Questions about the Big Bang

  • 115 Replies
  • 4144 Views
*

sokarul

  • 16764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #90 on: April 11, 2017, 08:05:20 PM »
Why did god create the citric acid cycle?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #91 on: April 11, 2017, 08:19:04 PM »
Quote
1. We have created life in the lab from non-living inorganic materials. Do you still believe that only God can create life?

No we haven't. I am aware of the study.

Yes, I do. Call god whatever you want.
You said what I was thinking. Whatever scientists do in a lab is a highly controlled environment, far from lightning striking the primordial soup. And there's the highly intelligent scientists doing the creating. Or trying to anyway.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12761
  • ASI
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #92 on: April 11, 2017, 08:23:07 PM »
What if the universe is a paradox and ultimately WE are the ones that caused the big bang which caused everything else to come forth??? :)

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #93 on: April 11, 2017, 11:04:50 PM »
It seems like the redshift phenomenon could be interpreted in multiple ways.

A couple others besides there have been a big bang are, the earth could be at the center of the universe, and every other object is running away from it, perhaps because every other object is like the aftermath of the earth having come into being.

Or, like I said redshifts are misleading.
I mean, in addition to there being a lot more clumping in places than there should be, and having to excuse that with dark matter, which itself is at best speculation and at worst conjecture, how could all objects possibly be traveling away from earth simultaneously?

Don't asteroids, comets, meteors, planets, stars and galaxies sometimes move towards the earth?
And if when they do, yet're still producing redshifts (light is coming from sources moving away from the earth) as opposed to blue (from sources moving towards), than doesn't that mean this whole redshift thing is bogus?
I'm somewhat familiar with redshifts.
I've heard of CMB, but I know nothing about it beyond the self-explanatory.
The last one I've never heard of.

Didn't scientists come to believe in a big bang solely on the basis of redshifts, long before they discovered the CMB and the neutrino background?
You are partly correct. The discovery of the redshift sparked many theories, including the one of an expanding universe (and as a logical result the big bang). There was a lot of discussion and noone could really convice other parties. However, the big bang theory predicted the existence of the CMB, which was not yet found by then and thus used as an argument against the BBT. However, someone (I think it was some telephone company) tried to make a completely noise-less antenna and could not really succeed, there was some background radiation that seemed to be present. For this accidental discovery they later received a nobel prize. Also, this has convinced almost every cosmologist that the BBT is the correct one.

It also predicts many other things (like the number of neutrino species etc.) that have lead to a leap in particle physics as well.


Some objects are indeed moving towards us (the andromeda galaxy being the most prominent one) as there the gravitational attraction is strong enough to overcome the expansion. However, they are all fairly close. Also, redshift is is measured in velocity over lightspeed (so we are dealing with huge velocities here), so the peculiar motion of the earth etc. simply is not high enough to make a difference

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #94 on: April 11, 2017, 11:23:04 PM »
It seems like the redshift phenomenon could be interpreted in multiple ways.

A couple others besides there have been a big bang are, the earth could be at the center of the universe, and every other object is running away from it, perhaps because every other object is like the aftermath of the earth having come into being.

Or, like I said redshifts are misleading.
I mean, in addition to there being a lot more clumping in places than there should be, and having to excuse that with dark matter, which itself is at best speculation and at worst conjecture, how could all objects possibly be traveling away from earth simultaneously?

Don't asteroids, comets, meteors, planets, stars and galaxies sometimes move towards the earth?
And if when they do, yet're still producing redshifts (light is coming from sources moving away from the earth) as opposed to blue (from sources moving towards), than doesn't that mean this whole redshift thing is bogus?
I'm somewhat familiar with redshifts.
I've heard of CMB, but I know nothing about it beyond the self-explanatory.
The last one I've never heard of.

Didn't scientists come to believe in a big bang solely on the basis of redshifts, long before they discovered the CMB and the neutrino background?
You are partly correct. The discovery of the redshift sparked many theories, including the one of an expanding universe (and as a logical result the big bang). There was a lot of discussion and noone could really convice other parties. However, the big bang theory predicted the existence of the CMB, which was not yet found by then and thus used as an argument against the BBT. However, someone (I think it was some telephone company) tried to make a completely noise-less antenna and could not really succeed, there was some background radiation that seemed to be present. For this accidental discovery they later received a nobel prize. Also, this has convinced almost every cosmologist that the BBT is the correct one.

It also predicts many other things (like the number of neutrino species etc.) that have lead to a leap in particle physics as well.


Some objects are indeed moving towards us (the andromeda galaxy being the most prominent one) as there the gravitational attraction is strong enough to overcome the expansion. However, they are all fairly close. Also, redshift is is measured in velocity over lightspeed (so we are dealing with huge velocities here), so the peculiar motion of the earth etc. simply is not high enough to make a difference
Could the CMB be produced by something else?
Or maybe it doesn't have to be produced by anything, the cosmos is just full of stuff, full of particles, waves, and there is no such thing as empty space, only relatively empty/full space, every full has some empty and every empty full.

Perhaps the cosmos began in a big bang, or perhaps the cosmos vibrates to and fro, sometimes it pulsates outwardly, and sometimes inwardly, right now we're going through an external wobble.

