 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2462
Location: Salem Oregon
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:26 am Post subject: Hubble's two numbers |
 |
|
It was only 1929 when we accepted the fact that the milky way was not the totality of the universe and it was due to Edwin Hubble and his redshift.
Those two numbers were 1)the Hubble constant, the speed at which the universe is expanding, and the other 2)was the age of the universe. It was from his experience and writings that the whole of the astronomical community began its inevitable march toward the big bang theory.
The only fly in the ointment was Hubble's trusted and well experienced student, Halton Arp, who brought out some inconsistencies amongst the vast array of Hubble's own research. | Quote: | In the late 1960's, Halton Arp discovered evidence that the redshift/distance connection is a dead end. It doesn't work. You can't determine a galaxy's distance by its redshift because Arp has documented hundreds of cases where galaxies of different redshifts are grouped together at the same distance.
Arp was one of Hubble's students, and, like Hubble, based his research on careful observations more than on theoretical considerations. But astronomers were committed to chasing two numbers, so they ignored Arp's evidence, and in the mid-1980's they found a way to deny him both telescope time and publication in the astronomical journals. |
my emphasis
www.thunderbolts.info
If science is truly some sort of unbiased search for truth, then why exclude Arp from the methods of science to test his theory? And to exclude him from peer reviewed journals is the same sort of thing they did to Galileo (I agree though that Arp's life has not been endangered like Galileo, just his income). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you accuse scientists of 'ignoring' Arp's arguments?
A much more likely explanation is that Arp's arguments were no good and therefore were rejected.
Did he try to get his work published? If so and if it was rejected, then he would have received feedback from the journal / conference indicating WHY it was rejected. Do you have this document? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: Think youre wasting electrons P |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Why do you accuse scientists of 'ignoring' Arp's arguments?
A much more likely explanation is that Arp's arguments were no good and therefore were rejected.
Did he try to get his work published? If so and if it was rejected, then he would have received feedback from the journal / conference indicating WHY it was rejected. Do you have this document? |
Arp could have had a notarized affadavit listing chapter and verse why his work was rejected and the fundies would still be crying foul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
This grouping is known as "redshift quantization" and has been rejected by the scientific community. LINK
| In the above linked article, Wikipedia wrote: | In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample:
Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function. |
(Napier is another person who did studies on this redshift quantization). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Redshift |
|
|
Redshift is simply a manifestation of the doppler effect. Redshift specifically is an increase in the wavelengths of reflected electromagnetic radiation, which is said to be an indication that the universe is expanding, but the presence of redshifted microwaves does not necessarily indicate expansion of the universe......as the occurrence of redshifted radiation in the operation and use of doppler radar units would indicate.
Not that the universe is not the product of some form of expansion.
P.S. 45, I really liked this particular statement from the material you quoted......'based his research on careful observations more than on theoretical considerations'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I want to know is why you guys feel so confident in attacking mainstream science, and why you are so confident that you are right and that all of the thousands of brilliant scientists out there (the vast majority of them) are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | What I want to know is why you guys feel so confident in attacking mainstream science, and why you are so confident that you are right and that all of the thousands of brilliant scientists out there (the vast majority of them) are wrong. |
I think it has to do with position/perspective. From my perspective I am not attacking science, but rather making a division between theoretical postulations and factual results, and citing what that might mean.
P, you yourself have called the expansion of the universe a fact, when in actuality it is a theoretical postulation...an assumption based with-in the parameters of a theory, which is considered true, <do not cross this line> but not proven true. In calling the expansion of the universe a fact, you've crossed a line.......from which point you see my statement as an attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | What I want to know is why you guys feel so confident in attacking mainstream science, and why you are so confident that you are right and that all of the thousands of brilliant scientists out there (the vast majority of them) are wrong. |
I think it has to do with position/perspective. From my perspective I am not attacking science, but rather making a division between theoretical postulations and factual results, and citing what that might mean.
P, you yourself have called the expansion of the universe a fact, when in actuality it is a theoretical postulation...an assumption based with-in the parameters of a theory, which is considered true, <do not cross this line> but not proven true. In calling the expansion of the universe a fact, you've crossed a line.......from which point you see my statement as an attack. |
The expansion of the universe is a fact. It follows directly from the evidence, as all science does.
There is no such thing as a 'theoretical scientific theory'. This is a contradiction in terms. All scientific theories are based on evidence. Theories are what you get after you've been through the hypothesis stage, and even a hypothesis shouldn't be theoretical in nature. All science, starting from Step 1 should be based on evidence.
It is considered a cardinal sin in science to come up with a hypothesis BEFORE having any evidence to back it up.
And by the way, this is where almost every religion falls down. They come up with their hypotheses, theories, and laws and consider them to be written in stone well before any evidence has been gathered. Then all future evidence is interpreted through the rose-colored glasses which the scriptures put on your face.
