Dark Energy

[rpp]

Was it a reputable scientist you were talking about here or was it a crackpot?

Actually it was a movement, mostly among theoretical physicists and cosmologists, that included luminaries like Stephen Hawking. They believe that they were on the verge of understanding all the laws of physics and that there would be nothing left to learn. They were trying to figure out how to transition from theoreticians to engineers.

Then Hubble, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and other new gear, started making some unexpected observations and they realized they knew quite a bit less than they thought they did.

Humility is a hard lesson to learn for all of us. More so when you have an IQ in the low 160’s.

 

[hecd2]

And it appears that some people who post here find it hard to believe that the hypothesis that they have their time and pride invested in (dark matter) might not actually be proven correct in the long run.

Time will tell. I’m open to it being the answer. I’m also open to it not being the answer.

Well isn’t that a bit rich coming from someone who claims that the evidence for dark matter is not evidence but speculation and who describes dark matter as a myth? And the support for his argument is what? A website run by a couple of cranks, neither of whom have ever done a stroke of scientific research themselves, one of whom has no scientific training at all, who are openly contemptuous of mathematics, and who claim the most ridiculously grandiose things for their ideas including a Theory of Everything, a classical explanation for quantum mechanics and a replacement for General Relativity, for which they have not the slightest empirical or theoretical justification. (CoG goes one step further and puts forward an incoherent and utterly different “theory” of his own.)

Whereas the most I have ever claimed is that there are multiple lines of good evidence for the existence of dark matter. And I have backed that up with several references to scientific papers written by a range of scientifically trained authors who have actually made (shock, horror) the detailed and painstaking experimental measurements that form the basis for their conclusions. Ricmat and CoG have claimed repeatedly that these papers do not constitute good evidence, but neither is prepared to discuss or critique the actual experimental methods, measured data and conclusions contained in them, or to put forward alternative explanations that quantitatively explain the observations described therein.

Whose position is more reasonable? Whose claim is more modest and tentative? On which primary sources would you most want to build your understanding of the universe?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Actually it was a movement, mostly among theoretical physicists and cosmologists, that included luminaries like Stephen Hawking. They believe that they were on the verge of understanding all the laws of physics and that there would be nothing left to learn. They were trying to figure out how to transition from theoreticians to engineers.

Then Hubble, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and other new gear, started making some unexpected observations and they realized they knew quite a bit less than they thought they did.

Humility is a hard lesson to learn for all of us. More so when you have an IQ in the low 160’s.

To be honest I think they were tongue-in-cheek. I don’t know anyone who actually thought that we were on the verge of understanding all the laws of physics, given the outstanding problems that existed then (and largely now), before we even had credible GUTs, when a TOE was even further away than it is now, and we had a baffling fine tuning problem, and an issue with apparently arbitrary fundamental constants below which we are having difficulty to probe, and incompatible theories under extreme scale and energy conditions, and a factor of 120 orders of magnitude between the expected and the measured vacuum energy, and no explanation for the source of inertia, or an agreed interpretation of QM, or an explanation for the influence of the universe on inertial frames or…I could go on.

At the end of “A Brief History of Time”, Hawkins writes: ‘However , if we do discover a complete theory , it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone , not just a few scientists. Then we shall all , philosophers , scientists , and just ordinary people , be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exits. If we find the answer to that , it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.’

I think it was designed to sell books (and by golly, it did), and I think it’s crass - but it starts with ‘IF we do discover a complete theory’, not ‘WHEN’.

Physicists might be proud of the accomplishments of physics and the ability of physicists, and are sometimes arrogant, but generally they know that what they don’t know is inconceivably vast and they welcome it. Who’d want to be a physicist, or any sort of scientist if there were nothing new to learn?

Alec
Proud to be proud.