I understand the big bang/expansion doesn't affect smaller objects, or at least affects them more subtlety.
These things must be measured in lightyears.
 
So I take it that at least some things like the andromeda galaxy are moving towards earth, or at least in its general direction, and so do they produce blueshifts then, since they're moving towards?
If some things produce red and some blue, is it just a case of there being significantly more red than blue?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 01:51:53 AM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #95 on: April 11, 2017, 11:30:33 PM »
Why do scientists think the universe is expanding?
Redshift of distant objects, existence of the CMB, existence and temperature of the neutrino background. Those are the three that come to mind, if you want more I will have to do some research :)
I'm somewhat familiar with redshifts.
I've heard of CMB, but I know nothing about it beyond the self-explanatory.
The last one I've never heard of.

Didn't scientists come to believe in a big bang solely on the basis of redshifts, long before they discovered the CMB and the neutrino background?

I find redshifts somewhat perplexing.
Perhaps it's easier just to discount/dismiss them as an optical illusion, rather than conclude there was a big bang, since, and correct me if I'm wrong, don't galaxies clump together far more than a big bang would entail?
I mean you can explain away excessive clumping with dark matter, or you could explain away the redshifts with excessive clumping, alternatively.

The way that light becomes redshifted can not be dismissed as an illusion optical or otherwise. Redshift  happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. It happens whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" just means an increase in wavelength. This effect can be measured and confirmed.
Measuring a redshift or blueshift requires four steps:
1) find the spectrum of something (usually a galaxy) that shows spectral lines
2) from the pattern of lines, identify which line was created by which atom, ion, or molecule
3) measure the shift of any one of those lines with respect to its expected wavelength, as measured in a laboratory on Earth
4) use a formula that relates the observed shift to the object's velocity.

It's as simple as that....no conspiracy involved.....just science.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #96 on: April 11, 2017, 11:47:43 PM »
It seems like the redshift phenomenon could be interpreted in multiple ways.

A couple others besides there have been a big bang are, the earth could be at the center of the universe, and every other object is running away from it, perhaps because every other object is like the aftermath of the earth having come into being.

Or, like I said redshifts are misleading.
I mean, in addition to there being a lot more clumping in places than there should be, and having to excuse that with dark matter, which itself is at best speculation and at worst conjecture, how could all objects possibly be traveling away from earth simultaneously?

Don't asteroids, comets, meteors, planets, stars and galaxies sometimes move towards the earth?
And if when they do, yet're still producing redshifts (light is coming from sources moving away from the earth) as opposed to blue (from sources moving towards), than doesn't that mean this whole redshift thing is bogus?
I'm somewhat familiar with redshifts.
I've heard of CMB, but I know nothing about it beyond the self-explanatory.
The last one I've never heard of.

Didn't scientists come to believe in a big bang solely on the basis of redshifts, long before they discovered the CMB and the neutrino background?
You are partly correct. The discovery of the redshift sparked many theories, including the one of an expanding universe (and as a logical result the big bang). There was a lot of discussion and noone could really convice other parties. However, the big bang theory predicted the existence of the CMB, which was not yet found by then and thus used as an argument against the BBT. However, someone (I think it was some telephone company) tried to make a completely noise-less antenna and could not really succeed, there was some background radiation that seemed to be present. For this accidental discovery they later received a nobel prize. Also, this has convinced almost every cosmologist that the BBT is the correct one.

It also predicts many other things (like the number of neutrino species etc.) that have lead to a leap in particle physics as well.


Some objects are indeed moving towards us (the andromeda galaxy being the most prominent one) as there the gravitational attraction is strong enough to overcome the expansion. However, they are all fairly close. Also, redshift is is measured in velocity over lightspeed (so we are dealing with huge velocities here), so the peculiar motion of the earth etc. simply is not high enough to make a difference
Could the CMB be produced by something else?
Or maybe it doesn't have to be produced by anything, the cosmos is just full of stuff, full of particles, waves, and there is no such thing as empty space, only relatively empty/full space, every full has some empty and every empty full.

Perhaps the cosmos began in a big bang, or perhaps the cosmos vibrates to and fro, sometimes it pulsates outwardly, and sometimes inwardly, right now we're going through an external wobble.

I understand the big bang/expansion doesn't effect smaller objects, or at least effects them more subtlety.
These things must be measured in lightyears.
 
So I take it that at least some things like the andromeda galaxy are moving towards earth, or at least in its general direction, and so do they produce blueshifts then, since they're moving towards?
If some things produce red and some blue, is it just a case of there being significantly more red than blue?

While speculation and theorising about the nature of the universe can often provide answers, sooner or later these speculations have to be confirmed by observations and experimentation. The fact that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate was initially confirmed in the early 1990s by observations carried out by both the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team. Since then it's been ratified by numerous teams around the world......and this is how science works which is totally at odds with the pseudoscience that flat earth belief dabbles in.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #97 on: April 11, 2017, 11:50:55 PM »
lonegranger, you haven't done your homework on redshift either.

The most recent discovery is astounding: Dr. Jack Webb (UNSW) has proven that the speed of light is variable, exactly within the context of this discussion, redshifts and blueshifts.

