Galactocentric velocities are plotted against distance in Fig. 17.3. It has slope
61.1±5.0 km s−1 and intercept −4.7±18.2 km s−1. This intercept is remarkably
small: Either the expansion of the Universe is centered on the nucleus of our Galaxy (!), or this is a manifestation of the anomalous quiescence of the local neighborhood, remarked on by Baryshev et al. (2001), and others. “Anomalous” is in relation to expectations from CDM N-body simulations, which predict order-of-magnitude higher velocity dispersions for Local Groups, with or without biasing (Governato
et al. 1997).
Since no site is referenced for this, I can’t even begin to check it. But the concept is incorrect.
Buffalo, this is a couple of occasions now where it
appears that you may be getting “buffaloed” by pseudo-science that masquerades as real science - perhaps somehow with the intent of tying in the existence of God.
I would offer you a couple of perspectives.
First, I believe - and I suspect that all Catholics believe - that God created us with free will. There is no scientific proof for this, but I believe it nonetheless. It fits with my experience and view of the world. There are some forms of evidence that justify this. For example, it is arguable that the “statistical freedom” apparent in Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Electrodynamics may be implicitly necessary for free will to exist. On a large scale, things appear deterministic. But on a small scale they are not. Chance enters the equation. It may well be that it is this lack of determinism on a small scale that provides the ability for us to have free will. IF a form of string theory further describes how the universe works, this underlying random cacophony may provide the further opportunity for free will.
That said, ALL that we know, as individuals, involves some amount of belief. I cannot know that whether or not this is all a dream. I cannot define exactly what reality is; My observation (especially at a quantum level) impacts the result.
On some level, I must accept reality on a basis of faith; some initial beliefs mus be treated as axioms of reality. After that, we can build a “system of reality.”
THAT said, for us to FREELY choose God, there must be an amount of faith involved. If there is a proof of God, then faith is removed, and our choice of God is less free. In fact, if there were a proof of God, NOT choosing Him would be a “litmus test for intelligence” as it were. We would be supreme fools NOT to choose Him.
I speculate that this may be how we primarily differ from the angels; they have a proof of God, we do not. (Again, this is a speculation only.)
My point is this. If this philosophy is correct (and it would seem to fit into most views of Christianity), THEN we can conclude that a proof of God is purposefully lacking within our universe. Science cannot prove Him, and NEVER will.
Gödel showed that for certain kinds of systems, it is possible to prove that not all true statements can be proven if the system is consistent (i.e. - non-contradictory). I believe (but cannot prove) that our universe falls into this category, and that God is true, but unprovable.
Therefore, looking for God in science always contains some folly. Trying to find science that conforms to God and so proves Him, like ID - is the height of folly in such a system.
This doesn’t mean that studying science is not theologically worth while. We can learn about an artist by studying the works he created. We can learn about the ultimate artist by studying His works as well.
For example, we can see that God is a God of rules. But NOT ad hoc rules, and generally not complex ones. (This is why Occam’s Razor works!) There may be many rules, but they generally appear to be reducable to a few key rules. We know today that in our universe there are 4 fundamental forces; we speculate that at higher temperatures (like those near the time of creation) that these turn into 3, then 2, then 1 force as the energy level increases. 1 force, one rule at its simplest level. We have shown that this is actually true when increasing temperatures - the “Weak nuclear force” and the “Electromagnetic force” DO combine to form the “electro-weak” force. Whethr this process will continue at higher energy levels we do not yet know.
I hope that this sharing helps you to see that such “proofs of God” are unnecessary, and that “speculations ARE speculations”, sometimes with some evidence, sometimes with very little.
But with what we know currently, listening someone regarding ID, for example, is not that different from associating with an astrologer.
There ARE legitimate areas of physics (that are a bit more speculative, but they don’t assume ad hoc hypotheses) that all physics is really about converting and exchanging information - that, in essence,
"the formulas are real, and that “reality is only” a manifestation of the formulas. Again, this is a speculation, and whether this will every be provable is a question; it may be that this perspective does nothing useful other than to give us another view of the universe.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I hope that the general flavor and context adds to discussions.
