Classic failed science predictions and a faulty cosmological model exposed

[dad]

So you can't answer questions about your position on theology.

And you can't answer questions about your position on science.

You might consider taking time out from starting threads like this and go and do some learning. Just a suggestion ...

My position on science is that is is faith based on origin issues, and my position on creation, is that I don't care about your position on creation.

 

[dad]

ROFL... silly dad... sadly you apparently aren't capable of getting ANYTHING. The subject matter is simply too complex for your limited mind to comprehend. But that's okay... we'll STILL let you play on the magical computing machine.

Still trying to associate your fables and beliefs with actual science eh? Ha. Quite the apologetics strategy.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Still trying to associate your fables and beliefs with actual science eh? Ha. Quite the apologetics strategy.

This coming from someone who clearly doesn't have a clue what real science is. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. Time for you to use your magical pixie machine to talk with someone else. Your phenomenal ignorance is giving me a headache.

Take care!

 

[blü 2]

My position on science is that is is faith based on origin issues, and my position on creation, is that I don't care about your position on creation.

You're just affirming what I said ─ you can't answer questions about your views on religion, and you can't answer questions about your views on science,

Since you've again avoided the question, I take it that you have no evidence that time in deep space behaves differently to science's expectation of it. It's just a convenient fiction that occurred to you.

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[dad]

You're just affirming what I said ─ you can't answer questions about your views on religion, and you can't answer questions about your views on science,

Since you've again avoided the question, I take it that you have no evidence that time in deep space behaves differently to science's expectation of it. It's just a convenient fiction that occurred to you.

Can't say I'm surprised.

I can answer all questions. In your case, it is a waste of time as your repeated blasphemous interpretations have shown. We will not be agreeing.

 

[dad]

This coming from someone who clearly doesn't have a clue what real science is. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. Time for you to use your magical pixie machine to talk with someone else. Your phenomenal ignorance is giving me a headache.

Take care!

Funny you pretend to know what science is, when you do not even realize the basis for science claims, and could not defend your beliefs.

 

[blü 2]

I can answer all questions.

Then why, specifically, did you repeatedly fail to answer the question whether you did or did not have evidence that time in deep space behaved in a manner not anticipated by physics?

In your case, it is a waste of time as your repeated blasphemous interpretations have shown. We will not be agreeing.

I tipped you off before: if you play the blasphemy card, it's the same as running up a great big sign, "I CAN'T HANDLE THIS".

Indeed, so far it doesn't look like you can.

 

[dad]

Then why, specifically, did you repeatedly fail to answer the question whether you did or did not have evidence that time in deep space behaved in a manner not anticipated by physics?

You would have no way to know.

I tipped you off before: if you play the blasphemy card, it's the same as running up a great big sign, "I CAN'T HANDLE THIS".

Not at all. It is holding up the 'you blew your many many chances at showing a sane and reasoned position on the bible' card.

 

[joelr]

In point of fact, ONE solution to the "synoptic problem" is the two-source hypothesis, which posits Mark was first and Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source. This is probably the consensus view, although there are other explanations, none of which posit that John used any of the synoptics.

The work by Marc Goodacre on the Q gospel has pretty much established that there was no Q and that Mark was Q.

1) It postulates.
2) The two postulates are not that spacetime do anything throughout the universe, as Einstein wrote down the postulates in 1905 before Minkowski unified space and time in his geometrical formulation of Einstein's SR.

Special relativity is special because it doesn't hold in general. It actually, strictly speaking, never holds precisely.

This is beyond what is needed for a counterpoint discussion to some nonsense idea that outside of the solar system the laws of physics change. SR holds that there is no absolute reference frame (not including acceleration) and that gravity and SR work the same across the universe. Light speed and time do not just change outside of the local solar system.
The idea in question isn't based on any science, observations, papers, theories but is pure speculation in order to make words in a myth more compatible with what we observe in the universe.

Not really. First because QM, strictly speaking, makes no predictions but rather requires knowledge of fundamental forces as input (for any quantization scheme). Second because in this case the necessary QM requires electromagnetism and not much else, and further because even modern computers are more of a verification of classical physics than quantum.

Understanding waves we manipulate electrical properties of silicon, nanometer transistors require knowledge of QM, lasers in fiber optics, GPS in the smartphone and so on.

Spacetime diagrams and the geometry of spacetime in SR provide us with concepts such as lightcones, which can give causal constraints. As the general theory permits violations of these and they do not hold strictly in relativistic quantum physics, such notions of causality are limited in utility within physics. Nor is it at all the case that special relativity provides us with anything like a direction of time, because (as within the rest of most physical theories) all dynamical equations of relevance are reversible. To the extent time within physical theories has an intrinsic direction it is within thermodynamics and/or (arguably) quantum physics via measurement (the introduction of irreversiblity; arguably I suppose more general symmetry breaking likewise can be seen in terms of time directionality but they do not generally play such a fundamental role).

