Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Problem
compmage
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 119 of 185 (101592)
04-21-2004 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by desdamona
04-20-2004 8:51 PM


Re: the past in the sky?
desdamona writes:
I am not sure if I understand how the sky relates to the past?
I know the discussion has moved on a little but I think a relatively simple explanation would help you a lot here.
When you look at an object you don't 'see' the object itself, rather you see the light reflected off of that object (or, in the case of light sources, the light emitted by the object). When that light reaches you eye your brain will create an 'image' of what that object looked like when the light left that object. So if the light left the object 10 minutes ago, the image your mind creates will represent what that object looked like 10 minutes ago. The greater the distance between you and the object, the longer the light will take to reach you and the 'older' the image will be. If the light has to travel far enough (as with many stars), the object might not even exist anymore by the time you see the light from that object. What this boils down too is that the light reaching us now from distance stars and galaxies has been traveling for millions sometimes billions of years and show us a picture of what those stars and galazies looked like millions or billions of years ago.
I hope that makes things a little clearer.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by desdamona, posted 04-20-2004 8:51 PM desdamona has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 184 of 185 (180438)
01-25-2005 12:04 PM


Scientists, practice what you preach!
Well, well well, what do you know. It appears as if main stream cosmologists has forgotten the meaning of science, and is persuing .... a believe system.
Basically, the first law in the religion of astronomy, is that the dominant force at work in the universe is gravity. Unfortunatly, this believe fails to explain many things in the universe. The models which the "scientists" dreamed up, is falling apart due to new data. Every time we send a probe into space, cosmologists are "suprised" by the data, and is send back to the drawing board. But instead of reviewing their model, they keep inventing new stuff to make their model work:
"curved space", "neutron stars", "WIMPs" (and now "WIMPZILLAS"), "MACHOs", several different sizes of "black holes", "superluminal jets", "dark energy", and magnetic field "lines" that "pile-up" and "reconnect"
All of these are fictional things that "must be there" to make the model work. And then, after they "discovered" these things, they create new theories. Theories which are then presented to the public as unshakeble facts. The poor public buying "scientific" books, are actually reading science fiction.
I make these claims, not based on the Bible, but based on the findings of a small band of "rebel" scientists, of whose religious orientation is not known to me. You see, they study a field of science which cosmologists do not: Electrisism and plasmas. They have a much more simplistic model of the universe, one based on the scientific method. But don't take my word for this, I'm just the layman. Read for yourself : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm
In this model, PLASMA AND ELECTRICITY, NOT GRAVITY, IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FORCES IN THE UNIVERSE. There is no need for an expanding universe, a big bang, even an old universe. "Impact" craters are actually the result of electrical discharge. So is the Mariner Valley on Mars. Comets are actually young planets, and Venus was a comet only a view thousand years ago. READ THIS STUFF, IT IS REALLY FACINATING, CONVINCING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND!!! When these scientists presented their discoveries of the "scientific" establishment, they were cast out, because it destroy their model which they've attached religious devotion to. Science is no longer a search for the truth, but an effort to keep obsolute theories afloat, in order to save face.
Now the question. If the majority cosmologists can be so pig headed, so stubborn to see the obvious, so arrogantly sure of themselves, one can only wonder how much of this is happening in evolutionism as well. Like cosmology, evolusionist theories can not always be tested, but that doesn't stop "scientists" from passing these untested hipothesis as "SCIENTIFIC FACTS". For instance the idea that evolution happens incremental steps, not gradually. Ofcause, they've given this idea a important sounding name, and back it up with pseudo science. It is like the so called "Dark matter" which supposedly make up 95% of the universe. And if you disagree with this, the onus is on you to PROVE that something that isn't there, doesn't exist! How much "dark matter" exists in evolusionary theory? Why should we abandon our faith for unproven (even unprovable and disprovable) hipothesis?
Far too often scientists pass POSSIBLE explainations as FACTS, and then continue to invent more "FACTS" based on these so called "FACTS". In the end, I wonder if even they can still distinguish between science and science fiction.
This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-25-2005 12:08 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 01-25-2005 12:19 PM compmage has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024