We live in a Universe with a speed limit -- Well, that's what Albert Einstein said.
But what if Einstein was wrong? John Webb has big plans.
He wants to rewrite the laws of the Universe.
And it all begins with bar codes.
Right.
So, we're in the supermarket.
I'm buying a few things.
This lettuce, for example -- we know what it is.
Has a lot of information on the lettuce.
Tell us on the packet.
We can see what it is.
But encoded in this pattern here and picked up by the laser that's gonna scan it is a set of information, and when the cashier scans it, the laser beam will look at the white gaps between the black lines, and we get the price.
So there's a lot of information stored in the bar code.

John is an astrophysicist at the University of New South Wales.
The bar codes he studies are not on packages of lettuce, but on light coming from distant galaxies.
If you split the light coming from these galaxies into a rainbow, you'll discover that certain colors are missing.
Those dark bands, called spectral lines, are caused by the chemical elements in clouds of interstellar gas absorbing certain frequencies of starlight.
You can learn a great deal from spectral lines.
From their positions, you can identify elements that have particular frequencies, so you can see where things like hydrogen or helium or other elements are present.
But John realized his starlight bar codes could tell him about something much more important than what stars were made of.
It could give him a glimpse into one of the most fundamental constants of the Universe -- the strength of the electromagnetic force.
In physics, every force has a particle that carries it.
Electromagnetic force is carried by light, or photons.
The electromagnetic force keeps atoms glued together with a constant exchange of photons that bounce from the nucleus to its orbiting electrons.
When light passes through atoms of interstellar gas, it can interfere with this exchange of photons and knock an electron out of its orbit, but only if the light has exactly the right amount of energy.
The bar code of missing light tells you precisely how strong the electromagnetic force is.
Over the last decade or so, there's been an amazing change in technology.
One can now measure the things in distant astronomical objects more precisely than ever been measured on Earth.
That provides a very strong motivation for studying the early Universe, because we can measure what the conditions were like, we can measure what physics was like, whether the laws of physics there in very remote regions of the Universe are the same as they are on Earth.
That's pretty amazing.
So John began searching the heavens for glowing clouds of gas billions of light-years away.
He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.
And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.
This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.
When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.
So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.
It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.
If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.
So the patterns now look different.

It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.
These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.
When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.
What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.
The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.

Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.
So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.


JOHN WEBB: ARE THE LAWS OF NATURE CHANGING WITH TIME:

http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

Read the last section: What Does It All Mean



(starts at 32:00 - Dr. John Webb)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892968#msg1892968 (redshifts = presence of ether)

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble

That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892972#msg1892972 (CMBR = presence of ether)

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #98 on: April 12, 2017, 12:35:47 AM »
lonegranger, you haven't done your homework on redshift either.

The most recent discovery is astounding: Dr. Jack Webb (UNSW) has proven that the speed of light is variable, exactly within the context of this discussion, redshifts and blueshifts.

We live in a Universe with a speed limit -- Well, that's what Albert Einstein said.
But what if Einstein was wrong? John Webb has big plans.
He wants to rewrite the laws of the Universe.
And it all begins with bar codes.
Right.
So, we're in the supermarket.
I'm buying a few things.
This lettuce, for example -- we know what it is.
Has a lot of information on the lettuce.
Tell us on the packet.
We can see what it is.
But encoded in this pattern here and picked up by the laser that's gonna scan it is a set of information, and when the cashier scans it, the laser beam will look at the white gaps between the black lines, and we get the price.
So there's a lot of information stored in the bar code.

John is an astrophysicist at the University of New South Wales.
The bar codes he studies are not on packages of lettuce, but on light coming from distant galaxies.
If you split the light coming from these galaxies into a rainbow, you'll discover that certain colors are missing.
Those dark bands, called spectral lines, are caused by the chemical elements in clouds of interstellar gas absorbing certain frequencies of starlight.
You can learn a great deal from spectral lines.
From their positions, you can identify elements that have particular frequencies, so you can see where things like hydrogen or helium or other elements are present.
But John realized his starlight bar codes could tell him about something much more important than what stars were made of.
It could give him a glimpse into one of the most fundamental constants of the Universe -- the strength of the electromagnetic force.
In physics, every force has a particle that carries it.
Electromagnetic force is carried by light, or photons.
The electromagnetic force keeps atoms glued together with a constant exchange of photons that bounce from the nucleus to its orbiting electrons.
When light passes through atoms of interstellar gas, it can interfere with this exchange of photons and knock an electron out of its orbit, but only if the light has exactly the right amount of energy.
The bar code of missing light tells you precisely how strong the electromagnetic force is.
Over the last decade or so, there's been an amazing change in technology.
One can now measure the things in distant astronomical objects more precisely than ever been measured on Earth.
That provides a very strong motivation for studying the early Universe, because we can measure what the conditions were like, we can measure what physics was like, whether the laws of physics there in very remote regions of the Universe are the same as they are on Earth.
That's pretty amazing.
So John began searching the heavens for glowing clouds of gas billions of light-years away.
He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.
And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.
This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.
When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.
So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.
It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.
If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.
So the patterns now look different.

It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.
These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.
When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.
What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.
The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.

Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.
So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.