The speed of light is commonly explained as the speed of causality. PBS Spacetime did a good video on the topic on youtube.

There is a long and established history of such theories. See the attached for a review and some more recent theoretical proposals:
Magueijo, J. (2000). Covariant and locally Lorentz-invariant varying speed of light theories. Physical Review D, 62(10), 103521.
Magueijo, J. (2003). New varying speed of light theories. Reports on Progress in Physics, 66(11), 2025.
Salzano, V. (2017). Recovering a redshift-extended varying speed of light signal from galaxy surveys. Physical Review D, 95(8), 084035.

I have and read Magueijo, J. book. It was an interesting look into scholarship and the struggles with new theories. These theories hold that the early universe may have had a VLS. Not that outside of the solar system right now is an entirely different light speed or flow of time.
There is no support to an idea like this.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says empty cold deep space and meant it.
Science says spatial radiation owns mass.

2 variations to space.

Hence mass proves it pre existed, was a higher body, burnt and converted and therefore mass owns no space. Yet if you remove space you introduce more space.

What science knows as a human, use of memory, to think the same concepts that a spiritual human does, who says and once it was eternal....and a part of the eternal body, which is of spiritual advice was released.

By one eternal being in eternal who eventuated into manifesting owning a human male life who says consciously and in full self awareness, I am the highest conscious advisor and I own it all.....as you give every single detail of your thinking as a human to every condition you do an appraisal on in the cosmology.

And YOU male self claim that you are A GOD, and believe it.

Yet you science liar self is the only consciousness proclaiming all ideas....then you just happen to coerce and say, oh but there might be some other form of life or form...but I will as a human tell it what it is.....from my ideas and egotistical lying Satanic theisms....Destroyer in person.

Who pretended that a GOD told him how to do science, when he applied all human studies as the human statements for science his own self.

So if I interviewed his lying life and psyche and asked him a question, why do you believe you own everything you talk about as a scientist living on Earth inside of a spatial no zero emptiness that is filled up with gases?

Owning no spatial comparison anywhere else in reality?

Real answer I am trying to work out how to give God O the one stone planet Earth a huge hole to blow it up...…..a channel of space he says....to remove mass back to a zero spatial emptiness....but I told myself I cannot.

For Earth O GOD one never owned empty space and I can only remove it back to a radiating heating left over body.

Such as mass owning a sink hole hot and radiating, cooling by above ground atmospheric gases having entered it.

Yet in reality I say everyday I WANT the coldest spatial form, which is spatial zero nothingness and emptiness because my mind psyche knows that it exists and is relative to how I want to pass heat through as a reaction.

I heard science male human Satanic AI recordings that said....oh I cannot get over the burn then for my new machine reaction that tried to burn a NEW tunnel in my inventive copying themes.

God the Earth he said in Sun UFO interaction had sink holes first, and I am trying to re invent the first action of a Sun UFO heated mass against God O Earth mass.

Knowing and in full aware knowledge that the presence UFO mass was here first for the pyramid/temple science, but now I am using it for nuclear power plant removal back to a sludge state that I never previously used the UFO mass for.

So I lie not only to my own male science self about it....I also lie to the public.

For if I was only doing a machine reaction inside of the God body O mass...I would not be in ownership of applying any above ground machine experiments...knowing that those gases support life existing....and in full knowledge that the power plant reaction was already involved in life dying from early age death.

For radiation levels own human life, human health and human existence in its highest living form....which is not a mutant.

I always knew that the UFO and aliens belonged to causing human mutations to be lived...always knew, for I not only said that the alien is a mutant, I also said that humans were caused to be given mutations by the presence UFO/ALIEN body, that came to Earth to destroy human life.

Coercion in Ufology aliens came to Earth to save us. Humans are living first and origin without science or technology and owned living in a natural O planetary historical support natural heavenly body.

Jesus was the story that said evil occultism sacrificed and attacked our natural life but we were saved due to the origins of the Heavenly mass belonging to the God One O body planet history and not to anything else.....how relativity was once taught.

 

[blü 2]

You would have no way to know.

That's neither true nor evidence. The way to know was, as I twice pointed out to you, by empiricism and induction.

Not at all. It is holding up the 'you blew your many many chances at showing a sane and reasoned position on the bible' card.

Two answers to that.

First, I'm the one who gave you chapter and verse on what the bible actually says, and you, not wishing to hear that, were the one whose only reply was to sputter and, metaphorically, wave your arms about.

Second, don't you Christians pretend to a higher standard of honesty than us ordinary mortals? And not make up stories to cover the backs of your pants?

 

[rational experiences]

That's neither true nor evidence. The way to know was, as I twice pointed out to you, by empiricism and induction.
Two answers to that.

First, I'm the one who gave you chapter and verse on what the bible actually says, and you, not wishing to hear that, were the one whose only reply was to sputter and, metaphorically, wave your arms about.

