations, once included within our modeling, immediately throw any and all explanatory power out the window. Why? Well, just look at what you're doing - you're ignoring observations in favor of "God has abridged natural laws". Not only do we lose the reliability of uniformitarianism (without which inference becomes a useless tool and thus any inference about reality is simply nonsensical), we lose the ability to determine whether our observations of phenomena even are valid in the first place! After all, the supernatural agent with reality-warping powers could be deluding me!

A few other, finer points:

Now, about supernatural explanations; sure, include them all.........and then test them based on what we actually have**** while also keeping in mind that some supernatural agent was involved.

Care to suggest a way of doing this? "Supernatural" inherently implies that it is beyond the scope of our ability to investigate it. They exist outside of nature, and anything relating to them is completely beyond our understanding. If a supernatural being manifested itself in reality and said, "Hi, I'm the God of the bible", what would that prove? Absolutely nothing - there is no telling that this being is not lying to us, and we lack any and all capability to examine this being, beyond the naturalistic facade it puts up. It could be the Satan of the bible pentecostal dogma, telling us to do things that the real god actually finds repugnant.

If we assume Jesus of Nazareth existed and was risen from the dead the way the Bible describes, how can we make any statement about what brought him back from the dead? It could have been the God he described, or it could have been magical resurrection pixies who placed the delusion of an all-powerful god into his head. How could we possibly tell the difference? If we assume that there actually was a supernatural being behind the bible, how could we possibly know that that being was not malevolent and listed a bunch of falsehoods and awful moral teachings that would guarantee us to be damned to hell? Even if the supernatural somehow beams the knowledge into our heads so that we know it's actually the God of the Bible, there's still no way to distinguish whether or not this knowledge beamed into our heads is actually true.

The problem of supernatural causation is a large part of why supernatural claims are completely useless to us in the natural world. We cannot determine if they are, and even if we could, we are completely shut off from any explanation of what the cause is, or any way of modeling or predicting reality around it.

The very first question you should ask yourself is: Do I have good reason to believe that a supernatural agent was involved?

No. I have no reason to believe that anything outside of nature exists. I have no reason to believe that if anything existed outside of nature, it could have any effect on nature. I have no reason to believe that it is even possible to provide reasons to believe in supernatural existence, let alone supernatural causation. If you think you have a good reason, I welcome you to present it, but I'm not sure what even would qualify as a good reason.

Why? because that is what naturalism forces you to.

Yes, naturalism, methodological or philosophical, forces one into the position where one only considers what can be actually shown to exist. It's this methodological naturalism that has, essentially, created human society. It's built the computer on which you denigrate it. I have little patience for such attitudes, honestly. Spend a week or two without any of the trappings of modernity that science has brought you, and I think you'll share my attitude.

but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that 1) we are wrong about some of the things that we are confident about concerning the universe

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that we're all brains in vats in an alternate universe where the laws of physics are totally different. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that god lords over every single event in our lives, and that our so-called "laws of physics" are simply him deciding to stay consistent, and that before recorded media, he got bored and decided to really screw with things and let some people levitate every once in a while. If we don't discard supernatural explanations from the get-go, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that literally everything we observe and every inference we draw from that is completely and utterly wrong. This is why, out of sheer pragmatism (and an attempt not to prematurely nihilate, and occam's razor, and because we have no reason to believe the supernatural even can exist), we disregard supernatural claims and focus entirely on the natural world. It's the only way to make any progress.

About violating natural law; think about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When injecting power from outside a closed system, are natural laws violated? Let's see. Go sit in a chair. Now, Newton's law of inertia states that an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force, or in other words, if you are merely physical, then you would remain there until a rock or a strong wind came along and knocked you out of it.

I don't think you understand the laws in question.

The second law of thermodynamics predicts that in a closed system, net entropy will always increase. However, the earth is not a closed system; it is constantly getting energy from the sun. The sun, meanwhile, is experiencing a constant increase in entropy that comes from consuming its fuel source and fusing hydrogen down towards iron (where the materials can no longer be used as fuel). Overall entropy is still negative over time. The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about entropy in an open system, and noting that one open system is becoming more entropic to lower the entropy of another open system is by no means a violation. Or, to put it another way:

ΔSuniv=ΔSsys+ΔSsurr=qsys/T+qsurr/T

Do you understand what that equation means? No? Then you probably shouldn't be talking about the second law of thermodynamics.

Newton's law of inertia is similarly not violated. Yes, a body at rest will stay at rest. But our bodies are complex chemical engines with their own power sources. The forces acting on them come from within. Again, you don't understand the law in question, or you are misapplying it. And the reason why... Ugh.

Is it true that you remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force? No, because you can freely choose to stand up too, right? without having any prior physical cause, right? Yes.

No, because there was a prior physical cause. Your brain sent electrical impulses to your muscles, which were storing chemical energy (much in the same way a ball held in midair holds potential energy), and your muscles convert this stored chemical energy into kinetic energy, moving your body. There is no violation here. The "outside force" is the kinetic energy which comes from stored chemical energy from the food you consume. This is stuff I learned in grade school physics. It is no more a violation for our bodies to move by converting chemical energy into kinetic energy than for a dropped ball to move by converting potential energy into kinetic energy. According to your logic, if I open my hand to drop a ball, that ball should stay in place. You don't understand basic physics.

Enter effects of the soul. You see, your body is a physical thing, which is bound by natural law, but your soul is an immaterial agent, who can initiate a new thing without any prior cause, and your soul controls your body.

Now demonstrate that the soul exists. Can you do that? Well, again, we come back to the problem of supernatural causation, and we're just stuck. And even if you weren't completely stuck there, what does the soul explain about reality in any sort of consistent manner? What would we expect to observe if the soul hypothesis was true, and not observe if it weren't? Can we make any falsifiable predictions on that basis?