JOHN WEBB: ARE THE LAWS OF NATURE CHANGING WITH TIME:

http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

Read the last section: What Does It All Mean



(starts at 32:00 - Dr. John Webb)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892968#msg1892968 (redshifts = presence of ether)

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble

That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892972#msg1892972 (CMBR = presence of ether)

As a reader of New Scientist, I did read the piece on it.

The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago – and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth.
The controversial finding is turning up the heat on an already simmering debate, especially since it is based on re-analysis of old data that has long been used to argue for exactly the opposite: the constancy of the speed of light and other constants.


A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein’s theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe. It might also support string theories that predict extra spatial dimensions.

But as it say it's controversial and as yet it's still to be proven so remains a conjecture.
I don't think the variability in the speed of C, if proved to be the case, would negate the expanding universe.

I think it would help all the readers on the forum if you limited the content of you posts as the points you try to make often get lost.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #99 on: April 12, 2017, 12:59:56 AM »


1. We have created life in the lab from non-living inorganic materials. Do you still believe that only God can create life?


NO - you DID NOT create; you just copied!!!
There is a big difference between creating and cloning!
Show me your proof

"Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab.

So, after millions of dollars and man-hours, pre-existing information was copied from the realm of biology onto computers, and then placed back into the living world by purposefully manipulating both man-made and cellular machine systems. Thus, the resulting cell was not wholly synthetic--only its DNA was. But even that was an exact copy of an already functioning bacterial genome."


http://www.icr.org/article/have-scientists-created-living-cell/

And do you call that creation?????

Everything that exists is made of Protons, Electrons & Neutrons - Let your scientists create any of these from nothing!
What your scientists know is a drop in God's sea of knowledge!

Shame on you and on your scientists trying to challenge God in His creation!
Let the so-called scientists prevent death from reaching them!
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16810
  • Or should I?
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #100 on: April 12, 2017, 01:10:16 AM »
Why do scientists think the universe is expanding?
Redshift of distant objects, existence of the CMB, existence and temperature of the neutrino background. Those are the three that come to mind, if you want more I will have to do some research :)
I'm somewhat familiar with redshifts.
I've heard of CMB, but I know nothing about it beyond the self-explanatory.
The last one I've never heard of.

Didn't scientists come to believe in a big bang solely on the basis of redshifts, long before they discovered the CMB and the neutrino background?

I find redshifts somewhat perplexing.
Perhaps it's easier just to discount/dismiss them as an optical illusion, rather than conclude there was a big bang, since, and correct me if I'm wrong, don't galaxies clump together far more than a big bang would entail?
I mean you can explain away excessive clumping with dark matter, or you could explain away the redshifts with excessive clumping, alternatively.

The way that light becomes redshifted can not be dismissed as an illusion optical or otherwise. Redshift  happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. It happens whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" just means an increase in wavelength. This effect can be measured and confirmed.
Measuring a redshift or blueshift requires four steps:
1) find the spectrum of something (usually a galaxy) that shows spectral lines
2) from the pattern of lines, identify which line was created by which atom, ion, or molecule
3) measure the shift of any one of those lines with respect to its expected wavelength, as measured in a laboratory on Earth
4) use a formula that relates the observed shift to the object's velocity.

It's as simple as that....no conspiracy involved.....just science.

You copied and pasted that entire post. Next time change some words so I can't find it with a two minute google search.

If you use others work please provide citations. I did this one for you.

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/redshifts.asp

Honestly.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #101 on: April 12, 2017, 01:13:42 AM »


1. We have created life in the lab from non-living inorganic materials. Do you still believe that only God can create life?


NO - you DID NOT create; you just copied!!!
There is a big difference between creating and cloning!
Show me your proof

"Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab.

So, after millions of dollars and man-hours, pre-existing information was copied from the realm of biology onto computers, and then placed back into the living world by purposefully manipulating both man-made and cellular machine systems. Thus, the resulting cell was not wholly synthetic--only its DNA was. But even that was an exact copy of an already functioning bacterial genome."


http://www.icr.org/article/have-scientists-created-living-cell/

And do you call that creation?????

Everything that exists is made of Protons, Electrons & Neutrons - Let your scientists create any of these from nothing!
What your scientists know is a drop in God's sea of knowledge!

Shame on you and on your scientists trying to challenge God in His creation!
Let the so-called scientists prevent death from reaching them!

Ok you believe in God....that's as far as you can take it.
You have no proof that some god personage actually exists or created anything.....it's just what you happen to believe. Believing in something does not make it true.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #102 on: April 12, 2017, 01:32:03 AM »


1. We have created life in the lab from non-living inorganic materials. Do you still believe that only God can create life?


NO - you DID NOT create; you just copied!!!
There is a big difference between creating and cloning!
Show me your proof

"Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab.

So, after millions of dollars and man-hours, pre-existing information was copied from the realm of biology onto computers, and then placed back into the living world by purposefully manipulating both man-made and cellular machine systems. Thus, the resulting cell was not wholly synthetic--only its DNA was. But even that was an exact copy of an already functioning bacterial genome."


http://www.icr.org/article/have-scientists-created-living-cell/

And do you call that creation?????

Everything that exists is made of Protons, Electrons & Neutrons - Let your scientists create any of these from nothing!
What your scientists know is a drop in God's sea of knowledge!