So if you think that science which is not based on evidence is bad, then you should *really* hate religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
I think it has to do with position/perspective. From my perspective I am not attacking science, but rather making a division between theoretical postulations and factual results, and citing what that might mean. |
The question is, are you qualified to make that division? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | So if you think that science which is not based on evidence is bad, then you should *really* hate religion. |
I never said science was bad.
Try....Fail. Try....Fail. Try....Fail. Try....maybe have it right....Fail. Try....maybe have it right....Fail. Try....maybe have it right....Fail. Try....and finally get it right.
I wouldn't call the phase before finally getting it right "bad science".....Unless there is some form of deliberate deception involved......which true science does not involve itself in. I can't say that for folks using science in an effort to disprove God. That's a notion that science would never have. P, dont try to con me by telling me your adgenda is true science....it's not. You have an atheistic adgenda, thats what is driving you! *anticipates a spit, and a sputter, and a 'y-yy-yu-you are wrong' comment*
| Ana wrote: | | The question is, are you qualified to make that division? |
Ana, it has nothing to do with my qualifications....It has to do with the evidence presented. Insted of scrutinizing me, scrutinize the evidence.
Is science about qualifications or evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
| Ana wrote: | | The question is, are you qualified to make that division? |
Ana, it has nothing to do with my qualifications....It has to do with the evidence presented. Insted of scrutinizing me, scrutinize the evidence.
Is science about qualifications or evidence? |
Of course it's about the evidence. It's just that it's necessary to have the ability to scrutinize the evidence. If you lack the qualification to do so, then your findings could very easily be wrong and you will have a hard time understanding why that is so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | I can't say that for folks using science in an effort to disprove God. That's a notion that science would never have. |
Nobody tries to disprove that God exists. We don't have to. All we have to do is point out that regardless of whether or not God exists, nobody should believe in Him, because the evidence just isn't there.
In my view, atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist. It's about convincing religious people that they aren't thinking scientifically or logically or critically.
| Dust wrote: |
P, dont try to con me by telling me your adgenda is true science....it's not. You have an atheistic adgenda, thats what is driving you! *anticipates a spit, and a sputter, and a 'y-yy-yu-you are wrong' comment*
|
They are one and the same. True science is atheistic and skeptical. Skepticism is a cornerstone of science. One of its main tenets is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So true science is my agenda, but so is the promotion of skepticism, logic, and critical thinking. They're the same thing.
| Dust wrote: | Ana, it has nothing to do with my qualifications....It has to do with the evidence presented. Insted of scrutinizing me, scrutinize the evidence.
|
Thousands of the best, most qualified experts HAVE scrutinized the evidence *extensively*. That's how we came up with the Big Bang, Evolution, the correct age of the Earth, and every other scientific theory which is accepted by the mainstream.
Unfortunately, *you* don't respect that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | The expansion of the universe is a fact. It follows directly from the evidence, as all science does. |
The evidence is background radiation. What follows is an assumption that an assumed single cataclysmic event, happening 13 billion years ago, is the source.
Using the same evidence, I propose that billions of smaller, yet significant electomagnetic events, over whatever duration of time the universe has been in existence, could be the source for the evidence.
Fuththermore my proposal is based on actual observation of electomagnetic events happening within our own solar system (solar flare ups), and an assumption that billions of electormagnetic events, far surpassing the magnitude of the strongest solar flare up ever recorded in our solar system, have occured both in the past and at present, through-out the entire universe, and that the combined intermodulation of the resultant microwaves could reasonably account for the detected background radiation.
P, why do you view my skepticism as a form of disrespect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Of course it's about the evidence. It's just that it's necessary to have the ability to scrutinize the evidence. If you lack the qualification to do so, then your findings could very easily be wrong and you will have a hard time understanding why that is so. |
Thank you Ana. Your reply is the most genuine I have read in quite some time.
I know I could be wrong, but I also suspect that those touting impressive qualifications could be wrong as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I certainly don't want to quell that spirit of scientific investigation! Without proper training, though, there's only so far you can go. Only a very small handful of people out there make scientific breakthroughs by reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Almost everyone has to stand on the backs of others to reach high results - the rest are prodigies or people who just got lucky.
The rest of us lay people have to rely on what the experts say, but that doesn't mean we have to swallow it whole! But we can't realistically expect to refute it with our unqualified knowledge. When we read what an expert says, then, we have to be diligent in looking up what others say about the work of the expert in question. I looked up your expert, this Arp fellow, to see what this was all about, and I saw that somebody named Napier got similar results. Well, Hawkins (another expert) re-performed the same experiment as Napier (as any good scientific experiment needs to be reproducable) using Napier's own guidelines but with 8 times the data points, and the phenomenon disappeared! I posted that above with links to more information. It's about all I, as a lay person, can do, unless I go and get properly qualified.
| Dust wrote: |
I know I could be wrong, but I also suspect that those touting impressive qualifications could be wrong as well. |
It's quite possible. This happens from time to time in science. Every time we find a mistake, we investigate why it is a mistake, why the mistake was made, and what might the real answer be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