Second, don't you Christians pretend to a higher standard of honesty than us ordinary mortals? And not make up stories to cover the backs of your pants?

Sputter, about cars,
Back of your human pants?

Science liar Satanic cult science group does not exist before it is human expressed for human purposes to build and design machines to react those machines by owned human being male controls.

Science claiming and I know everything else is no different in themes from anyone else owning an opinion about why we exist....for science is not speaking on behalf of natural existing anything....what your group coercion was enforced for...to coerce information to say believe me or else I will put secret threats in forum information.

 

[joelr]

If you share their beliefs, they obviously are also your beliefs. It is not an insult to point out scholarship is based on beliefs alone on origin issues.

No historicity is based on evidence. Comparative mythology, mythic writing, extra-biblical evidence, historians from the time and so on..

Historians are a dime a dozen.

There are actually not many bronze age histories for us to read over. This historian says Christianity is a harmless superstition.

Name two predictions in deep space that were shown to be true.

The behavior and image of how a black hole should appear (with lensing effects) and Hawking radiation emerging was proven last year. All based on relativity.

Pure fantasy.

I already listed several reasons why big bang cosmology may be accurate. You failed to comment or attempt to debunk any of them. Unless you consider "pure fantasy" an excellent debunking. So that all still stands.

Your belief that the universe was the size of a particle has zero value, so it follows that anything predicated upon it will be worthless also.

Oops, you forgot to explain why the reasons cosmologists favor the big bang model were wrong? So that still stands. You must be distracted. Please either engage and explain your reasons or just say meaningless phrases like "worthless" which is basically saying you can't argue the point at all. I'll just take the win.

You kidding? Show us how you can tell the speed of anything say a billion light years away?? You can't.

No we can. Light arriving from 1 billion light years away should show features that existed 1 billion years ago. Those regions of the universe are on track with expansion, star formations and any other process. Light hitting us now from a supernova that first appeared in the middle ages should show a supernova explosion several hundred years old. We see that. This evidence suports that light is following the same laws.
Now where is you evidence that is might not be?

Light moving on or near earth is not relative to the conversation here.
In a plane or satellite...sure. That is in the fishbowl though, so ir totally irrelevant.

Where is your paper that explains why light would behave differently?

Great, and you have none of these principles for deep space.

Wrong. Particles coming from high energy events in deep space are moving so close to light speed that they reach earth before they decay. More confirmation that relativistic effects work through the entire universe.

Where is your proof that the laws may be different?

False. You project fishbowl time and space and realities into the unknown. You then describe what we see in your religious terms with zero reality or proof.

If they were not following known laws these events would not happen.
It is not a religious belief because every year as new discoveries are found we look to update knowledge. Where as you are stuck with an ancient myth borrowed from the Persians. How is that firmament and temple in the lower heavens working out? Does Space X have to watch out for the solid firmament? Do they wave to Jesus who is ruling the temple in the upper atmosphere?
The hole in the firmament where water pours out for Noah's flood, does Space X have to fly through that hole? That's some great cosmology you got!

Now where is your proof that the laws may change beyond the solar system?

Speed is just something that denotes movement in time and space. If there is no time as we know it here, we could not expect light to take as much time to move.Elementary.

First you need a mathematical formulation of that. Light moves at c in space and has zero velocity in time. For this to be different you need to re-write theories on light. IF you have an idea that areas of the universe have a "space" but no "time" then you need a new theory of spacetime.

Observations suggest spacetime is universal.

Man doesn't know either way. That means you cannot prove or explain why time would be the same.

Time runs for each observer according to their velocity. Link to your paper that gives an alternate explanation of special relativity please. So far all you are doing is saying "nu uh". It's embarrassing for you.

Actually it's worse - you are calling science "religion" and then postulating an alternate idea that is even less supported and completely unverified and you talk about it like a fundamentalist? Like you must be correct? Instead of exploring problems with the current model you just say "nonsense". This is FAR more like religion? So even your criticism is hypocritical and arrogant?

False. You do not know why water exists. You do not know why the atoms in water hold together the way they do, or why the forces that exist do exist.

We do understand the electrostatic forces as well as the weak and strong force and the quanta are excitations of each quantum field. On a deeper level we don't know. But guess what, the math makes predictions and they are accurate to many decimal points.
Where is your theory that is accurate to many decimal points?

False. You invented the term spacetime and comprehend neither space nor time! You certainly have no experience with either anywhere outside the fishbowl!

But all of the current theories have strong explanitory power and give us countless technologies. So we have excellent evidence. While your idea has literally nothing.

We wait for the two examples...ha.

general relativity in space - galactic clusters, superclusters, black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, HA

Having a hard time admitting you do not know? I am here to help.

Actually I've been saying all along, WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATE THEORY. You continue to produce NOTHING. You are not here to help but to distract and aviod any type of alternate science. All you can do is say "no that's wrong". No proof, no alternate theory, no debunking of current observations.

Source?