Shame on you and on your scientists trying to challenge God in His creation!
Let the so-called scientists prevent death from reaching them!

Ok you believe in God....that's as far as you can take it.
You have no proof that some god personage actually exists or created anything.....it's just what you happen to believe. Believing in something does not make it true.

You see Sir, this is the difference between believers and non-believers!
You see with your eyes and hear with your ears > I see and hear with my heart and conscious!
It's very difficult to see or hear God with your senses!
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #103 on: April 12, 2017, 01:53:46 AM »
I don't believe in the big bang.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #104 on: April 12, 2017, 01:55:25 AM »
Space is expanding?
Prove it.
I've never seen space expand.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #105 on: April 12, 2017, 01:59:43 AM »
Space is expanding?
Prove it.
I've never seen space expand.

In scientists imagination, it does!

When I was in college, long time ago, I reached with my imagination further than what the Hubble Telescope has reached in our days!
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #106 on: April 12, 2017, 02:15:43 AM »
As for redshifts, are redshifts something we, as in, common people with common means, can verify for ourselves?
And even if we can, it sounds contradictory to me.
On the one hand, some galaxies and things are moving toward us.
On the other, everything produces redshifts, indicating they're moving away from us.
So which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Either the redshifts are right, and the things appearing to move towards us like the Andromeda galaxy actually aren't, or they're wrong, and the things appearing to move towards us, are.
I'm going to go with the red shifts being wrong, because some heavenly bodies clearly are moving towards us, and galaxies and things are clumping far more than the big bang/space expansion hypothesis permits.

Furthermore, the idea that space can expand contradicts our everyday experience of it.

As for the cosmic microwave background, I don't see why it can't exist without a big bang/space expansion.

Who knows thou, I mean, althou I tend to believe the earth is round, I'm not even at all sure it's orbiting the sun, or that stars are suns with their own planets.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #107 on: April 12, 2017, 03:35:18 AM »
As for redshifts, are redshifts something we, as in, common people with common means, can verify for ourselves?
And even if we can, it sounds contradictory to me.
On the one hand, some galaxies and things are moving toward us.
On the other, everything produces redshifts, indicating they're moving away from us.
So which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Either the redshifts are right, and the things appearing to move towards us like the Andromeda galaxy actually aren't, or they're wrong, and the things appearing to move towards us, are.
I'm going to go with the red shifts being wrong, because some heavenly bodies clearly are moving towards us, and galaxies and things are clumping far more than the big bang/space expansion hypothesis permits.

Furthermore, the idea that space can expand contradicts our everyday experience of it.

As for the cosmic microwave background, I don't see why it can't exist without a big bang/space expansion.

Who knows thou, I mean, althou I tend to believe the earth is round, I'm not even at all sure it's orbiting the sun, or that stars are suns with their own planets.
The easiest way to verify redshift is to visit an old telescope (preferably radio) and ask the people to observe a galaxy. If they do not observe andromeda, you will see a shift of spectral lines. I have done this and can verify that his is legit.

The thing about the expansion of the universe is that it is independent of distance. No matter how far things are apart, in the next billion years they will move apart by 5% of their distance (the 5% are a pure guess, I would have to calculate the actual value). Things that are close to each other attract each other gravitationally, and when they are close enough this attraction overcomes the expansion. This is why you see the galaxy closest to us blueshifted: Here the gravitational attraction is strong enough so that it is faster than the expansion. (It is basically two effects happening, on close distances one dominates, on large distances the other). Mind that redshift becomes important when talking about distances of the order of Gigaparsecs, one gigaparsec is about 30000000000000000000000kilometer or 200000000000000 times the distance from the earth to the sun. (3e+22 and 2e+14 for the practically minded people, I just like writing big numbers).

As for the CMB there might be other theories explaining the existence, but the BBT also explains its properties. The CMB has slight anisotropies and when one analyzes those (using the BBT) the resulting values yield the abundance of helium in the universe, the number of neutrinos, the mass-density in the universe (which agrees with analysis from gravitational lensing etc.).

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #108 on: April 12, 2017, 07:24:42 AM »
@Hannibal You need to understand that the holy book is not something which you need to take it as truth or infallable facts. It is just wrong.

Perhaps, have a look at this: https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/why-are-stars-millions-of-light-years-away/

That is an answer from the a page which says "Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. ".

In case you know what a light-year is, you know how stupid that is. If you didn't, let me explain. Light year "by definition" is defined as the distance travelled by light in one year in "vacuum". The value turns out to be 9.461x10^15 m. This is a number which nobody can change because it is derived mathematically but that website doesn't.

I can't put in words how dumb that piece of text which I quoted is.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2017, 07:32:30 AM »
lonegranger, you haven't done your homework on redshift either.

The most recent discovery is astounding: Dr. Jack Webb (UNSW) has proven that the speed of light is variable, exactly within the context of this discussion, redshifts and blueshifts.

We live in a Universe with a speed limit -- Well, that's what Albert Einstein said.
But what if Einstein was wrong? John Webb has big plans.
He wants to rewrite the laws of the Universe.
And it all begins with bar codes.
Right.
So, we're in the supermarket.
I'm buying a few things.
This lettuce, for example -- we know what it is.
Has a lot of information on the lettuce.
Tell us on the packet.
We can see what it is.
But encoded in this pattern here and picked up by the laser that's gonna scan it is a set of information, and when the cashier scans it, the laser beam will look at the white gaps between the black lines, and we get the price.
So there's a lot of information stored in the bar code.

