Whereas variable magnetic fields *do* have a tangible effect on photon redshfit in a lab, "space expansion' remains an "act of faith" on the part of believer as it relates to *known causes* of photon redshift.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't even know if deities exist. We know magnetism exists. I am pretty sure that we know more about magnetism than any deity.
You seem to require all claims demonstrated except for deities.
Actually, even my *theistic* beliefs are based upon *empirical* concepts of "God". At least humans living on Earth report an influence of God on their lives. That's more than can be said for photons and 'space expansion".
Stories you make up about photons being redhsifted by "space expansion" are not controlled observations either!
No stories intended. Every book in the Bible claims to be a testimony, a living testimony of a person that lived that. If God chose to appear a thousand years ago, what kind of record do you think He would leave? I find the testimonies of people who have seen or talked to Him is enough for me.Stories in books are not observations.
No stories intended. Every book in the Bible claims to be a testimony, a living testimony of a person that lived that.
If God chose to appear a thousand years ago, what kind of record do you think He would leave? I find the testimonies of people who have seen or talked to Him is enough for me.
Hello. Amid all the off-topic heat in your thread you've been given the classical Big Bang answer. And the expanding balloon with the galaxies glued onto it is a pretty typical way of visualizing it. If you still have questions I'll be happy to try and help.Hi to all of you, may God bless you! Perhaps you could help me because this is something hard for me to understand. I always hear that the universe is expanding, the universe is in continous expansion, ok, I can understand that, but, could someone explain to me where is it expanding? For example, if I have a glass full of water and I drop there a drop of ink, the ink expands in the water, in the glass full of water, so, where is the universe expanding?
Once again, you refuse to accept wavelength independent redshift as being true.
What "facts" have you even shown me related to *higher* energy wavelengths? All I've gotten from you is a bad attitude and a lot of claims about "facts" that you've *never presented*!Your denial of facts is what makes you a crackpot.
Considering how *badly* that BICEP2 set of claims went down, you're the last person who should be talking about 'dealing with reality', or calling anyone a 'crackpot'. All your invisible friends have been *utter duds* when it comes to demonstrating cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation, and your last grandiose claims turned to *dust* in mere *months*! LHC and LUX *destroyed* your "most popular' claims about magical forms of invisible matter, not to mention all those revelations about *grossly* underestimating the stellar masses of various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. You really shouldn't be calling anyone a 'crackpot' considering all the *failures* your theories have dealt with recently.When you are ready to deal with reality, let me know.
I can write any story I want and claim it is a testimony. Doesn't make it true.
No stories intended. Every book in the Bible claims to be a testimony, a living testimony of a person that lived that. If God chose to appear a thousand years ago, what kind of record do you think He would leave? I find the testimonies of people who have seen or talked to Him is enough for me.
Until you can demonstrate that white light and gamma rays are redshifted equally, why should I "trust you"?
And into Crackpotland we go . . .
You can't even face up to the most obvious and well known observations in cosmology.
If it's so obvious and so well known, you should have no trouble citing some peer reviewed papers that compare gamma rays to visible light from distant objects and show that they are redshifted the same. Where are they? You've never produced any.
I can find tons of papers that say cosmological redshift is wavelength independent. That you have to run away from such simple facts says a lot.
Once again, you use the usual smoke screen of insults to hide your inability to discuss the wavelength independence of cosmological redshift.
The only one using smoke and mirrors to deflect their inadequate support of their claims is you, and only you. I've asked you repeatedly to show me a published paper that demonstrates that gamma rays are redshifted the same as visual light, and you keep avoiding it.
I can find tons of papers that say cosmological redshift is wavelength independent. That you have to run away from such simple facts says a lot.
Wiki says this
"In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."
What do you mean by wavelength independent?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?