+- CC Zone - Chip's Challenge Forum (https://forum.bitbusters.club)
+-- Forum: Non-Chip's Challenge (https://forum.bitbusters.club/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Poll Station (https://forum.bitbusters.club/forum-22.html)
+--- Thread: Are You Religious? (/thread-2278.html)
Are You Religious? - PB_guy - 11-Apr-2012
Dave, I believe you are referring to redshift in general, rather than doppler shift which is inconsequential.
Quote:a cosmological redshift measures the expansion of space between light source and observer while the light is inYou are probably unaware of the research of secular scientist Halton Arp who has published 2 books on the subject:
transit; fundamentally it has nothing to do with velocity. If the expansion is smooth in time, such a redshift is proportional
to velocity; individual galaxy motions (e.g. due to orbiting in the gravitational field of a group of galaxies) will add a
positive or negative Doppler shift.
"Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987)" and "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (1999)"
There is a review on them from a creationist viewpoint: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n3/universe
Some quotes from the review:
Quote:In these two books, Halton Arp elaborates his contention that since 1966,
observations have been accumulating which contradict the generally accepted big bang cosmology. The key issue is the
interpretation of redshift, the fractional increase in the wavelengths of lines in an astronomical spectrum when compared
with laboratory wavelengths. Arp puts together a substantial body of observations to produce a very different picture of
the universe from that envisaged in big bang cosmology.
...
quasars figure prominently in this book. These were first encountered in radio surveys in the early 1960s. Optically they
looked just like stars, but their spectra were unrecognizable until the Caltech astronomer Maarten Schmidt found that they
possessed enormous redshifts.
...
Arp notes that there is considerable evidence that not only quasars, but galaxies too, can violate the accepted
redshift-distance relation. This strengthens the case that the redshift-distance law can be broken.
...
For example, the disturbed galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 have very different redshifts (cz =
1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively), yet anyone can see from the photographs that they are connected. Thus the
quasar is close to the galaxy in space, not at its redshift distance according to the Hubble law. Despite much criticism, this
result, which plainly contradicts conventional assumptions, has been confirmed by several independent lines of evidence.
...
Some galaxies (e.g. NGC 1097) are accompanied by lines of quasars pointing outwards from their nuclei. Furthermore, Arp
shows (chapter 5) that the distribution of a large number of bright quasars in space is very different from that expected on
conventional assumptions, and that many are associated with nearby galaxies.
...
Arp also shows plenty of examples of galaxies visibly connected to smaller companion galaxies with redshifts up to 36,000
km/s higher.
...
Members of the M31 (Local Group) and M81 galaxy groups are systematically redshifted with respect to the dominant
galaxies in a way that cannot be explained in terms of orbital velocities within the groups. Not only this, but the redshift
intervals are quantized in multiples of 72 km/s. Despite much ridicule, this result has been confirmed in other galaxy
groups but has been ignored by conventional astronomers because it cannot be explained in terms of big bang
cosmology.
This quote is very telling as to the reaction of those in power who have no desire to question their basic assumptions:
Quote:Arp summarises the problem of following up research of the kind he has described thus (p. 162):
‘Since the people who make these kinds of observations have now been excluded from regular observations on the
[Palomar 200-inch] telescope . . . how can one measure the magnitudes and redshifts [of new quasars] and obtain
complete area surveys which are so useful and necessary? . . . It is clear there is a vested political interest in suppressing
these kinds of observing projects.’
And in summary:
Quote:The main significance of these two books is that Arp presents a wealth of direct observational evidence thatregards, ian
contradicts the foundational assumption of big bang cosmology, viz. that extragalactic redshifts are due mainly to an
expanding universe.
...
Hence the observed universe is smaller than hitherto supposed by a factor of up to 100. Inferred masses and luminosities
are reduced by the square of this factor, i.e. 10,000. Arp finds little or no evidence for the existence of the ‘dark matter’
which is supposed to dominate the mass content of the universe.
Are You Religious? - geodave - 11-Apr-2012
Well, I am open to new interpretations. (BTW, redshift vs. dopplershift is just semantics. I was indeed referring to the redshifting of all celestial objects.)
Your quotes do not solve the problem that things are moving away, it only questions how far away they are. That's a time issue more than an origin issue. It's still likely that things used to be closer together.
It's interesting that Quasars also don't fit Inflation theory very well, either. We still don't really know WHAT quasars are.
The disproof of the big bang wouldn't really PROVE anything anyway, would it?
Are You Religious? - BitBuster - 11-Apr-2012
Quote:The disproof of the big bang wouldn't really PROVE anything anyway, would it?
Exactly.
Are You Religious? - PB_guy - 11-Apr-2012
Big Bang as gospel truth falls in the dust. Response: Ho Hum. What next, perhaps geology? Dating methods? Ice cores? None of it will change your worldview, but there are alternate explanations for what you currently accept as gospel. Everyone has the same data in real time. How the data is interpreted depends on our worldview.
I may be not long in the fora for a couple of weeks. I have a bathroom renovation starting this weekend, tearing it down and creating new from the subfloor up.
ian
Are You Religious? - Phazite - 12-Apr-2012
I'm mostly just reading rather than discussing, but I wanted to point something out.
Quote:I tend to side with the scientists, even as they admit that their field is, by definition, filled with uncertainties and theories rather than "facts."Theories actually consist of collections of facts, laws, models and explain them as well as make predictions, so theories are actually the highest level of... I'll just call it "scientific truth", since I can't think of a good word.
Are You Religious? - BitBuster - 13-Apr-2012
Well, those theories still hold the potential to be overturned at any point in time, should contradictory evidence come to light...that's what I was really referring to.
Are You Religious? - geodave - 13-Apr-2012
Yep -- just reading Scientific American yesterday and about 1/4 of the articles say "this may change conventional thinking" on the topic.
That is the point -- science evolves, religious dogma (for the most part) does not. Truth, on the other hand, is a completely different subject.
Are You Religious? - BitBuster - 13-Apr-2012
What's your take on truth? Does it exist? Etc.
Are You Religious? - geodave - 13-Apr-2012
Quote:What's your take on truth? Does it exist? Etc.
Oh, I think so. But most of it is harder to find than both the ultimate answer (42) and the question it answers.
And, while trying to avoid a Star Wars reference, I should point out that most truth is based on condition. That is, most true statements are if-then statements: Does God exist? Very difficult to answer. If God exists, is he good? Easier to answer.
I happen to think the search for truth is a noble endeavor, however some of that truth has to do with dealing with life -- so I'm not much for monastic life.
Are You Religious? - BitBuster - 13-Apr-2012
Quote:If God exists, is he good? Easier to answer.
Is it really easier to answer? Why can't God be evil?