John is an astrophysicist at the University of New South Wales.
The bar codes he studies are not on packages of lettuce, but on light coming from distant galaxies.
If you split the light coming from these galaxies into a rainbow, you'll discover that certain colors are missing.
Those dark bands, called spectral lines, are caused by the chemical elements in clouds of interstellar gas absorbing certain frequencies of starlight.
You can learn a great deal from spectral lines.
From their positions, you can identify elements that have particular frequencies, so you can see where things like hydrogen or helium or other elements are present.
But John realized his starlight bar codes could tell him about something much more important than what stars were made of.
It could give him a glimpse into one of the most fundamental constants of the Universe -- the strength of the electromagnetic force.
In physics, every force has a particle that carries it.
Electromagnetic force is carried by light, or photons.
The electromagnetic force keeps atoms glued together with a constant exchange of photons that bounce from the nucleus to its orbiting electrons.
When light passes through atoms of interstellar gas, it can interfere with this exchange of photons and knock an electron out of its orbit, but only if the light has exactly the right amount of energy.
The bar code of missing light tells you precisely how strong the electromagnetic force is.
Over the last decade or so, there's been an amazing change in technology.
One can now measure the things in distant astronomical objects more precisely than ever been measured on Earth.
That provides a very strong motivation for studying the early Universe, because we can measure what the conditions were like, we can measure what physics was like, whether the laws of physics there in very remote regions of the Universe are the same as they are on Earth.
That's pretty amazing.
So John began searching the heavens for glowing clouds of gas billions of light-years away.
He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.
And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.
This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.
When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.
So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.
It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.
If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.
So the patterns now look different.

It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.
These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.
When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.
What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.
The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.

Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.
So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.


JOHN WEBB: ARE THE LAWS OF NATURE CHANGING WITH TIME:

http://phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

Read the last section: What Does It All Mean



(starts at 32:00 - Dr. John Webb)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892968#msg1892968 (redshifts = presence of ether)

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble

That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70114.msg1892972#msg1892972 (CMBR = presence of ether)

Oh, once again, you qouted a real scientists but you failed to understand his work. The differences are too small to infer anything useful and there are too many people working on this.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7482

Why can't we go beyond the speed of light?
If you did then the math breaks down (you get imaginary quantities in many calculations).

What if the theory and the formulae are wrong?
We know it isn't wrong because it works very well. There are hundreds of real life examples which rely on relativity to work including GPS.

We have also had experiments to verify but you might say that is fake but you cannot deny things which you are using.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 07:39:44 AM by Yashas »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2017, 07:54:55 AM »
Your level of understanding of physics is truly atrocious.

Oh, once again, you qouted a real scientists but you failed to understand his work. The differences are too small to infer anything useful and there are too many people working on this.

The discovery made by Dr. John Webb is pretty simple to understand (with your exception, of course):

He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.
And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.
This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.
When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.
So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.
It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.
If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.
So the patterns now look different.
It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.
These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.
When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.
What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.
The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.
Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.
So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.


The differences ARE NOT SMALL at all, contrary to your bizarre assertion.


Why can't we go beyond the speed of light?
If you did then the math breaks down (you get imaginary quantities in many calculations).


With the fake Heaviside-Lorentz equations you do get just that.

However, using the ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL SET OF ETHER EQUATIONS, which are invariant under Galilean transformations, the speed of light can be exceeded quite easily.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."


We know it isn't wrong because it works very well. There are hundreds of real life examples which rely on relativity to work including GPS.

Wrong.

Completely wrong.

Absolutely wrong.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

In the Sagnac experiment, the light speed varied to c + ωr in one direction and c – ωr in the other direction.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.


COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.



Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.



Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


The Ruderfer experiment (1961) effectively puts to rest the assertion that relativity has anything to do with GPS satellites:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #111 on: April 12, 2017, 09:21:00 AM »
As for redshifts, are redshifts something we, as in, common people with common means, can verify for ourselves?
And even if we can, it sounds contradictory to me.
On the one hand, some galaxies and things are moving toward us.
On the other, everything produces redshifts, indicating they're moving away from us.
So which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Either the redshifts are right, and the things appearing to move towards us like the Andromeda galaxy actually aren't, or they're wrong, and the things appearing to move towards us, are.
I'm going to go with the red shifts being wrong, because some heavenly bodies clearly are moving towards us, and galaxies and things are clumping far more than the big bang/space expansion hypothesis permits.

Furthermore, the idea that space can expand contradicts our everyday experience of it.

As for the cosmic microwave background, I don't see why it can't exist without a big bang/space expansion.

Who knows thou, I mean, althou I tend to believe the earth is round, I'm not even at all sure it's orbiting the sun, or that stars are suns with their own planets.
The easiest way to verify redshift is to visit an old telescope (preferably radio) and ask the people to observe a galaxy. If they do not observe andromeda, you will see a shift of spectral lines. I have done this and can verify that his is legit.