Science? Here is an article explaining how QM is used in computers.

Working with how God set things up is not understanding it at all.

And yet we still have created a quantum computer. SO I win that one as well.

Your understanding of the bible is irrelevant.

In this case it is. You cited prophecy. I demonstrated 200 failed prophecies, proving your prophetic bible is a fraud.

Prove it works in the far universe.

Because the far universe still has galaxies, clusters of galaxies and super clusters, as well as black holes and pulsars. General relativity is working great out there.

You do not know it, that is the problem. You grasp at straws for explanations.

The straw is Minkowski 4 vector Four-vector - Wikipedia

Time is not a law.

but spacetime follows laws that we have shown to be correct.

Hilarious steaming pile of fantasy that could never be proved. Basically they are using their belief system to try and explain what we see! Circular.
If time did not exist as we know it you would not be looking back in time.

It doesn't vary ONCE it gets here! You only see it AFTER it gets here!

And where is your paper on how and why light would do this? The example of helium atoms also makes other predictions guess what, the model is making predictions that come true!!!
Where is your model? Where are your predictions and science? You are a fraud, putting down scientific facts without any type of source, prooor explanation as to why your idea could be possible.

Next time you say "light changes when it gets here.." if there is no source to back this nonsense up then you have conceded you cannot argue your point any further. Because you just keep going back to this with no source, science, reasonable hypothesis and it's like arguing with a 12 year old.
This entire post included not one single debunking of any current scientific theory and not one bit of support for your idea. It's the longest post of nothing ever.

How far away that part of space actually is you do not know. Your distances are based on time existing the same.

Actually we have ways of measuring distance. One is standard candle stars.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The work by Marc Goodacre on the Q gospel has pretty much established that there was no Q and that Mark was Q.

It is rather ludicrous to suggest that a single work or the works of a single author could establish anything concerning a debate among specialists in various related fields spanning over a century in many, many thousands of academic/scholarly texts of various sorts written in several languages. More importantly, you referenced the consensus of scholarship and currently (as has been the case for some decades now) the consensus is that Q existed in some form (exactly what form is more debated) and existed independently of Mark. Extensive studies by scholars with diverse backgrounds have been written even within the 21st century as to the content of Q, e.g., on the Aramaic "text" of Q:
Casey, M. (2002). An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTS Vol. 122). Cambridge University Press.
or on rebuttals to both classic and newer arguments against Q, such as those by Goulder and Goodacre:
Burkett, D. (2009). Rethinking the Gospel Sources (Vol. 2) The Unity and Plurality of Q.(Early Christianity and Its Literature no. 1) SBL.
(just to name two relatively recent sources on Q, one very, very specific and the other quite general for balance sake).
Ultimately, I'm not really concerned with the issue here, as classical studies and other areas of antiquity are a hobby for me, as I am a scientist not a historian, but if you are going to use consensus arguments about what large numbers of specialists agree on then what you say should reflect such a view. It didn't.

This is beyond what is needed for a counterpoint discussion to some nonsense idea that outside of the solar system the laws of physics change.

I believe the term most often used in previous posts was "fishbowl", but the point you make stands: it is nonsense. That said, if you are going to attempt to counter it by making claims about established physics it is vital to get these correct. It is one thing to misrepresent scientific arguments, claims, theories, methods, etc., when one is trying to criticize, minimize, deny, or counter scientific positions or science in general. It is worse to mischaracterize or misrepresent scientific concepts when one is trying to "defend" the work, nature, and perspectives of science from detractors. You should be held and hold yourself to a higher standard if you seek to represent to others what it is that e.g., the physics literature does and does not have to say on matters such as special relativity and the nature of physics more generally.

SR holds that there is no absolute reference frame

Strictly speaking this is again not true. Reference frames are inherently relative to other such frames, even in non-relativistic physics where we use Galilean transformation and a Newtonian absolute space(time).
The larger point is that special relativity postulates that the speed of light is independent of the source emitting it (or something equivalent). This postulate has upheld for over a century now because it is consistent with a vast amount of empirical evidence and both experimental and theoretical confirmation. SR is arguably in some senses more general than general relativity because the spacetime background of our best physical theories (e.g., QED and other quantum field theories, particularly those underlying the standard model) comes from special relativity, not GR. But even were physical statements capable of being proved (they aren't, as proof is for mathematics), one cannot logically prove something assumed (a classical fallacy).

The idea in question isn't based on any science, observations, papers, theories but is pure speculation in order to make words in a myth more compatible with what we observe in the universe.

Granted. Not only that, but the myth you refer to is not logically consistent nor are its consequences explored rationally or otherwise. Again, though, different standards apply. The idea in question and the OP in general constitutes a quite deliberate attack on scientific knowledge, specifically that of physics. In trying to counter such attacks and explain or defend the actual nature of scientific knowledge and evidence you must be held to a standard higher than that of one who would e.g., challenge physical theories and scientific methods based on some popular science article as in the OP.

