B
buffalo
Guest
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?
One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.
"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.” https://www.space.com/5912-live-giant-cosmic-bubble.html
One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.
"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.” https://www.space.com/5912-live-giant-cosmic-bubble.html
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican
The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm
Today’s cosmology is based on two broad principles: The Copernican Principle (we are not in a special place in the universe) and the Cosmological Principle (The Copernican Principle, plus isotropy- the view from anywhere in the universe looks about the same). Starting with early studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and in recent years culminating with results from the COBE then the WMAP satellites, scientists were faced with a signal at the largest scales of the universe- a signal that pointed right back at us, indicating that we are in a special place in the universe.
Other observations have independently validated the “axis of evil” in recent years, and this adds credibility to the CMB observations. These observations include galaxy rotation alignments to our tiny part of the universe . Very recent reports include observations of alignment between “sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies” and “a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP)”. Also anisotropy of cosmic acceleration in Union2 Type Ia supernova appear to be aligning with the CMB features. All this supports the contention that the Copernican Principle (and cosmological) have effectively been invalidated without even discussing the quantization of various astronomical features about us, which further support the contention.
medium.com
The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm
Today’s cosmology is based on two broad principles: The Copernican Principle (we are not in a special place in the universe) and the Cosmological Principle (The Copernican Principle, plus isotropy- the view from anywhere in the universe looks about the same). Starting with early studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and in recent years culminating with results from the COBE then the WMAP satellites, scientists were faced with a signal at the largest scales of the universe- a signal that pointed right back at us, indicating that we are in a special place in the universe.
Other observations have independently validated the “axis of evil” in recent years, and this adds credibility to the CMB observations. These observations include galaxy rotation alignments to our tiny part of the universe . Very recent reports include observations of alignment between “sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies” and “a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP)”. Also anisotropy of cosmic acceleration in Union2 Type Ia supernova appear to be aligning with the CMB features. All this supports the contention that the Copernican Principle (and cosmological) have effectively been invalidated without even discussing the quantization of various astronomical features about us, which further support the contention.
Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican
The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm
medium.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All
But the average age of these planets—well above Earth’s age—and their typical locations—in galaxies vastly unlike the Milky Way—just might turn the Copernican principle on its head.
But the average age of these planets—well above Earth’s age—and their typical locations—in galaxies vastly unlike the Milky Way—just might turn the Copernican principle on its head.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your inability to explain what it means for the earth to move shows that you don’t understand any of what you are posting and are just relying on your hand-picked “authorities” to say what you long to hear.
B
buffalo
Guest
,
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Have I said something factually incorrect? Did the Bible writers have a formal education, in science or in anything else?
Why didn’t the Bible mention modern pharmaceuticals that could have saved many lives? Is it because 1) God wants people to suffer and die; 2) those ancient writers didn’t know about modern pharmaceuticals?
Why didn’t the Bible mention animal species from the Arctic, or from the Americas? Why, in fact, didn’t it mention anything outside the direct or communicated experience of the writers of the Bible?
Look, I’m not trying to undermine the value or importance of the Bible. But it’s clear that it wasn’t a revelation of scientific knowledge given directly to mankind from God. It’s clear that the Bible is written by people, inspired by God or not, and is subject to their limitations.
Put it this way-- look around, and ask yourself which is true: 1) everything in the world today, including the development of science and the acceptance of evolution by the Catholic church, is part of God’s plan; 2) God doesn’t want any of this so-called “progress,” and he wants us not to dig up fossils and draw logical inferences from their similarities and differences over time.
It seems to me that greater understanding must be a gift from God, and that refusing to observe, to think, or to discuss our observations and thoughts must be likened to an insistence that God is dead-- that He existed a few thousand years ago, but no longer works in our lives today.
Why didn’t the Bible mention modern pharmaceuticals that could have saved many lives? Is it because 1) God wants people to suffer and die; 2) those ancient writers didn’t know about modern pharmaceuticals?
Why didn’t the Bible mention animal species from the Arctic, or from the Americas? Why, in fact, didn’t it mention anything outside the direct or communicated experience of the writers of the Bible?