The thing about the expansion of the universe is that it is independent of distance. No matter how far things are apart, in the next billion years they will move apart by 5% of their distance (the 5% are a pure guess, I would have to calculate the actual value). Things that are close to each other attract each other gravitationally, and when they are close enough this attraction overcomes the expansion. This is why you see the galaxy closest to us blueshifted: Here the gravitational attraction is strong enough so that it is faster than the expansion. (It is basically two effects happening, on close distances one dominates, on large distances the other). Mind that redshift becomes important when talking about distances of the order of Gigaparsecs, one gigaparsec is about 30000000000000000000000kilometer or 200000000000000 times the distance from the earth to the sun. (3e+22 and 2e+14 for the practically minded people, I just like writing big numbers).

As for the CMB there might be other theories explaining the existence, but the BBT also explains its properties. The CMB has slight anisotropies and when one analyzes those (using the BBT) the resulting values yield the abundance of helium in the universe, the number of neutrinos, the mass-density in the universe (which agrees with analysis from gravitational lensing etc.).
So apparently when objects aren't being held together by strong gravity, they're being pulled/pushed apart by space expansion.
So the Milky Way is held together by gravity, Andromeda is moving towards us because it and we're sufficiently close and massive to overcome space expansion, but every other galaxy is moving away from us and presumably one another and consequently producing redshifts.
Have we found any other way to measure this that'd corroborate it?

The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, I heard the universe is clumping together a lot more than universal space expansion would predict.
Also, what is the cosmological axis of evil?

Additionally, like I said althou I'm leaning towards round earth over flat, I'm not leaning towards heliocentrism/acentrism over geocentrism, other than relying on Nasa and other government space agencies, it seems we peasants have no way, or at least no easy way, of verifying whether the earth is the center of the universe or not.
Perhaps everything is both revolving around us, and moving away from us.
Everything may also be a lot smaller and closer to us than they claim.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 09:29:58 AM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #112 on: April 12, 2017, 09:21:58 AM »
Your level of understanding of physics is truly atrocious.

Oh, once again, you qouted a real scientists but you failed to understand his work. The differences are too small to infer anything useful and there are too many people working on this.

The discovery made by Dr. John Webb is pretty simple to understand (with your exception, of course):

He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.
And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.
This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.
When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.
So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.
It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.
If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.
So the patterns now look different.
It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.
These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.
When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.
What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.
The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.
Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.
So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.


The differences ARE NOT SMALL at all, contrary to your bizarre assertion.


Why can't we go beyond the speed of light?
If you did then the math breaks down (you get imaginary quantities in many calculations).


With the fake Heaviside-Lorentz equations you do get just that.

However, using the ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL SET OF ETHER EQUATIONS, which are invariant under Galilean transformations, the speed of light can be exceeded quite easily.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."


We know it isn't wrong because it works very well. There are hundreds of real life examples which rely on relativity to work including GPS.

Wrong.

Completely wrong.

Absolutely wrong.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

In the Sagnac experiment, the light speed varied to c + ωr in one direction and c – ωr in the other direction.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.


COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.



Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.



Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


The Ruderfer experiment (1961) effectively puts to rest the assertion that relativity has anything to do with GPS satellites:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Bloody hell there you go again.... starting your post off with a slap followed by an opening of your bowels which favours quantity and ignores any quality. My you must consume some amount of roughage. Some of it is in red so you might want to consult a doctor.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #113 on: April 12, 2017, 09:23:44 AM »


1. We have created life in the lab from non-living inorganic materials. Do you still believe that only God can create life?


NO - you DID NOT create; you just copied!!!
There is a big difference between creating and cloning!
Show me your proof

"Finally, the researchers transferred the laboratory-synthesized, yeast-cloned DNA into a living bacterium that had its own DNA removed. The resulting cell grew and multiplied successfully in the lab.

So, after millions of dollars and man-hours, pre-existing information was copied from the realm of biology onto computers, and then placed back into the living world by purposefully manipulating both man-made and cellular machine systems. Thus, the resulting cell was not wholly synthetic--only its DNA was. But even that was an exact copy of an already functioning bacterial genome."


http://www.icr.org/article/have-scientists-created-living-cell/

And do you call that creation?????

Everything that exists is made of Protons, Electrons & Neutrons - Let your scientists create any of these from nothing!
What your scientists know is a drop in God's sea of knowledge!

Shame on you and on your scientists trying to challenge God in His creation!
Let the so-called scientists prevent death from reaching them!

Ok you believe in God....that's as far as you can take it.
You have no proof that some god personage actually exists or created anything.....it's just what you happen to believe. Believing in something does not make it true.

You see Sir, this is the difference between believers and non-believers!
You see with your eyes and hear with your ears > I see and hear with my heart and conscious!
It's very difficult to see or hear God with your senses!

My heart only pumps blood...yours must have special powers.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #114 on: April 12, 2017, 02:39:32 PM »
So apparently when objects aren't being held together by strong gravity, they're being pulled/pushed apart by space expansion.
So the Milky Way is held together by gravity, Andromeda is moving towards us because it and we're sufficiently close and massive to overcome space expansion, but every other galaxy is moving away from us and presumably one another and consequently producing redshifts.
Have we found any other way to measure this that'd corroborate it?
Yes. Unfortunately all distances involved are enormeous, so we can only work with the light we observe. There, to my knowledge, redshift is the only thing we can directly observe. We have run simulations with the current standard model though, and they work quite well.

