Hubble snaps the hand of God

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from maxpi:

I'm just pointing out that the assumptions could be completely wrong and we would therefore not have a single clue as to how far away most stars are. A good argument has to have two things 1) good assumptions and 2) good logic. If you don't learn to question and understand both you can't assess what you are being told.

Here's a question for you then: why is it that astronomers have made 1000's of Hubble constant calculations and they always find that as the distance to the object increases the acceleration from the earth always increases as well. I'm sure that you don't believe there's a grand conspiracy among all the research institutions across the globe, but what else are you suggesting could account for this?

There's another huge issue: why would scientists, who generally dislike the idea of the Big Bang, all willingly come up with Hubble Constant calculations that support the idea of the Big Bang? Obviously, they would only do this because of the unavoidable clarity of the results (and their integrity of course).

Do you think that most of these researchers were hoping to find that a finely tuned universe exploded from a central point in space and time? Of course not! Most deplore the idea. Look at past threads even on ET and you'll find most materialists dislike the Big Bang.

maxpi · Dec 8, 2003

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Here's a question for you then: why is it that astronomers have made 1000's of Hubble constant calculations and they always find that as the distance to the object increases the acceleration from the earth always increases as well.

Hubble constant calculations are made with the assumptions of doppler effect!!! Of course they agree.

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 9, 2003

Quote from maxpi:

Hubble constant calculations are made with the assumptions of doppler effect!!! Of course they agree.

You're losing me with this argument. As I'm sure you know, only the velocity component uses the doppler effect. The distance calculations have nothing to do with the red shift.

What you are suggesting, I think w/o realizing it, is that somehow researchers have colluded and somehow linearly assigned the distances to the corresponding red shifted object to which they desire. Of course, I cannot buy into this for many reasons and I don't think you do either. But, short of a vast conspiracy involving every major research lab on the planet, I can't imagine how the Hubble calculations could be incorrect.

Let me know if I'm still missing your point.

maxpi · Dec 9, 2003

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You're losing me with this argument. As I'm sure you know, only the velocity component uses the doppler effect. The distance calculations have nothing to do with the red shift.

What you are suggesting, I think w/o realizing it, is that somehow researchers have colluded and somehow linearly assigned the distances to the corresponding red shifted object to which they desire. Of course, I cannot buy into this for many reasons and I don't think you do either. But, short of a vast conspiracy involving every major research lab on the planet, I can't imagine how the Hubble calculations could be incorrect.

Let me know if I'm still missing your point.

Collusion, get out of here. Here is what they do. They go to Philosophy class, try to stay awake and they learn argumentation and they get their little grade and then they go to science class, are handed a plate of garbage every day based on circular reasoning and unquestioned assumptions and they don't apply what they learned in the Philosophy class. Let them be Quants if they must!!

I said that we do not really know in any real way how far away most of the stars are and the very first thing you did was attack me personally saying I thought all the scientists are conspiring, now it's collusion. Besides which it is a false argument to appeal to the majority opinion. There is no direct way to measure the distance to all but the closest stars, anything else is based on some assumptions that cannot be proven at this point in time.
There are other possibilities, stars further away could be colored differently!!!! Some stars, over history, have changed colors in ways that defy the commonly held beliefs.

All the people in the world that have investigated ONE side of an argument and have STRONGLY HELD opinions are just obstacles in the path to figuring things out.

Bolts · Dec 9, 2003

Maxpi, like I was trying to explain earlier, they don't just measure a change in color, they measure a shift in apsorption bands. Read up on spectroscopy, I can't explain it any better than that.

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 9, 2003

Quote from maxpi:

Collusion, get out of here. Here is what they do. They go to Philosophy class, try to stay awake and they learn argumentation and they get their little grade and then they go to science class, are handed a plate of garbage every day based on circular reasoning and unquestioned assumptions and they don't apply what they learned in the Philosophy class. Let them be Quants if they must!!

I said that we do not really know in any real way how far away most of the stars are and the very first thing you did was attack me personally saying I thought all the scientists are conspiring, now it's collusion. Besides which it is a false argument to appeal to the majority opinion. There is no direct way to measure the distance to all but the closest stars, anything else is based on some assumptions that cannot be proven at this point in time.
There are other possibilities, stars further away could be colored differently!!!! Some stars, over history, have changed colors in ways that defy the commonly held beliefs.

