Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MM showed the earth was stationary. Airey showed the earth stationary. Hubble evaded the obvious redshift implications by putting us on skin of a balloon. Sagnac ,too.

Einstein had to overcome this and why we have special relativity. General relativity allows for magnitudes higher speed of light.

Now we have the “axis of evil” and the dipole crossing at the earth. Not once, but three probes affirmed it.

Oh, what to do?

Lawrence Krauss commented in 2005:
“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”
 
Last edited:
Plenty of posters used that book in debates over and over as you do. Several years I have shown the counter point.
 
This is getting funner and funner:
buffalo said:
MM showed the earth was stationary. Airey showed the earth stationary.
Click to expand...
Stationary with respect to what? You don’t know what you are talking about if you can’t define your terms. Whenever anyone says something is moving or stationary it is always with respect to some frame of reference. How else can you demonstrate if something is moving or not?
Einstein had to overcome this…
Click to expand...
What Einstein overcame had nothing to do with the earth moving or being stationary. Your misunderstanding of relativity undercuts anything you might have to say about anything else scientific, including the subject of this thread.
Lawrence Krauss commented in 2005:
“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”
Click to expand...
Krauss said it was crazy. I believe he was right in saying that.

Krauss also wrote a book about the “physics” of Star Trek. In the comment you cited he is commenting on our fascination with alternate realities. He is not proposing a serious scientific theory. Read his book. Oh, wait, you don’t read books others suggest, do you?
 
Last edited:
Stationary with respect to the rest of the universe. I didn’t know I had to get that basic.

Yes, Einstein did not want to deal with the implications of a stationary earth.

Indeed, Krauss thought it crazy. So we will now spend billions of taxpayer dollars trying to disprove the CMB findings, for “we cannot let the divine foot in the door”.

Now the aether is back in vogue, although we do not call it that. The universe is made up of very tiny particles that are dense but flexible.

God is showing Himself over and over and they will fight it.
 
buffalo said:
Stationary with respect to the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...
That is an undefined frame of reference. The “rest of the universe” is not a single object, but is composed of many objects that move independently of each other. Which of those objects do you mean? The sun? The moon? Alpha Centauri? Or the turtle on whose back the flat earth is riding?
Yes, Einstein did not want to deal with the implications of a stationary earth.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not usually waste their time dealing with the implications of falsehoods.
 
Surely God constructed it to look like this? Its intelligent design, no? Its a species of shark. Sure it will never win a beauty contest but why should we judge. It is God’s design.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. There are many creatures that do not look beautiful to us. Even mosquitoes serve a purpose.
 
That wasn’t your opinion here.
buffalo said:
These creatures are from mutations gone bad.
Click to expand...
God does not purposely make things ugly. Its natural processes that do that. Genetics. That’s why there is a variety of differentiation.
 
The moving earth is a theory that is invalidated by experiments.

Once again, Einstein could not let that stand and for 100 years we have spent a lot trying to disprove a stationary earth.

On one side there are experiments - they show a stationary earth,
On the other side - theory

To avoid the implications of redshift the solution was to remove the center entirely.

In biology same thing. Jumping through hoops to avoid the truth. See the pattern?
 
Many creatures are from mutations gone bad. Some are not.

It would be interesting to see what the first creatures looked like in all their glory verses what we see now.
 
IWantGod said:
That wasn’t your opinion here.
40.png
buffalo:
These creatures are from mutations gone bad.
Click to expand...
God does not purposely make things ugly. Its natural processes that do that. Genetics. That’s why there is a variety of differentiation.
Click to expand...
Just as God created a hierarchy of Angels…he also created a hierarchy of animals.
 
Are you denying that natural processes involving our genes determine what we look like? Because if you are, then we have nothing more to talk about.
 
None of these are taught in university.

The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5)

“Airey’s failure” (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35)

The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3)
 
Aether returns to oust dark matter

Mainstream science is moving slowly and being dragged kicking and screaming into a belief of the ancient concept of aether; namely, a universal energy is the basis for all the natural forces we have discovered and studied as well as its manifestation as matter. I say “dragged” as they have been resisting the concept in the entire 20th century since the faulty Michaelson/Morley experiments could not find a significant aether drift close to the earth surface even though its existence was proven in many later experiments and stoutly ignored. If science wants to really make progress then the scientists in all areas of their endeavors must get into an understanding of the higher order aspects of aetheric energy. When they do they will never call it aether to keep from having too much egg on their faces but at least they will make some real progress. This chapter is to lightly touch on the history, the major advances already made in aether science, and to provide summary of new discoveries made that can potentially change the entire direction of our present civilization.

I deliberately use the spelling of aether with the “a” in front to distinguish it from the old anesthetic liquid name “ether”, plus the aether was originally spelled this way by some sources.

http://www.aethericscience.com/
 
Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of Calfornia, Davis, believes that this ether model is worth investigating further. “We’ve hit some really profound problems with cosmology Ð with dark matter and dark energy,” he says. “That tells us we have to rethink fundamental physics and try something new.”

Both Bekenstein and Albrecht say Starkman’s team must now carefully check whether the ether theory fits with the motions of planets within our solar system, which are known to a high degree of accuracy, and also explain what exactly this ether is. Ferreira agrees: "The onus is definitely on us to pin this theory down so it doesn’t look like yet another fantastical explanation," he says. 😀

However, physicists may be reluctant to resurrect any kind of ether because it contradicts special relativity by forming an absolute frame of reference . “Interestingly, this controversial aspect should make it easy to test for experimentally,” says Carroll.
 
buffalo said:
The moving earth is a theory that is invalidated by experiments.
Click to expand...
I see you still can’t explain what it means for the earth to be stationary.

Again, moving with respect to what? You said the “rest of the universe”. I pointed out that the rest of the universe is made up of parts that are all moving differently, so your frame of reference is not defined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top