 

[hecd2]

There was a paper by Setn and Hujanen which claims that the phase velocity near sinusoidally oscillating point dipoles exceeds the speed of light.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 56, 67–80, 2006
ASPECTS ON THE PHASE DELAY AND PHASE
VELOCITY IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC
NEAR-FIELD
J. C.-E. Sten and A. Hujanen
ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier56/05.0505121.Sten.H.pdf
Also, according to the Encyclopedia of laser physics and technology: “The phase velocity of light can be higher than c, e.g. for X-rays or near optical resonances of atoms. Even a simple mechanical model (e.g. a sequence of coupled pendulums) can exhibit a phase velocity above c. However, it is not possible to attach a real signal to such a phase front; signal transmission requires some kind of modulation.”
Several references are given there:
rp-photonics.com/superluminal_transmission.html

OK - thanks for this. There is much misconception around the differences between phase, group, information, and energy velocity.

It is true that phase velocity is theoretically unlimited, but the phase velocity of a quasimonochromatic EM wave in vacuo does not exceed c. Most ‘superliminal cases’ involve polychromatic propagation in anomalously dispersiv media and is it is the group velocity which is superluminal or negative - like in then paper I cited. I was unaware of this special case of a wave propagating from the near-field to the far-field of oscillating dipole. Thanks

In every case, as far as I know, the information or step front velocity propagates at less than c.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

Well isn’t that a bit rich coming from someone who claims that the evidence for dark matter is not evidence but speculation and who describes dark matter as a myth? And the support for his argument is what? A website run by a couple of cranks, neither of whom have ever done a stroke of scientific research themselves, one of whom has no scientific training at all, who are openly contemptuous of mathematics, and who claim the most ridiculously grandiose things for their ideas including a Theory of Everything, a classical explanation for quantum mechanics and a replacement for General Relativity, for which they have not the slightest empirical or theoretical justification. (CoG goes one step further and puts forward an incoherent and utterly different “theory” of his own.)

Whereas the most I have ever claimed is that there are multiple lines of good evidence for the existence of dark matter. And I have backed that up with several references to scientific papers written by a range of scientifically trained authors who have actually made (shock, horror) the detailed and painstaking experimental measurements that form the basis for their conclusions. Ricmat and CoG have claimed repeatedly that these papers do not constitute good evidence, but neither is prepared to discuss or critique the actual experimental methods, measured data and conclusions contained in them, or to put forward alternative explanations that quantitatively explain the observations described therein.

Whose position is more reasonable? Whose claim is more modest and tentative? On which primary sources would you most want to build your understanding of the universe?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Wow, I’ll bet you’re a lot of fun at cocktail parties

Let me guess. You’re young and work in academia. And like a lot of young academics you know everything. Enjoy it while you can, because it won’t last long.

God bless you, and those you love, and those who love you.

 

[CoG]

hecd2

(CoG goes one step further and puts forward an incoherent and utterly different “theory” of his own.)

Whereas the most I have ever claimed is that there are multiple lines of good evidence for the existence of dark matter. And I have backed that up with several references to scientific papers written by a range of scientifically trained authors who have actually made (shock, horror) the detailed and painstaking experimental measurements that form the basis for their conclusions. Ricmat and CoG have claimed repeatedly that these papers do not constitute good evidence, but neither is prepared to discuss or critique the actual experimental methods, measured data and conclusions contained in them, or to put forward alternative explanations that quantitatively explain the observations described therein.

Whose position is more reasonable? Whose claim is more modest and tentative? On which primary sources would you most want to build your understanding of the universe?

I think it would be better if you tried to understand my position before restating that position.

I have no problem with the observation or the experimental methods used or the data collected. I do take issue with the conclusion that there exists an invisible particle that behaves as mass and can not be seen on a local level.

This is the same type of conclusion that existed about the sun going around the earth. Both are based on one observation without consideration for the problems that such a conclusion causes. This is nothing more then popular science with a eye toward the public and to gain attention.

I have given a different mechanism for the same observation. You have had no desire to try and understand this idea. If you have found it incoherent why have you not tried to ask for clarification or questioned any part of the idea. Do you find the idea of other dimensions incoherent or the limitation of the speed of light. Maybe you find the idea of everything moving outward from the Big Bang incoherent. Again, what is incoherent to you.

The position that matches more observations is the most reasonable. Reality is not influenced by the stature of the person making the claim.

I am sorry that you find different ideas incoherent. If you have not noticed progress is only possible with different ideas. It is clear that the current ideas have stagnated or have resulted in fantasy science.