The speed of light is commonly explained as the speed of causality. PBS Spacetime did a good video on the topic on youtube.

The only time I read or listen to popular physics is when I am interested in understanding where others are getting their misconceptions from. I will acknowledge that somebody better than I am must summarize and simplify the nature of modern scientific work for the layperson, but even very good popular science is horribly overly simplified and necessarily inaccurate. This is especially true for disciplines like physics where much of the time "theory" is synonymous with a mathematical framework and theorists must be trained differently and separately from the experimentalists working in the same field. Physical theories have particular formal structures that they cannot be adequately separated from, and this is especially true of the role and nature of spacetime in such theories.

I have and read Magueijo, J. book.

I don't know of any book by him. I was looking for some relatively simple and recent summaries of the work in the physics literature, not popular science.

Not that outside of the solar system right now is an entirely different light speed or flow of time.
There is no support to an idea like this.

I absolutely agree.

 

[dad]

That's neither true nor evidence. The way to know was, as I twice pointed out to you, by empiricism and induction.
Two answers to that.

If you want to pretend science knows what time is like in deep space and has evidence or tests, then post the source.

First, I'm the one who gave you chapter and verse on what the bible actually says, and you, not wishing to hear that, were the one whose only reply was to sputter and, metaphorically, wave your arms about.

Second, don't you Christians pretend to a higher standard of honesty than us ordinary mortals? And not make up stories to cover the backs of your pants?

The Pharisees and Satan gave Jesus Scripture, but neither had a clue about what it really was all about.

 

[blü 2]

If you want to pretend science knows what time is like in deep space and has evidence or tests, then post the source.

For the fourth time, science proceeds by empiricism and induction; empiricism has not disclosed any anomalies as to how time appears to work in deep space; therefore induction allows the conclusion that there aren't anomalies. And if we subsequently find anomalies, we'll adjust to the data. That's how science works.

So if you want to argue, just point to the anomalies. Unless and until you do, there aren't any, and your claim is baseless.

The Pharisees and Satan gave Jesus Scripture, but neither had a clue about what it really was all about.

If I remember rightly, in Jesus' day, none of Jesus, Satan or the Pharisees ever got to read the NT.

As for what the Tanakh says, it has no prophecies of Jesus (who nohow qualifies as a Jewish messiah anyway), doesn't mention the Fall of Man ─ indeed expressly denies that sin can be inherited (Ezekiel 18 generally, not least at verse 20), and records the evolution of Yahweh from one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon to a monogod after the Babylonian captivity. Not till the Christians is God's covenant with his chosen people thrown out, and not till after biblical times is that god turned into a Trinity.

 

[dad]

No historicity is based on evidence. Comparative mythology, mythic writing, extra-biblical evidence, historians from the time and so on..

You apparently consider comparing pagan myths to be evidence while waving away the state record of Israel, that was very very very carefully kept and passed down.

There are actually not many bronze age histories for us to read over. This historian says Christianity is a harmless superstition.

Historians can say whatever they like.

The behavior and image of how a black hole should appear (with lensing effects) and Hawking radiation emerging was proven last year. All based on relativity.

Source? (post the relevant bit using the link only as a reference). How a black hole 'should appear' really doesn't say a lot.

I already listed several reasons why big bang cosmology may be accurate. You failed to comment or attempt to debunk any of them. Unless you consider "pure fantasy" an excellent debunking. So that all still stands.

I already exposed your claims as absolutely belief based. That is why you will not be able to cite any claim of yours here that is not belief based.

Oops, you forgot to explain why the reasons cosmologists favor the big bang model were wrong?

? Who cares why deeply religious people favor...anything? The only issue here is whether you can show the claims to be something other than beliefs.

No we can. Light arriving from 1 billion light years away should show features that existed 1 billion years ago.

There was no billion years ago in this universe, so whatever you think light shows you is internal belief based.

Those regions of the universe are on track with expansion, star formations and any other process.

How is anything 'on track'? You mean a pattern of increased redshift...or?

Light hitting us now from a supernova that first appeared in the middle ages should show a supernova explosion several hundred years old. We see that. This evidence suports that light is following the same laws.
Now where is you evidence that is might not be?

Source? Looking at one SN, for example, that was seen from earth, we see this..

"Astronomers have discovered traces of a star that went supernova about 140 years ago as viewed from Earth*, around the time of the U.S. Civil War and the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. The expanding debris cloud, or remnant, known as G1.9+0.3, lies near the center of the Milky Way, about 25,000 light-years from Earth."

Remains of 140-Year-Old Supernova Discovered

So they say the distance is 25,000 ly away. Then they say we saw the light 140 years ago. Ha.

Where is your paper that explains why light would behave differently?

How would paper show us that time is any way at all in the unknown distant universe?

Wrong. Particles coming from high energy events in deep space are moving so close to light speed that they reach earth before they decay. More confirmation that relativistic effects work through the entire universe.