Look, I’m not trying to undermine the value or importance of the Bible. But it’s clear that it wasn’t a revelation of scientific knowledge given directly to mankind from God. It’s clear that the Bible is written by people, inspired by God or not, and is subject to their limitations.
Put it this way-- look around, and ask yourself which is true: 1) everything in the world today, including the development of science and the acceptance of evolution by the Catholic church, is part of God’s plan; 2) God doesn’t want any of this so-called “progress,” and he wants us not to dig up fossils and draw logical inferences from their similarities and differences over time.
It seems to me that greater understanding must be a gift from God, and that refusing to observe, to think, or to discuss our observations and thoughts must be likened to an insistence that God is dead-- that He existed a few thousand years ago, but no longer works in our lives today.
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for the references. Are they from here by any chance? That site came up when I searched on your references.
Two are dated, 1913 and 1925. As far as astronomy and cosmology and relativity are concerned, that is ancient history. Your reference should have told you that, if they omitted it then they lied by omission. Since those dates, relativity has been confirmed by numerous observations and experiments. Black Holes, and the time dilation between earth and an orbiting satellite for example, neither of which were known in 1925.
The classic is “Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35”. The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London has been published since 1804. Volume 20 was published in 1871. 1871! Did your source lie by omission there as well? A brief look at Airey’s Wikipedia article shows that Airey failed to detect the luminiferous ether, confirming relativity.
You are being taken for a fool here by your sources here, buffalo. They are relying on you not knowing or not checking the data behind their claims.
As to not being taught, I remember being taught Airey’s experiment as one of a number leading up to the Michaelson-Morley experiment which showed that there was no luminiferous ether.
rossum
Two are dated, 1913 and 1925. As far as astronomy and cosmology and relativity are concerned, that is ancient history. Your reference should have told you that, if they omitted it then they lied by omission. Since those dates, relativity has been confirmed by numerous observations and experiments. Black Holes, and the time dilation between earth and an orbiting satellite for example, neither of which were known in 1925.
The classic is “Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35”. The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London has been published since 1804. Volume 20 was published in 1871. 1871! Did your source lie by omission there as well? A brief look at Airey’s Wikipedia article shows that Airey failed to detect the luminiferous ether, confirming relativity.
You are being taken for a fool here by your sources here, buffalo. They are relying on you not knowing or not checking the data behind their claims.
As to not being taught, I remember being taught Airey’s experiment as one of a number leading up to the Michaelson-Morley experiment which showed that there was no luminiferous ether.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
This seems like a good place to post something I have on my hard drive:
Why the Bible is not a science textbook
FADE IN:
SCENE: Inside a tent in the desert. There is a small table and chair in the middle of the tent. Some baggage is stacked at the back.
Characters: GOD invisible and omnipresent. MOSES offstage.
MOSES enters the tent.
MOSES: “What a day! If I ever see another grain of sand I swear that I am goi…”
GOD: “Moses!”
MOSES: (surprised) “Yes Lord!”
GOD: “Get pen, ink and papyrus.”
MOSES goes to the baggage and fetches a pen, ink and papyrus. He takes them to the table and sits down.
GOD: “Begin writing.”
MOSES: “Yes Lord.”
GOD: “In the beginning I created a quantum fluctuation at the hyper-sub-quark level …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord. Was that spelled K-W-A-H-K?”
GOD: “Hmmm. I foresee a problem. Humans will not discover hyper-sub-quarks for another 8,726 years three months and sixteen days. Perhaps something less cosmological might work better. Moses, begin a new sheet of papyrus.”
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created deoxyribonucleic acid …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord, but could you spell that please?”
GOD: “Oy vey! Why did I make these people so dumb?”
GOD touches a finger to Moses’ forehead.
MOSES: “Ah, now I understand. Thank you for giving me all that knowledge Lord. Unfortunately I see a problem. If I write ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’ then none of the other Israelites will know what the he… heck I have written about unless you touch all their foreheads as well.”
