Sciencescience

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 02:05 PM

Science facts that make you go HHM!

Evolutionary cosmologists have declared the universe to be 13.8 by old. They say they are looking at light from a galaxy 13.2 billion light years away!

Besides the physics impossibility of nothing exploding and forming enough material to make a galaxy and in 600 million years travel 20X the speed of light to get to a point in space time to shine light 13.2 billion years ago (when the universe was only supposedly 600 million years young) there is another reality that makes one go HUH?

Astrophysicists and astronomers measure distances in deep space time by the red shift in light. Simple fact, the further light travels the more it bends to the red.

We also know that light travels as both particles and waves and light has mass.

But now comes the two intractable problems.

Gravity bends light waves! and bends them longer to the red!

So the light from that distant galaxy has to travel over 78,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles and pass through galaxies and objects all pulling on that light and shifting it more and more to the red.

Also if Einstein and other theorists are correct- space itself is subject to gravity and can be bent by gravitational forces. So space itself is also bending light waves more and more to the red thus making red shift a very very very flawed method of dating and measurement for deep space/time.

am I suggesting the universe is much more compact? No! What I am saying is that given the facts above red shift is useless as a tool for measuring distance and or time!

27 replies, 498 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Science facts that make you go HHM! (Original post)
nolidad Feb 2019 OP
DDKick Feb 2019 #1
nolidad Feb 2019 #3
Troll2 Feb 2019 #2
nolidad Feb 2019 #4
Troll2 Feb 2019 #5
orson Feb 2019 #6
nolidad Feb 2019 #9
SatansSon666 Feb 2019 #22
nolidad Feb 2019 #8
Micrometer Feb 2019 #10
Micrometer Feb 2019 #11
Cold Warrior Feb 2019 #12
nolidad Feb 2019 #14
Micrometer Feb 2019 #15
Cold Warrior Feb 2019 #16
nolidad Feb 2019 #17
SatansSon666 Feb 2019 #20
nolidad Feb 2019 #18
Micrometer Feb 2019 #19
Cold Warrior Feb 2019 #23
nolidad Feb 2019 #25
nolidad Feb 2019 #26
nolidad Feb 2019 #24
SatansSon666 Feb 2019 #21
SatansSon666 Feb 2019 #13
SatansSon666 Feb 2019 #7
Transcendence Mar 2019 #27

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 02:43 PM

1. Interesting

What does light do with all those frequent flyer miles?

Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DDKick (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 04:11 PM

3. Loaded into my account!

I have trillions of miles right now!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Troll2 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 04:19 PM

4. Interesting article.

True o do not understand the math.

But, much of the stuff dealt with is still now observed, and tested over the vast distances of space.

Yes the expansion of space will alter the wavelengths.
Y*es lighit passing through the gravitational forces of other galaxies and objects will expand the wavelength.

They talk about this but do not have a methodology to account for the variation of the forces exerted to adjust the space/time distance of distant objects. Just like in radiometric dating- they plug in assumptions that are unobserved and untestable so are wrong by a factor of X.

An example of correct adjustment (very simplified). You track a light wave from distant galaxy You measure the peaks and troughs of the wave. Then it goes through the gravitational force of a galaxy and then remeasure the wavelength. Then you can make an accurate adjustment Also larger objects have stronger gravity thus bending the wave more thasn smaller objects. How many galaxies did that light have to go through its gravity fields and how much did they influence its wave?

Also comets, ice fields, planetoids etc.. Once again like radiometric dating it relies on unprovable and often wrogn assumptions to arrive at time and distance spans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 04:39 PM

5. If you understood the math, acquired the observational data, and did the calculations ...

You would get the same answer as the scientists have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 09:58 PM

6. Science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:29 AM

9. So you believe

that plugging in untested values and assumptions extrapolated from small scale to massive scale is real science??

OK then! I shan't try to get in a scientific debate with you then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:21 AM

22. You clearly do not understand anything about the topic.

Especially the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 11:28 AM

8. Of course I would!

Math does not care if the values you plug in are right or wrong- it will give you an answer based on what you plug in!

Many of the values are assumptions ! That is the ugly truth they do not brag about!

Let me give a simple demonstration! you have this 2+5+9-4 /3 X 6= 24 that answer is dead on correct but if the real values of what you are calculating here are actually 2+7+23-2/3 X 6=60 while both answers are absolutely correct in their math- only one is accurate to what is happening!