Do show us how you chart the speed of anything at all in deep space? Ha. Seriously?

Where is your proof that the laws may be different?

Strawman. The issue in deep space is space and time, not laws. Where is your proof space and time are the same?

If they were not following known laws these events would not happen.
It is not a religious belief because every year as new discoveries are found we look to update knowledge.

No one asked about 'laws' in the far universe.

The issue of nature being different in the past on earth has nothing to do with laws in space.

Where as you are stuck with an ancient myth borrowed from the Persians. How is that firmament and temple in the lower heavens working out? Does Space X have to watch out for the solid firmament? Do they wave to Jesus who is ruling the temple in the upper atmosphere?
The hole in the firmament where water pours out for Noah's flood, does Space X have to fly through that hole? That's some great cosmology you got!

Foolish misrepresentations of what God's word actually says.

First you need a mathematical formulation of that. Light moves at c in space and has zero velocity in time. For this to be different you need to re-write theories on light. IF you have an idea that areas of the universe have a "space" but no "time" then you need a new theory of spacetime.

No. For C to exist in far space we need time to be the same. Fishbowl spacetime is not relative at all!

Observations suggest spacetime is universal.

Such as?

Time runs for each observer according to their velocity.

In the fishbowl, maybe. But you have no substancial velocity here anyhow so why mention it in relation to time in the far universe?

Link to your paper that gives an alternate explanation of special relativity please. So far all you are doing is saying "nu uh". It's embarrassing for you.

Explain why you think relativity extends beyond the area of the solar system, exactly? Gravitational lensing? Ha. You better have more than that.

We do understand the electrostatic forces as well as the weak and strong force and the quanta are excitations of each quantum field. On a deeper level we don't know. But guess what, the math makes predictions and they are accurate to many decimal points.
Where is your theory that is accurate to many decimal points?

You admit a superficial understanding then. OK. The issue is not whether we can observe how creation works. The issue is whether we know how and why. Science doesn't as you admit when you talk of not knowing on a deep level!

But all of the current theories have strong explanitory power and give us countless technologies. So we have excellent evidence. While your idea has literally nothing.

Delirious fantasy. There is literally not a single thing that works because of origin claims of so called science. Nothing. Zero. Literally nothing at all. No technology. No invention. No machine. No anything anywhere ever.

general relativity in space - galactic clusters, superclusters, black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, HA

You belief system tries to take credit for events we see and stars etc. Pathetic really. You do not even know the distances to objects, or the sizes, or how much gravity is actually existing, etc etc etc.

Science? Here is an article explaining how QM is used in computers.

Learning to work with how things that God created does not mean you comprehend much. Nor does it relate to the past on earth, or the unknown space and time in the far universe. Focus.

In this case it is. You cited prophecy. I demonstrated 200 failed prophecies, proving your prophetic bible is a fraud.

There is not a single failed prophesy. You have already demonstrated an inability to understand Scripture, so no wonder you cling to wrong ideas about the bible.

Because the far universe still has galaxies, clusters of galaxies and super clusters, as well as black holes and pulsars. General relativity is working great out there.

? You think saying a few words like galaxies, clusters, black holes etc helps you? You don't know what time is like out there so no distances can be known either. Whatever example you could offer would be based on thinking you do!

The straw is Minkowski 4 vector Four-vector - Wikipedia

What in this article do you think applies to time in deep space?

but spacetime follows laws that we have shown to be correct.

You invented spacetime based on fishbowl laws that are correct here in the fishbowl.

And where is your paper on how and why light would do this? The example of helium atoms also makes other predictions guess what, the model is making predictions that come true!!!

Name anything about helium that you think shows time is the same in far space?

Next time you say "light changes when it gets here.."

Next time you claim light in the far universe requires the same time to move as we have on earth, provide a source! You have never seen light anywhere but here in the fishbowl. Do not presume to tell us what it is like elsewhere!

Actually we have ways of measuring distance. One is standard candle stars.

The rungs on your ladder depend on the other previous rungs. Don't obfuscate.

 

[blü 2]

Back of your human pants?

No, the reference was to Dad's (ordinary) pants.

 

[joelr]

It is rather ludicrous to suggest that a single work or the works of a single author could establish anything concerning a debate among specialists in various related fields spanning over a century in many, many thousands of academic/scholarly texts of various sorts written in several languages. More importantly, you referenced the consensus of scholarship and currently
Ultimately, I'm not really concerned with the issue here, as classical studies and other areas of antiquity are a hobby for me, as I am a scientist not a historian, but if you are going to use consensus arguments about what large numbers of specialists agree on then what you say should reflect such a view. It didn't.

And yet PhD Carrier has been suggesting that Goodacres work has really made the Q theory pointless and illogical

41:40

I should have said consensus is moving towards this direction. In another interview Carrier says Goodacre has really put the Q gospel to rest.