 

[bobzills]

In every case, as far as I know, the information or step front velocity propagates at less than c.

Yes. That agrees with what I know about it.

 

[CoG]

hecd2

No, it can’t. Tunneling, in physics, is a quantum process whereby a particle can penetrate an energy barrier that it cannot under any circumstances in classical mechanics. It has nothing to do with information being transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Here is some thought on the subject

www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/scientists+break+speed+of+light/681252
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php
arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

On superluminal tunneling
G. Nimtz
Progress in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 27, 417 (2003)
review article

Superluminal signaling by photonic tunneling
G. Nimtz
IEEE Journal of selected topics in quantum electronics Vol. 9, 79 (2003)
regular paper

Superluminal Tunneling Devices
G. Nimtz
The Physics of Communication, Proceedings of the XXII Solvay Conference on Physics
Delphi Lamia, Greece, 24 - 29 November 2001, World Scientific, New Jersey, p.339 (2003)
conference paper

The above, conclusions of the observation at this point is very much the same as the conclusion of the observations of what is called “Dark Matter”. The main difference for tunneling is the ability to do more tests to confirm the conclusion before a great deal of theory is based on it.

 

[cyberjacques]

Isn’t it ironic that “religious” people are accused of “inventing” a god to fill an obvious role that MUST exist but whom they cannot see, while physicists are criticized for inventing matter that MUST exist but THEY cannot see?

On the other hand, if the physicists can do it, how can they criticize the religious people?

While I agree with the basic premise jpusateri raises, I fail to see how the possible existence or non-existence of dark matter and energy has any impact whatsoever on the subject of God. This universe is complex and intricate in ways we are simply incapable of fully understanding. Every time we figure something out, we suddenly find ourselves faced with a million more questions. Personally, I like it that way, because it means we will never run out of things to explore. The universe is a pretty neat place, with lots of really cool stuff to learn! (insert geeky joy here)

God created a rational and logical universe. That’s why we have been able to discover all the things we have. We don’t yet know how that missing mass and energy fits into the equation. It may be dark matter, it may not be. Just because WE haven’t figured it out yet doesn’t mean anything. And I am baffled at how so many people allow the incompleteness of our knowledge to shake their faith. As if our lack of understanding somehow invalidates the existence of God.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2
Here is some thought on the subject

www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/scientists+break+speed+of+light/681252
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php
arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

On superluminal tunneling
G. Nimtz
Progress in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 27, 417 (2003)
review article

Superluminal signaling by photonic tunneling
G. Nimtz
IEEE Journal of selected topics in quantum electronics Vol. 9, 79 (2003)
regular paper

Superluminal Tunneling Devices
G. Nimtz
The Physics of Communication, Proceedings of the XXII Solvay Conference on Physics
Delphi Lamia, Greece, 24 - 29 November 2001, World Scientific, New Jersey, p.339 (2003)
conference paper

Thank you. Very interesting. I wasn’t aware of this line of work, so I retract what I said about quantum tunelling having nothing to do with speed of light considerations (bobzills also mentioned the superluminal phase velocity of evanescent waves but without referencing anything) However, I don’t see where any new theory is needed to explain these observations (any more than any theory is needed to explain the Wang et al work).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I have given a different mechanism for the same observation. You have had no desire to try and understand this idea. If you have found it incoherent why have you not tried to ask for clarification or questioned any part of the idea. Do you find the idea of other dimensions incoherent or the limitation of the speed of light. Maybe you find the idea of everything moving outward from the Big Bang incoherent. Again, what is incoherent to you.

The whole thing. All of it. The entire kit and caboodle. Every fundamental misunderstanding, every elementary error, every unsupported assertion, every logical inconsistency, every abuse of terms, every dimensionally unbalanced statement, every question begging assumption, every non-sequitur, separately and together, the whole vague hand-waving obfuscating vacuous hodgepodge.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Benadam]

Dark matter isn’t a manifestation of a higher power any more than any other created reality. The fact that there is so much of the universe that isn’t like what we know it forces science to redefine how they view the universe. instead of the traditional spacial way of conceiving the universe it is more precise to catorgorize it in terms that designate the observable as rare and noble since it comprises so little of the universe. The discovery of dark energy leads science to view observable matter and especially living matter as the center of the universe.

