Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 70421254" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>Humans living on Earth have been discussing the *effects* of God on their lives since they first began writing. No photon ever talked about the "cause" of momentum loss, nor the type of matter that bends spacetime and light. Unlike your invisible friends (plural), God isn't impotent on Earth *by design*. </p><p></p><p>It's therefore perfectly possible to *test* for the cause/effect connection here on Earth, and I've outlined some ideas in the empirical theory of God thread as to how that might be done. In the absence of a direct empirical cause/effect demonstration, I am however perfectly fine with accepting that part of my beliefs are based upon "faith", *without* an empirical cause/effect demonstration of claim. Are you willing to admit the same as it relates to your four invisible friends? When did you ever demonstrate any cause/effect link between photon momentum loss and "space expansion", or "space acceleration"? When did you demonstrate that exotic forms of matter exist,or that they have any tangible effect on a photon in a controlled experiment with actual control mechanisms? Speaking of control mechanisms, how about defining a *source* of "dark energy", and describe a control mechanism that we might use in a real lab experiment.</p><p></p><p>The difference between your *faith* and mine, and that my beliefs *can* at least be tested in a real lab, whereas your "space expansion" claim cannot, and therefore it will *forever* be an "act of pure faith" in the unseen, in the lab.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 70421254, member: 627"] Humans living on Earth have been discussing the *effects* of God on their lives since they first began writing. No photon ever talked about the "cause" of momentum loss, nor the type of matter that bends spacetime and light. Unlike your invisible friends (plural), God isn't impotent on Earth *by design*. It's therefore perfectly possible to *test* for the cause/effect connection here on Earth, and I've outlined some ideas in the empirical theory of God thread as to how that might be done. In the absence of a direct empirical cause/effect demonstration, I am however perfectly fine with accepting that part of my beliefs are based upon "faith", *without* an empirical cause/effect demonstration of claim. Are you willing to admit the same as it relates to your four invisible friends? When did you ever demonstrate any cause/effect link between photon momentum loss and "space expansion", or "space acceleration"? When did you demonstrate that exotic forms of matter exist,or that they have any tangible effect on a photon in a controlled experiment with actual control mechanisms? Speaking of control mechanisms, how about defining a *source* of "dark energy", and describe a control mechanism that we might use in a real lab experiment. The difference between your *faith* and mine, and that my beliefs *can* at least be tested in a real lab, whereas your "space expansion" claim cannot, and therefore it will *forever* be an "act of pure faith" in the unseen, in the lab. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
Top
Bottom