All the people in the world that have investigated ONE side of an argument and have STRONGLY HELD opinions are just obstacles in the path to figuring things out.

Actually, I tried to carefully say that you did NOT believe they colluded. I just used that as an example to show that I could not conceive of any other way that the distance calculations could match the red shift calculations so perfectly.

But you explained yourself and said that while you don't believe in collusion you do believe that the astrophysicists and cosmologists are essentially "brainwashed" by their education and therefore have subconsciously chosen distance data that supports their theories. At least I think that is what you are saying.

I of course don't agree with you in this case, because the calculations are in my mind so straightforward. I even think that the supernovae, Cepheid variable and other long distance calculations are actually fairly striaghtforward.

And, again, I think you're missing a key point here that I said earlier: materialistically biased cosmologists do NOT like the Big Bang. They would in general be looking for ANYTHING that would disprove it.

To me that states that the evidence is overwhelming for an expanding universe. Eddington, Einstein, Hoyle, Hawking have all vigorously resisted the idea/conclusions of the singularity. So I think your argument actually about a biased education actually argues the opposite of what you are saying...

But if I'm still missing what you're saying, lemme know...

Gordon Gekko · Dec 9, 2003

donate $ to NASA, not churches. :mad:

maxpi · Dec 9, 2003

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

you do believe that the astrophysicists and cosmologists are essentially "brainwashed" by their education and therefore have subconsciously chosen distance data that supports their theories. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Brainwashed.... Brainwashed...conjures up images of forced imprisonment, torture, etc.

I would say indoctrinated into a belief system at an early age and kept in a sleepy state. Does not the educational system start presenting the geologic column and whatnot as fact when we are children?? Here are things you can pull out of a textbook "The geologic column is calibrated by comparison to the strata" and in another paragraph "The strata is calibrated by comparison to the geologic column". If the term "calibration" means "comparison to a known standard" then there is no possible calibration of either the strata or the geologic column. None. Radiometric readings might do the trick but guess what?? When they don't agree with the strata or the geologic column they are thrown out!! To the tune of 80% of all readings!!And there are assumptions made in the science of radiometry that may be incorrect as well. That is not science, that is a belief system based on some assumptions. There is no calibration there, there is coordination in it's place. A clear and simple case of circular reasoning if ever.....

It's all about the assumptions and faulty reasoning.

ShoeshineBoy · Dec 9, 2003

Quote from maxpi:

Brainwashed.... Brainwashed...conjures up images of forced imprisonment, torture, etc.

I would say indoctrinated into a belief system at an early age and kept in a sleepy state. Does not the educational system start presenting the geologic column and whatnot as fact when we are children?? Here are things you can pull out of a textbook "The geologic column is calibrated by comparison to the strata" and in another paragraph "The strata is calibrated by comparison to the geologic column". If the term "calibration" means "comparison to a known standard" then there is no possible calibration of either the strata or the geologic column. None. Radiometric readings might do the trick but guess what?? When they don't agree with the strata or the geologic column they are thrown out!! To the tune of 80% of all readings!!And there are assumptions made in the science of radiometry that may be incorrect as well. That is not science, that is a belief system based on some assumptions. There is no calibration there, there is coordination in it's place. A clear and simple case of circular reasoning if ever.....

It's all about the assumptions and faulty reasoning.

Well, letâs assume just for a minute that they throw out a lot of measurements and there is significant circular evidence as you suggested. I still think youâre being too hard on the scientific community.

Let me give you just one (of many) common sense arguments that shows why cosmologists and geologist believe the universe to be several billion years old (per a previous thread):

âNeptunian has a half life of about 6 million years and yet it is completely absent from the universe. So we know the universe is at least 500 million years old. On the flip side, we see that we have Uranium. It's existence (I think it's half life is around 450 million years) means that the universe is less than say about 50 billion years.

This kind of reasoning holds true across the board for the 40+ radioactive elements found in nature (that aren't naturally produced). With simple logic and examination of the heavens we can peg the universe's age to not be incredibly young and yet not be incredly old either.â

The universe looks much older than just a few thousand years and this is just one of many examples. Scientists assume that it is naturally because of the evidences like the argument above.

Let me ask this question: why would God create a universe with dozens of radioactive isotopes that all show the universe to be right around 15 billion years old if it was really much younger?