 

[wildleafblower]

A friend called me yesterday evening to suggest I recommend DESY-Library which posts a list of weekly accessions from Journals and Proceedings that cover:
Astrophysics
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
High Energy Physics - Experiment
High Energy Physics - Lattice
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
High Energy Physics - Theory
General Theoretical Physics
Mathematics and Mathematical Physics
Nuclear Experiment
Nuclear Theory
Other Fields of Physics
Computer Science
Instrumentation
Accelerators

www-library.desy.de/lists/preps/journal-current.html
http://www-library.desy.de/lists/preps/journal-current.html

 

[wildleafblower]

Dark matter and dark energy are quite different things.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

Yes, though at this moment in time, I can laugh out loud that you can’t have one without the other! A tidbit of information about dark matter and dark energy that I dug up for those admirers of cosmology.

Cosmology with Clusters
Dark Energy Constraints from Absolute Cluster Distances
*It is now clear that relaxed, simple clusters of galaxies can be used as “standard candles” (Allen et al. 2004) for relative distances using the observationally-verified prediction that the baryonic fraction of the cluster mass in rich clusters is independent of redshift. X-ray observations are crucial since ~90% of all the baryons are in the hot X-ray-emitting gas. The transformation from the observed X-ray temperature and surface brightness to gas mass depends on the absolute distance of the cluster, so its measure as a function of the constant baryonic mass fraction over redshift gives strong constraints on the amount and evolution of dark energy. *constellation.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/science_goals/cosmology/clusters/absolute_distances.html
http://constellation.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/science_goals/cosmology/clusters/absolute_distances.html

Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter May 15, 2007

*Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter that formed long ago during a titanic collision between two massive galaxy clusters.

The ring’s discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds together galaxy clusters. Such clusters would fly apart if they relied only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers don’t know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a type of elementary particle that pervades the universe.

“This is the first time we have detected dark matter as having a unique structure that is different from both the gas and galaxies in the cluster,” said astronomer M. James Jee of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md., a member of the team that spotted the dark-matter ring.

The researchers spotted the ring unexpectedly while they were mapping the distribution of dark matter within the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 (ZwCl 0024+1652), located 5 billion light-years from Earth. The ring measures 2.6 million light-years across. Although astronomers cannot see dark matter, they can infer its existence in galaxy clusters by observing how its gravity bends the light of more distant background galaxies.

“Although the invisible matter has been found before in other galaxy clusters, it has never been detected to be so largely separated from the hot gas and the galaxies that make up galaxy clusters,” Jee said. “By seeing a dark-matter structure that is not traced by galaxies and hot gas, we can study how it behaves differently from normal matter.” [snip]*
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/17/full/

https://hubblesite.org/news/news-releases

There’s an awesome image of dark matter that can be enlarged from that hubblesite url. It’s always fun to take time to explore the universe from your chair while at the same time quickly gaze out your window knowing that things happen at a distance that can spark great joy within my mind something like that wisdom tooth with curly roots tickled the mind of the oral surgeon. WOW! Life’s sweet.

 

[CoG]

hecd2

The whole thing. All of it.

That is very good. I will start to explain from the dividing point, the Big Bang.

At this point, nothing in science can make any rational statement about the condition before the Big Bang.

After the Big Bang, there is physical evidence that some type of dimensional structure or framework exists and that all that exists in the universe is the result of the Big Bang.

At some period of time, about 13 to 15 billion years ago the universe was much smaller then it is now. The change in size of the universe, no matter the mechanism, required a transition of some sort.

The accepted theory presented today, by main stream science, claims that the observations of the expanding universe are the expansion of space itself. This idea solves the problem of the observation of receding distant objects as seen by redshift. The receding of distant objects appears to the observer that all objects are moving away from him and that he is the center of the expansion.

The second view not accepted at this point is that all objects are moving outward from a center in a fixed space.

Both of these ideas will produce the same observation of distant objects.

I will pause at this point to let you insult me before I go on and to express any disagreement you may have.