GOD: “Hmmm. A good point Moses. Let me think about it for a few thousand years.”
MOSES: “But what do I do while I am waiting?”
GOD: “Never mind, I have finished thinking.”
MOSES: “That was never thousands of years.”
GOD: “Do you doubt Me! Time is Mine to command. It is subject to Me, not Me to it.”
MOSES: (humbly) “Sorry Lord.”
GOD: “Start a new piece of papyrus.”
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth …”
FADE OUT:
rossum
Why the Bible is not a science textbook
FADE IN:
SCENE: Inside a tent in the desert. There is a small table and chair in the middle of the tent. Some baggage is stacked at the back.
Characters: GOD invisible and omnipresent. MOSES offstage.
MOSES enters the tent.
MOSES: “What a day! If I ever see another grain of sand I swear that I am goi…”
GOD: “Moses!”
MOSES: (surprised) “Yes Lord!”
GOD: “Get pen, ink and papyrus.”
MOSES goes to the baggage and fetches a pen, ink and papyrus. He takes them to the table and sits down.
GOD: “Begin writing.”
MOSES: “Yes Lord.”
GOD: “In the beginning I created a quantum fluctuation at the hyper-sub-quark level …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord. Was that spelled K-W-A-H-K?”
GOD: “Hmmm. I foresee a problem. Humans will not discover hyper-sub-quarks for another 8,726 years three months and sixteen days. Perhaps something less cosmological might work better. Moses, begin a new sheet of papyrus.”
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created deoxyribonucleic acid …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord, but could you spell that please?”
GOD: “Oy vey! Why did I make these people so dumb?”
GOD touches a finger to Moses’ forehead.
MOSES: “Ah, now I understand. Thank you for giving me all that knowledge Lord. Unfortunately I see a problem. If I write ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’ then none of the other Israelites will know what the he… heck I have written about unless you touch all their foreheads as well.”
GOD: “Hmmm. A good point Moses. Let me think about it for a few thousand years.”
MOSES: “But what do I do while I am waiting?”
GOD: “Never mind, I have finished thinking.”
MOSES: “That was never thousands of years.”
GOD: “Do you doubt Me! Time is Mine to command. It is subject to Me, not Me to it.”
MOSES: (humbly) “Sorry Lord.”
GOD: “Start a new piece of papyrus.”
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth …”
FADE OUT:
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Look beyond wikipedia. It is not reliable. You asked for the originals and I gave them to you. You didn’t trust me?
An experiment is an experiment no matter the age. This is the time period when this was all going down. Einstein did the rescue with special relativity and his cosmological constant fudge factor.
Ommission? That is what they did by reporting the null result.
It is called Airey’s failure because they were trying to disprove the aether. The experiment showed the earth to be motionless.
This works both ways: You are being taken for a fool here by your sources here, rossum. They are relying on you not knowing or not checking the data behind their math claims.
Math vs experiment? Hmmm. Empirical science is all about observable, repeatable and predictable. Math claims do not meet the test.
And now we have the “axis of evil” and dipole crossing at the earth. X marks the spot.
The pattern of avoidance shows up in cosmologu and biology. It has to be, since they cannot admit God. He just keeps showing up though despite your best efforts.
An experiment is an experiment no matter the age. This is the time period when this was all going down. Einstein did the rescue with special relativity and his cosmological constant fudge factor.
Ommission? That is what they did by reporting the null result.
It is called Airey’s failure because they were trying to disprove the aether. The experiment showed the earth to be motionless.
This works both ways: You are being taken for a fool here by your sources here, rossum. They are relying on you not knowing or not checking the data behind their math claims.
Math vs experiment? Hmmm. Empirical science is all about observable, repeatable and predictable. Math claims do not meet the test.
And now we have the “axis of evil” and dipole crossing at the earth. X marks the spot.
The pattern of avoidance shows up in cosmologu and biology. It has to be, since they cannot admit God. He just keeps showing up though despite your best efforts.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
You are right. It is not a science textbook.
It is truth, and where faith and reason intersect both have to be true.