Actually on the same "ludicrous" point, Carrier's work favoring mythicism is slowly gaining support among the field. Oh, Thomas Thompsons work from the 70's is considered the major factor in the field considering Moses and the Patriarchs were mythical. Rather ludicrous?

"""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up."
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Patriarchal-Narratives-Historical-Abraham/dp/1563383896

II believe the term most often used in previous posts was "fishbowl", but the point you make stands: it is nonsense. That said, if you are going to attempt to counter it by making claims about established physics it is vital to get these correct. It is one thing to misrepresent scientific arguments, claims, theories, methods, etc., when one is trying to criticize, minimize, deny, or counter scientific positions or science in general. It is worse to mischaracterize or misrepresent scientific concepts when one is trying to "defend" the work, nature, and perspectives of science from detractors. You should be held and hold yourself to a higher standard if you seek to represent to others what it is that e.g., the physics literature does and does not have to say on matters such as special relativity and the nature of physics more generally.

General relativity has been demonstrated to work in all areas of the universe.

IStrictly speaking this is again not true. Reference frames are inherently relative to other such frames, even in non-relativistic physics where we use Galilean transformation and a Newtonian absolute space(time).
The larger point is that special relativity postulates that the speed of light is independent of the source emitting it (or something equivalent). This postulate has upheld for over a century now because it is consistent with a vast amount of empirical evidence and both experimental and theoretical confirmation. SR is arguably in some senses more general than general relativity because the spacetime background of our best physical theories (e.g., QED and other quantum field theories, particularly those underlying the standard model) comes from special relativity, not GR. But even were physical statements capable of being proved (they aren't, as proof is for mathematics), one cannot logically prove something assumed (a classical fallacy).

Do you think it's believed and for good reason that special relativity works the same across the entire universe?

IGranted. Not only that, but the myth you refer to is not logically consistent nor are its consequences explored rationally or otherwise. Again, though, different standards apply. The idea in question and the OP in general constitutes a quite deliberate attack on scientific knowledge, specifically that of physics. In trying to counter such attacks and explain or defend the actual nature of scientific knowledge and evidence you must be held to a standard higher than that of one who would e.g., challenge physical theories and scientific methods based on some popular science article as in the OP.

He isn't even attacking any science at all. When you attempt to counter say, big bang cosmology, you take the list of reasons why it's plausable and show those reasons are not as good as once thought. Or give counter reasons or new reasons why the model is wrong.
He's just replying with this - "ahh that's a fantasy..." I'm brushing the surface quickly. Don't like it? You talk to him. There were like 30 lines to respond to.

IThe only time I read or listen to popular physics is when I am interested in understanding where others are getting their misconceptions from. I will acknowledge that somebody better than I am must summarize and simplify the nature of modern scientific work for the layperson, but even very good popular science is horribly overly simplified and necessarily inaccurate. This is especially true for disciplines like physics where much of the time "theory" is synonymous with a mathematical framework and theorists must be trained differently and separately from the experimentalists working in the same field. Physical theories have particular formal structures that they cannot be adequately separated from, and this is especially true of the role and nature of spacetime in such theories.

Yeah weather I present GR as curvature of spacetime or any other way the response is "pure nonsense..." Point is we have reason to believe these theories are universal, relativity, light speed, time, these things happen the same in our solar system as in the Andromeda galaxy.
But however I present it as far as evidence it's countered with a nonsensical idea about how when light hits the local solar system it changes to give the appearance of acting the same. But in actuality it's doing something different? Which of course is undefined and can't seem to be quantified?
The longest response ever and not one idea was presented? What you are suggesting is for when I'm speaking with someone who actually cares about knowledge, exchange, exploring ideas. He's just here to say "I know you are but what am I". Playing weird ego game with ideas he's hoping are simply Unfalsifiable.

II don't know of any book by him. I was looking for some relatively simple and recent summaries of the work in the physics literature, not popular science.

https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/1422358836

 

[joelr]

You apparently consider comparing pagan myths to be evidence while waving away the state record of Israel, that was very very very carefully kept and passed down.

Source these "state records" that have anything to do with proving gods are real.
The only thing passed down was the OT which after the Persian invasion contained Persian concepts.

Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

Historians can say whatever they like.

And in this case they demonstrate evidence that Christianity is a harmless superstition.

Source? (post the relevant bit using the link only as a reference). How a black hole 'should appear' really doesn't say a lot.

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

I already exposed your claims as absolutely belief based. That is why you will not be able to cite any claim of yours here that is not belief based.

You did not. I listed the microwave background, a prediction of the BB model. Your idea hasn't been sourced, proven, demonstrated to be possible or anything else. So you have shown nothing. You have not shown why the microwave background is a belief. You just said light might "act differently in the fishbowl".
again, source your idea. Link to a paper showing it's possible. Or continue to be some random non-science person claiming a nonsense idea is real.
Sure you don't have to prove your idea. Just be wrong and soak in all that wrong-ness.