 

[wildleafblower]

**The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2006 **is awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for their discovery of the basic form of the cosmic microwave background radiation as well as its small variations in different directions. The very detailed observations that the Laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science.
*[snip]
The blackbody origin of the Universe
According to the Big Bang-scenario, our Universe developed from a state of intense heat. There are as yet no well-established theories about this primordial condition of the Universe, but immediately afterwards it appears to have been filled with an incredibly intensive radiation. Radiation emitted by such a glowing “body” is distributed between different wavelengths
(light colours) in a specific manner, where the shape of the spectrum depends only on the temperature. Without knowing anything about the radiation apart from its temperature it
is possible to predict exactly what the spectrum is going to look like. The somewhat contradictory term used to describe this kind of radiation is blackbody radiation. Spectra like these can also be created in a lab, and the German Max Planck – who received the Nobel Prize in Physics for 9 8 – was the first to describe their particular shape. Our own sun is in fact a “blackbody”, even though its spectrum is less perfect than that of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

According to the Big Bang scenario, the background radiation gradually cools down as the Universe expands. The original black body shape of the spectrum has however been conserved. At the time when the radiation was emitted, the chaotic mass which was then our Universe was still very hot, around 3000 degrees. The background radiation we measure today has however cooled down significantly, now corresponding to radiation emitted by a body with a temperature of only 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. This means the wavelengths of the radiation have increased (a rule of thumb for blackbody radiation is that the lower the temperature, the longer the wavelength). That is why the background radiation is now found in the microwave area (visible light has much shorter wavelengths).
[snip]*

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/info.pdf

The pdf provides information regarding Dark Energy.

 

[wildleafblower]

I hope it is alright for me to post this. I was thinking about turtles and my fondness of them while searching for information about cosmology. Low and behold in my favorite month of October I came upon this little, delightful tidbit with a spark of humor and wanted to share it.

*In 1973, Stephen Hawking theorized that turtles play a major role in cosmology. His proposed model, “Turtles All the Way Down”, combined an infinite stack of turtles with the principles of general relativity. Unfortunately, this theory had to be scrapped because it turned out to be totally inconsistent with godless evolutionism and the laws of quantum cheddardynamics. *
wiki.amxmodx.org/Turtle
http://wiki.amxmodx.org/Turtle

Silent blessings:heaven:

 

[CoG]

Wildleafblower;
I like your post about turtles. I don’t think some people have changed very much throughout the ages. Much of the thinking in science without God is like an infinite stack of turtles. Science is based on the search for truth and all truth must have a basis in God.

As the world population becomes more educated the Church needs to promote the Catholic view, this is especially true in the sciences. The sciences have been taken over by the anti-God supporters and every discovery is turned or promoted against God. We have seen this in evolution and Relativity. These were and are being promoted as proof against God, when nothing could be further from the truth. Another anti God method used is complication and denial of reality. It is popular to deny the need for reason and logic. Examples of this are quantum mechanics and string theory.

People like heck2 turn to work on problems without an understanding of the basics. Much is accepted that is not true and not even questioned. You notice he is not willing to discuss the basic question of the nature of the universe. He is working in the trees and can not see the forest.

He has accepted that space itself is expanding and will not even listen to any argument that shows that it can not be true.

This attitude is the rule in the sciences. It has become a society of the elite pride and big business. Titles are more important then truth. Maybe it has always been so, thinking about the history of science. Knowledge is a danger to all of us. After all this was the first sin, pride. For some reason people think their knowledge and skills are of their own doing. All things especially knowledge is a gift from God and has very little to do with us. Science should humble us as we discover what we did not know and think how much we still do not know. It gives me great joy to see how God made things. The method is perfect engineering. It also makes me sad that we do not seem able to discuss with each other what God has enabled us to see of his creation. I do not understand the hate of different ideas.

Thank you for your posts. I count them as a positive.

Your post on background radiation is as I also understand it. That understanding does leave a question of the nature of the cooling. The increasing wave length from the Big Bang indicates that wavelength changes with the amount of time a wave has existed and is not due to any spatial motion. If this is true then we may try to apply the same mechanism to redshift of light from distant objects.