Look at it more as a macro record of events and you will be better off.
It is truth, and where faith and reason intersect both have to be true.
Look at it more as a macro record of events and you will be better off.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
You have a big problem if you don’t agree with Special Relativity. SR includes the equation E = mc2, so you have problem of explaining where the energy in nuclear reactors and the sun comes from, as well as what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Airey’s experiment showed that the earth did not move relative to the aether. That experiment was not capable of detecting absolute motion, just relative motion. Zero motion was detected. That was one of the signs that the theory of the aether was wrong.
rossum
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
??? They measured starlight.
Your claim is special relativity is not without its challenges? I disagree.
An animated explanation of “Airy’s Failure” experiment.
and a shot at wikipedia…
Your claim is special relativity is not without its challenges? I disagree.
An animated explanation of “Airy’s Failure” experiment.
and a shot at wikipedia…
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. You may be unconsciously giving yourself advice in the last paragraph.
Understanding, like knowledge, wisdom and counsel are intellectual gifts of the Holy Spirit. If the Truth is more widely accessible today than it was 3,000 years ago, it is by virtue of Christ’s having established His Church, which allows us to individually come together in and through Him, to ultimately enter into communion with God. The ultimate Reality - Love is immediately available to all of us regardless of intellectual level or degree of worldly knowledge.
While science reveals the wonders of creation as a testimony to God’s glory, and can offer us new ways to demonstrate our love for one another, the sad fact is that the last century has tilted in the other direction. Our knowledge of the world has been used to find more effect ways to kill one another, as an opiate to distract ourselves from confronting the realities of life, and as we see in the standard theory of evolution, reflected in your posts, an illusion which replaces a connection with the Divine - Reality itself.
For Catholic apologists of Darwinism, I would ask where in random physical activity and natural selection do you see God’s glory revealed? Where it does happen is in the data, the reality of nature in its infinite grandness and diversity, but not at all in that simplistic distortion of how this all works.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Michelson-Gale Experiment explained
B
benjamin1973
Guest
What’s with all the talk about love in a thread about evolution? Seems like a diversion to me.
What I’m trying to say is pretty clear, methinks: the Bible was written by people who had limited scientific knowledge, and as a source of the material truth of the Universe around us, is not a particularly good source. If the Bible was intended by God to be a science text, then the quality of the science in the Bible would have been infinitely better than it is.
In discussions of free will, it is said that God knows if I will go to Heaven or to Hell, as well as all the days and steps of every person. I assume that goes for animals too: every caught deer, every starving pup, every overheated monkey, every fiber of the fur or feathers of everything that ever lived, or will.
To ask “where in all this does God fit in?” is, to me, not a demand for faith, but a confession of its lacking in the self. God surely fits in everywhere, all the time, right down to the resolution of quantum superpositional states and all the way up to the outer reaches of the Universe.
To think that all of that will be best summarized by a few paragraphs in a stone tablet or a piece of papyrus, when God is speaking all around us in everything we can observe, in everything we think and do, is a pretty sad perspective in my opinion.
This is why I declare as agnostic, by the way: in my early 20s, when I was very keen on my developing religious identity, I was very disappointed by the shortsighted and closed-minded adherence to the word of man that I saw in so many religious people. To think that you can know all that matters from a few hundred pages of text is to minimize God to such a degree that there’s really no point in trying to learn anything about the Universe.
If this is so, then-- what are we doing here other than patting ourselves on the back and waiting to die?
What I’m trying to say is pretty clear, methinks: the Bible was written by people who had limited scientific knowledge, and as a source of the material truth of the Universe around us, is not a particularly good source. If the Bible was intended by God to be a science text, then the quality of the science in the Bible would have been infinitely better than it is.
In discussions of free will, it is said that God knows if I will go to Heaven or to Hell, as well as all the days and steps of every person. I assume that goes for animals too: every caught deer, every starving pup, every overheated monkey, every fiber of the fur or feathers of everything that ever lived, or will.