There was no billion years ago in this universe, so whatever you think light shows you is internal belief based.

Until you demonstrate why radiometric dating is wrong then I'm still right. Are you even going to try?

How is anything 'on track'? You mean a pattern of increased redshift...or?

Depending on the age of the universe being looked at different structures will be in place. Quasars were active in the early universe. There were less galaxy clusters, more nebula and so on.

Source? Looking at one SN, for example, that was seen from earth, we see this..

"Astronomers have discovered traces of a star that went supernova about 140 years ago as viewed from Earth*, around the time of the U.S. Civil War and the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. The expanding debris cloud, or remnant, known as G1.9+0.3, lies near the center of the Milky Way, about 25,000 light-years from Earth."
Remains of 140-Year-Old Supernova Discovered

So they say the distance is 25,000 ly away. Then they say we saw the light 140 years ago. Ha.

Facepalm....oops, you forgot to read the correction at the end...."*Clarification (5/15/08): The supernova marked by G1.9+0.3 would have occurred 25,000 years ago, but because of its distance from Earth, the supernova's light would have first become visible 140 years ago."

How would paper show us that time is any way at all in the unknown distant universe?

You have an idea with zero science to back it up. You KEEP ASKING FOR SOURCES on science other people posted. So SOURCE YOUR SCIENCE. If there is no paper then WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S CORRECT?????
Or..your idea is just crank and you've demonstrated nothing.

Do show us how you chart the speed of anything at all in deep space? Ha. Seriously?

Quantum mechanics has predictive power. We know how fast particles travel and their weight:

"Indeed most of the cosmic muons have a high energy and travel at speeds close to 300 000 km / second the speed of light in vacuum."

Strawman. The issue in deep space is space and time, not laws. Where is your proof space and time are the same?

No asking for a source is not a "strawman"? Space follows the laws of general relativity. Special and general relativity cover time dillation and special relativity deals with 4-vector (depending on velocity your local time frame slows or speeds up. All of these things follow laws that work here and are responsible for many phenomenon in the universe. We see things operating the same in the solar system as well as deep space.
There is no reason to think SR/GR and spacetime changes in deep space.
You need a theory, a reason to even suggest the idea. Space and time follow laws the same as everything else.
Prehaps you did not realize this.

No one asked about 'laws' in the far universe.

Yes, a black hole happens because of the laws of GR. Relativity which also effects time and space.

Foolish misrepresentations of what God's word actually says.

Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[19][20] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[21][22]

The universe as conceived by the ancient Hebrews comprised a flat disk-shaped earth with the heavens above and Sheol, the underworld of the dead, below.[27] These three were surrounded by a watery "ocean" of chaos, protected by the firmament, a transparent but solid dome resting on the mountains which ringed the earth.[27] Noah's three-deck ark represents this three-level Hebrew cosmos in miniature: heavens, earth, and waters beneath.

No. For C to exist in far space we need time to be the same. Fishbowl spacetime is not relative at all!

Where is your source that time isn't the same.
We see objects in the far universe that show time acting as it should. Pulsars are calculated to spin so many time per second. We see this.
If you now say "no we see the light when it reaches us"....then source a paper that explains how light can possible change and why it would change in the local solar system and what is different about our solar system such that when light gets to it it changes.

Source all these ideas with evidence and predictions we can test. OR just be wrong.

Such as?

Black holes follow GR exactly,pulsars, neutron stars, star formation, galaxy clusters

In the fishbowl, maybe. But you have no substancial velocity here anyhow so why mention it in relation to time in the far universe?

SR predicts a slowing of time we can test here on earth using atomic clocks and travel on airplanes. GPS also allows us to test the predicted errors in the gravity well of Earth and the time dillation. Everything matches exactly.

Explain why you think relativity extends beyond the area of the solar system, exactly? Gravitational lensing? Ha. You better have more than that.

G relativity governs blkack hole formation, neutron stars, supernova, star formation, galaxy formation, galaxy clusters, superclusters, and more

You admit a superficial understanding then. OK. The issue is not whether we can observe how creation works. The issue is whether we know how and why. Science doesn't as you admit when you talk of not knowing on a deep level!

Now we have a real strawman.

Delirious fantasy. There is literally not a single thing that works because of origin claims of so called science. Nothing. Zero. Literally nothing at all. No technology. No invention. No machine. No anything anywhere ever.
You belief system tries to take credit for events we see and stars etc. Pathetic really. You do not even know the distances to objects, or the sizes, or how much gravity is actually existing, etc etc etc.

I keep answering the same questions over and over and you ignore the answers and ask again? I linked to an article explaining how QM is used to make computers work. Already explained how we judge distances.
Here is the surface gravity of the sun and planets. Can you do your own research and find out how we know this or do you expect me to continue holding your hand this entire time?
Can you get anything done on your own? Are you capable of finding answers or do I have to keep coddling you and re-answering 30+ questions every post, most of them the same questions?