Quote
The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, I heard the universe is clumping together a lot more than universal space expansion would predict.
I think what you mean is dark matter. This is a weird phenomenon, all evidence points to the conclusion that it exists, but somehow we have not yet observed it directly. The thing is that galaxies rotate too fast for their estimated mass, which leads to the conclusion that they consist of about 70% of unknown matter which does not emit light, hence called dark matter. If you want I can elaborate on that.
Quote
Also, what is the cosmological axis of evil?
Never heard of that, to be honest.
Quote
Additionally, like I said althou I'm leaning towards round earth over flat, I'm not leaning towards heliocentrism/acentrism over geocentrism, other than relying on Nasa and other government space agencies, it seems we peasants have no way, or at least no easy way, of verifying whether the earth is the center of the universe or not.
Perhaps everything is both revolving around us, and moving away from us.
Everything may also be a lot smaller and closer to us than they claim.
Okay, a few things you could do on your own without relying on NASA:
- Download stellarium (it is free). It is an open source software that computes for every location on earth the night sky. Implemented in that are the planets. They are calculated to follow their known orbits and their shown positions match the observed ones. In general, the movement of planets is one of the strongest arguments of heliocentrism.
- Compare a sidereal day to a solar day. A solar day is 24 hours, a sidereal day is 23 hours, 56 minutes. How you can measure that:
Mark a fixed spot somewhere and choose an arbitrary star (except polaris). Then mark the time when it sets behind the horizon (or a nearby house, a tree, does not matter). Do that 10 days later. The setting time should differ by 40 minutes.
These two experiments are definitely not trivial, but you can perform them yourself with very little equipment. They demonstrate that the earth revolves around the sun.

To prove that stars are really far away is a little more difficult (you will need a good telescope for that, and by good I mean really good, nothing under 1000€ will be enough). Point at alpha centauri. Note down its location. Then wait half a year, point at it again. It should have moved by about 2 arcseconds (which is very,very little, which is why you need a good telescope).
This I have never done myself, though.

Re: Questions about the Big Bang
« Reply #115 on: April 14, 2017, 02:56:53 PM »
So apparently when objects aren't being held together by strong gravity, they're being pulled/pushed apart by space expansion.
So the Milky Way is held together by gravity, Andromeda is moving towards us because it and we're sufficiently close and massive to overcome space expansion, but every other galaxy is moving away from us and presumably one another and consequently producing redshifts.
Have we found any other way to measure this that'd corroborate it?
Yes. Unfortunately all distances involved are enormeous, so we can only work with the light we observe. There, to my knowledge, redshift is the only thing we can directly observe. We have run simulations with the current standard model though, and they work quite well.

Quote
The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, I heard the universe is clumping together a lot more than universal space expansion would predict.
I think what you mean is dark matter. This is a weird phenomenon, all evidence points to the conclusion that it exists, but somehow we have not yet observed it directly. The thing is that galaxies rotate too fast for their estimated mass, which leads to the conclusion that they consist of about 70% of unknown matter which does not emit light, hence called dark matter. If you want I can elaborate on that.
Quote
Also, what is the cosmological axis of evil?
Never heard of that, to be honest.
Quote
Additionally, like I said althou I'm leaning towards round earth over flat, I'm not leaning towards heliocentrism/acentrism over geocentrism, other than relying on Nasa and other government space agencies, it seems we peasants have no way, or at least no easy way, of verifying whether the earth is the center of the universe or not.
Perhaps everything is both revolving around us, and moving away from us.
Everything may also be a lot smaller and closer to us than they claim.
Okay, a few things you could do on your own without relying on NASA:
- Download stellarium (it is free). It is an open source software that computes for every location on earth the night sky. Implemented in that are the planets. They are calculated to follow their known orbits and their shown positions match the observed ones. In general, the movement of planets is one of the strongest arguments of heliocentrism.
- Compare a sidereal day to a solar day. A solar day is 24 hours, a sidereal day is 23 hours, 56 minutes. How you can measure that:
Mark a fixed spot somewhere and choose an arbitrary star (except polaris). Then mark the time when it sets behind the horizon (or a nearby house, a tree, does not matter). Do that 10 days later. The setting time should differ by 40 minutes.
These two experiments are definitely not trivial, but you can perform them yourself with very little equipment. They demonstrate that the earth revolves around the sun.

To prove that stars are really far away is a little more difficult (you will need a good telescope for that, and by good I mean really good, nothing under 1000€ will be enough). Point at alpha centauri. Note down its location. Then wait half a year, point at it again. It should have moved by about 2 arcseconds (which is very,very little, which is why you need a good telescope).
This I have never done myself, though.

What you explained in your very good and measured post has been known for hundreds of years, but it appears that this basic verifiable knowledge about the movement of the stars has been rejected and ignored in favour of a fanciful belief. Why this is the case is a real mystery. Anyone with some time and the right weather conditions could conduct a series of experiments that could prove conclusively the earth is a sphere and travels around the sun.
Flat earthers unfortunatly shy away from this preferring instead to invent conspiracies and continue to claim hoax on anything that indicates the spherical nature of the earth.
Their loss....