And no one can acquire the observational data! We have no ability to measure a lightwave from its origins and and measure it through all its-travels!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)



Response to Micrometer (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:21 PM

12. Thank you! I was just about to respond to this gross lack of knowledge of fifth grade arithmetic

Incredible!



ETA: Original Post:

Nolidad
8. Of course I would!

Math does not care if the values you plug in are right or wrong- it will give you an answer based on what you plug in!

Many of the values are assumptions ! That is the ugly truth they do not brag about!

Let me give a simple demonstration! you have this 2+5+9-4 /3 X 6= 24 that answer is dead on correct but if the real values of what you are calculating here are actually 2+7+23-2/3 X 6=60 while both answers are absolutely correct in their math- only one is accurate to what is happening!

And no one can acquire the observational data! We have no ability to measure a lightwave from its origins and and measure it through all its-travels!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 07:32 AM

14. already replied to my unfortunate use of the divide symbol iin the wrong place.

but thanks for being like CW and missing the point altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 08:22 AM

15. I understand you were trying to show how changing variables affects results.


You also demonstrated your lack of basic arithmetic knowledge.

In the United States, the acronym PEMDAS is common. It stands for
Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.
PEMDAS is often expanded to the mnemonic "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally".

This means that you should do what is possible within parentheses first,
then exponents, then multiplication and division (from left to right),
and then addition and subtraction (from left to right).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 11:49 AM

16. He understands he blew it. He just refuses to acknowledge an error that a sixth grader wouldn't make

Just as he claims to know the “evolutionist” definition of mtEve and has even started a thread on the topic, yet denies the term refers to the Most Recent Common Female Ancestor.

“In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.”
Wiki

He continues to double down on obvious errors. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:43 AM

17. Well having been removed from math classes for 46 years

yes my memory of using parentheses did fail me.

mtEve no! your wiki definition is spot on both for evolutionists and creationists.

BTW MRCA can be usesd and is used by evolutionists in determining th elineage of an ethnic group or the divergence of animal taxa (you know the point when say men and apes diverged)

So context determines what MRCA is meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 09:19 AM

20. Yet you know that physicists and mathematicians don't know what they are doing.

You can't even do grade 5 math and think you poked a hole in their research and equations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:45 AM

18. Well not using math in my daily profession meh?

My math prowess is not what was being meant and you did understand what was trying to be done.
If you wish to focus on my math error for not understanding the perfect order-fine!

But it is the issue you know I was showing that is the big issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 08:56 AM

19. If you don't understand math,

how can you be confident that math from The Institute for Creation Research is accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:26 AM

23. He doesn't understand fifth grade math and

he even doubled down on his blatant error, yet he comprehends the statistical analysis required to identify mtEve as well as the physics and mathematics involved in describing the Big Bang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 07:30 AM

25. And your expertise in math and physics is?????????

But asd I knew once I was shown I made a caclulation incorrectly, It would keep you away from addressing the major issue!

I at least understand that math is not the determinative factor in positing mt.eve and the BB

Maybe you should stick to these instead of making the fact I set up an example which proves my point in a wriong order!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 09:33 AM

26. Well your science about your qualifications to understand all these

lets me know you are in the same boat as I!

But I do know that when answers are done mostly by statistics and algorithms designed with assumptions built in, you r answer is incorrect by a factor of X NOw try and prove that wrong!

I also know that when research is done by using 647 generational events along multi ethnic lines, studying the real mutations and rate of those mutations in the mtDNA, and then creating an algorithm that based on that empirical information- find the MRCA is far far more accurate than one that used much less empirical datas and filled in with assumptions .

But tehn if you weren't so busy in knocking my less than perfect abilities you should have and could have discovered that for yourself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 07:27 AM

24. Because if it was wrong

and I posted it here there are enough unbbelievers more than willing to point it out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 09:21 AM

21. Actually your math prowess is right in line with your other scientific prowess.

Shitty.
Very, very shitty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 01:52 PM

13. Hahahahahahah

Holy fuck!!

ORDER OF OPERATIONS!!!
Learn it!!

1+6+2= nolidads self-claimed 162 IQ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 05:18 AM

7. Redshift is a useless tool...

Lmfao..

We can safely add redshift to your ever expanding list of things you'll never understand.

You said "I don't understand the math"

Yet you know that redshift data for determining the age of the universe doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sciencescience