As I pointed out wavelength expansion of space itself could produce this effect but the problem with the expansion of space is that it is not observed to be universal. There is no local effect that shows that the distance between objects is change in the solar system or even in galaxies. In fact the observation of what is called dark matter is holding galaxies together when they should fly apart. If space itself is expanding then the stars of galaxies should be moving apart. This concept would also require the speed of light to change between distant objects. The problems created go on without end.

This is the reason for a look at some other mechanism for redshift and CMB.

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower;
I like your post about turtles. I don’t think some people have changed very much throughout the ages. Much of the thinking in science without God is like an infinite stack of turtles. Science is based on the search for truth and all truth must have a basis in God.

As the world population becomes more educated the Church needs to promote the Catholic view, this is especially true in the sciences. The sciences have been taken over by the anti-God supporters and every discovery is turned or promoted against God. We have seen this in evolution and Relativity. These were and are being promoted as proof against God, when nothing could be further from the truth. Another anti God method used is complication and denial of reality. It is popular to deny the need for reason and logic. Examples of this are quantum mechanics and string theory.

People like heck2 turn to work on problems without an understanding of the basics. Much is accepted that is not true and not even questioned. You notice he is not willing to discuss the basic question of the nature of the universe. He is working in the trees and can not see the forest.

He has accepted that space itself is expanding and will not even listen to any argument that shows that it can not be true.

This attitude is the rule in the sciences. It has become a society of the elite pride and big business. Titles are more important then truth. Maybe it has always been so, thinking about the history of science. Knowledge is a danger to all of us. After all this was the first sin, pride. For some reason people think their knowledge and skills are of their own doing. All things especially knowledge is a gift from God and has very little to do with us. Science should humble us as we discover what we did not know and think how much we still do not know. It gives me great joy to see how God made things. The method is perfect engineering. It also makes me sad that we do not seem able to discuss with each other what God has enabled us to see of his creation. I do not understand the hate of different ideas.

Thank you for your posts. I count them as a positive.

Your post on background radiation is as I also understand it. That understanding does leave a question of the nature of the cooling. The increasing wave length from the Big Bang indicates that wavelength changes with the amount of time a wave has existed and is not due to any spatial motion. If this is true then we may try to apply the same mechanism to redshift of light from distant objects.

As I pointed out wavelength expansion of space itself could produce this effect but the problem with the expansion of space is that it is not observed to be universal. There is no local effect that shows that the distance between objects is change in the solar system or even in galaxies. In fact the observation of what is called dark matter is holding galaxies together when they should fly apart. If space itself is expanding then the stars of galaxies should be moving apart. This concept would also require the speed of light to change between distant objects. The problems created go on without end.

This is the reason for a look at some other mechanism for redshift and CMB.

CoG, thank you. I was doing a scientific experient. The turtle tidbit that I presented was bait! An example of how people will take the bait on the most ridicules myths. You have given me evidence this is true by the nonsense within your post. It’s apparent you don’t understand cosmology or the scientific material I’ve presented nor do you understand what Alec (hecd2 the scientist) has been attempting to explain to you over and over again!

 

[CoG]

CoG, thank you. I was doing a scientific experiment. The turtle tidbit that I presented was bait! An example of how people will take the bait on the most ridicules myths. You have given me evidence this is true by the nonsense within your post. It’s apparent you don’t understand cosmology or the scientific material I’ve presented nor do you understand what Alec (hecd2 the scientist) has been attempting to explain to you over and over again!

You are a very strange person. You need to explain how the old story of the universe where the world rides on the back of a turtle is bait. As I pointed out the beliefs that are held today are just about as stupid.

Why do you think that pointing out the problems with a belief is evidence of nonsense. All you need do is show where my thoughts are wrong and answer how space varies in metric from location to location. You are just like most people that go irrational when their belief is questioned. It is clear that hecd2 has no answers and has chosen to disappear.

I am also not clear what you think I do not understand about current theory. It is my understanding that allows me to question the basis for current theory. If you started doing that you would be surprised at how many wrong assumptions there are out there.

As I also pointed out there is a great need for Catholics to be educated in true science. I think you and hecd2 are perfect examples of that need. Stop accepting theories without questioning and don’t let pride or emotion run you life.