To ask “where in all this does God fit in?” is, to me, not a demand for faith, but a confession of its lacking in the self. God surely fits in everywhere, all the time, right down to the resolution of quantum superpositional states and all the way up to the outer reaches of the Universe.
To think that all of that will be best summarized by a few paragraphs in a stone tablet or a piece of papyrus, when God is speaking all around us in everything we can observe, in everything we think and do, is a pretty sad perspective in my opinion.
This is why I declare as agnostic, by the way: in my early 20s, when I was very keen on my developing religious identity, I was very disappointed by the shortsighted and closed-minded adherence to the word of man that I saw in so many religious people. To think that you can know all that matters from a few hundred pages of text is to minimize God to such a degree that there’s really no point in trying to learn anything about the Universe.
If this is so, then-- what are we doing here other than patting ourselves on the back and waiting to die?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
This guy explains the experiments well.
Sagnac’s experiment - an animated explanation
Sagnac’s experiment - an animated explanation
A
Aloysium
Guest
We are participating in the creation of our eternal self. To the degree that we give of ourselves for the good of the other, to that extent are we one with Christ, and know God in the doing.
We are relational creatures, a knower-knowing-known, healing our brokenness and becoming truly whole when we love, within ourselves, the world and with the Triune Godhead - Divine perfect Relationality.
That’s where evolutionary theory ultimately fails, in its inability to recognize life, the existence of new forms of being in a hierarchy, from the simplest prokaryote, to plants, animals and the crown of creation, mankind who brings all creation, this world which fell through our original sin, in Jesus Christ to its destiny into the Trinity.
There’s no greater purpose than to know what this is, and that road has many turns and dead-ends, chasing illusion. In the end it boils to acts of charity.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Mr. Bowden does not even understand Special Relativity, as he misquotes it seriously. As everyone knows who has studied relativity, it is based on the fact that light is always observed to travel at the same speed in any inertial frame of reference. The “frame of reference” used in the Sagnac experiment is not inertial, therefore the statement does not apply. This guy is a serious nut case.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You are still trying to confound a pretty simple issue with your religious views. There’s nothing about evolution which contradicts, or really is much relevant to, all the stuff you are going on about right now.
Evolution describes why things look and act the way they do. It has nothing to do with what it’s like to be a person, or a dinosaur or anything else. It can explain how living things might have developed the mechanisms to experience the world in certain ways, but does not explain why there is experience int he Universe rather than a lack of it.
That’s why I’m not atheist or big-S “Scientist.” There are plenty of questions that are not even approachable by science. i would argue, for example, that there is no good science of the mind, and that attempts to conflate physical correlates of mind (like brain function) are a philosophical dodge-- they cannot (i think, ever) explain why there is consciousness in a material Universe.
So that’s where we can agree. Where I cannot agree with you is that the huge numbers of fossils, genetic markers, behavioral comparisons, and so on, which clearly point to evolution as a source of the physical formations that exist in the world either in our age or in ages past, are wrong because Genesis says X and Y. I see that view as a little bit childish, to be honest. Much more likely is that Genesis is an account written by someone with an interest of God and a lack of good information about how life really formed and developed over many millions of years.
Evolution describes why things look and act the way they do. It has nothing to do with what it’s like to be a person, or a dinosaur or anything else. It can explain how living things might have developed the mechanisms to experience the world in certain ways, but does not explain why there is experience int he Universe rather than a lack of it.
That’s why I’m not atheist or big-S “Scientist.” There are plenty of questions that are not even approachable by science. i would argue, for example, that there is no good science of the mind, and that attempts to conflate physical correlates of mind (like brain function) are a philosophical dodge-- they cannot (i think, ever) explain why there is consciousness in a material Universe.
So that’s where we can agree. Where I cannot agree with you is that the huge numbers of fossils, genetic markers, behavioral comparisons, and so on, which clearly point to evolution as a source of the physical formations that exist in the world either in our age or in ages past, are wrong because Genesis says X and Y. I see that view as a little bit childish, to be honest. Much more likely is that Genesis is an account written by someone with an interest of God and a lack of good information about how life really formed and developed over many millions of years.
Last edited:
- Status