Absolutely, whilst utterly refusing to take the solid firmament in to account.
1 Like
The distances are determined using standard candles, such as type Ia supernovae. These types of supernovae occur when a large star steals mass from a binary partner. Once the amount of mass hits a specific mass threshold the larger star explodes as a supernova. Since these explosions all occur with the same mass they will all produce the same amount of energy. How bright these explosions appear on Earth is a function of how far away they are just as the perceived brightness of a candle depends on how far away it is from the observer.
Ahh, yes, the ready made excuse to ignore any evidence that is presented.
If the interpretation of the data is flawed then demonstrate how it is flawed.
2 Likes
Correct. According the the Bible, this solid firmament supports waters above it. According to the Bible, God opened floodgates within this firmament to allow rain from heaven to flood the earth, and then closed those floodgates 40 days later. According to the Bible, the sun, moon and stars run God-appointed circuits over the earth within this firmament… with the exception of seven stars who transgressed God’s command and made their own circuits. This event is described in the Book of Enoch, and these seven are called “wandering stars” in the Bible. The Greek word is planétés, from which we get the word “planet”. Both Enoch and Jude describe these stars’ eventual punishment of being placed in the blackest darkness for ever for their transgression.
Or do they. Mass distorts space time to the extent that an object in orbit around a body in a sense is just going straight, but space is curved around the mass. Perhaps the universe can be thought to be curved around itself such that a straight line from anywhere never reached an edge. Sort of a multi-dimensional Möbius strip. The universe is not a sphere, because a sphere exists within a space with defined borders and edges. The universe has no borders.
No, they are not.
Sorry (not a lot) to repeat myself, but this seems relevant:
1 Like
This too:
I think our intuition is correct, that there is fine tuning and design, but neither are scientific. The science is rational, and you misunderstand the science.
Nope. The universe is flat. Every geodetic slice.
And so they should be! As a lesson to us all.
1 Like
It’s a shame that stars have no teeth to gnash in anguish. Are they even aware they have transgressed? Did they they fail to exercise volition they never possessed. Alas poor heavenly bodies consigned to darkness.
2 Likes
So then I could join you at work while you and I use your equipment and your hands-on experience to conclusively verify that new exo-planet ABC (or whatever) really does exist and orbits a star trillions of miles away from us?
Don’t bother, James. I know the answer is no. And since that is the case, it is exactly as I said… you and I are both flawed human beings reading claims from other flawed human beings and deciding whether or not to believe those claims on faith.
It was at first thought that background radiation came from only one direction. Big Bang theorists were jubilant at the news. But, at that very time, Hannes Alfven, professor of Physics at the University of California (San Diego) and one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, did careful research and disclosed that even if the background radiation did have a singleness of isotropy (single-directional radiation, or radiation from only one direction in space), the Big Bang would still be only one of several possible conclusions as to the nature of such radiation.
“The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents… [But] The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation.” — Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, “Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.*
Then, a few years later, scientists discovered that the background radiation was coming from many directions. In 1981, Science News reported that, instead of coming from one direction, background radiation had been discovered to be coming from all directions, thus disproving any connection with a so-called “Big Bang.” There is no directional uniformity to this radiation, and lacking it the radiation proves nothing. As the “last dying breath of the Big Bang,” this radiation should be flowing from where that primeval explosion took place. But, instead, it is flowing evenly from every direction.
"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.
“Not any more. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy… A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself.” — Science News, 1981.
Yet this need not have come as a surprise. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were the radio astronomers at Bell Laboratories who in the 1960s first discovered background radiation (and in 1978 received a Nobel Prize in Physics for having done so). When they first heard this radiation on the Lab’s new microwave horn antenna, they wrote in their notes that it was a lot of static at the very short wavelength end of the spectrum, and that the static noise came from all directions. Within a year, they noted that, because it was coming from all directions, the radiation was equally strong at all hours of the day and all seasons of the year.
CMB coming at us from all directions from the moment it was discovered? Hmm…
First of all, you act as if BB is “settled science”. Even today it is described as only one of the many models of how our world came to be. There are other models, and many scientists who don’t subscribe to the BB model. And that would be impossible if ALL the evidence does, and always has, pointed exclusively to BB, right?
Secondly, if BB was “settled science”, there would be no need to invent hypotheticals like dark matter and dark energy to rescue the model from the observations, right?
Thirdly, these are very recent articles:
The Big Bang Theory Has Been Debunked?
Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn’t happen?
The Big Bang Didn’t Happen
From the second article:
“If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void.”
Fred Hoyle is laughing in his grave right now. And notice how BB is still being described in that first sentence - which was written only a few months ago. This is the BB that I was trying to discuss here - only to find out that this isn’t the current BB. First… everything exploded INTO already existing space. Then… no, no, no silly, space itself is a product OF BB, and it inflated. Now… no, no, no silly, space DID actually preexist BB, and EVERY SINGLE POINT of space inflated all at once!
They’re just making crap up as they go - much of it directly contradicting the previous crap they made up. Yet you and the other “true believers” here just keep copy/pasting various crap that other people claim, and insisting that all the science and math in the world verifies every last word of it, therefore BB is the only possible option and anyone who doesn’t believe the LATEST version of the story must be a stupid layman who doesn’t understand science and math, and whose intentions aren’t honorable when trying to discuss/expose this nonsense.
Here’s a quote from that third link:
The truth that these papers don’t report is the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
See, James? It’s really NOT the “unquestionable truth” that you and others here make it out to be. It never has been - despite your repeated insistence that ALL the science and math prove that it is. But don’t worry, soon we’ll learn about how the Higgs-Bosin Effect (insert incalculable mathematical formula here), when combined with the newly discovered Planck Quarkicide Particles (insert incalculable mathematical formula here) and our new understanding of Roche Gemisomes (insert incalculable mathematical formula here), as measured with the brand new Quantum Eraser Double-Slit Spectography Telescope, those Webb images and BB actually DO form a consilience after all, thereby super-duper prove BB.
And once that sucker is Super-Duper Proven, idiot laymen like me won’t have a leg to stand on. Oh what a happy day that will be for the people who just parrot the newest rescue devices and the newest version of the story - and feign a deep scientific understanding of it all.
Fourthly… no, I am not required to have a model of my own in order to critique BB. And the very idea that anyone would even suggest that Model A is “default true and unquestionable” sans any competing model is very strange to me… especially when BB has always had competing models.
Interesting. Isn’t the idea to which you subscribe that posits non-winged creatures developed wings?
If the Earth were really round then there wouldn’t be any Flat Earthers, right? So how is it possible that there are people who believe the Earth is flat?
Neither dark matter nor dark energy were invented to rescue the Big Bang model from observations. Rather, they were both discovered as a result of observations.
None of which are written by actual scientists who work in the field. One is even written by one of the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology crackpots. It isn’t the fault of scientists that non-scientists misinterpret what they say.
For example, the characteristics of early galaxies fond by Webb is not challenging the BB theory. What it is challenging are theories about early galaxy formation.
You are dishonestly mischaracterizing what scientists have said and what the BB theory is.
Yes, from a Plasma Cosmology crackpot. It’s a bit like going to the Flat Earth society to find criticisms of NASA.
1 Like
It’s called measurement and mathematics, Mike. MEASUREMENT AND MATHEMATICS.
Your source is a Gish gallop of quote mined sound bites that does not cite a single equation, graph, table of data or anything of that nature, and on top of that is on a low-end young earthist website that includes on its home page an argument that creation.com themselves say that creationists should not use.
Once again, you need to engage with the measurements and the maths.
No, I’m saying that if you want to demonstrate that it isn’t settled science, you need to show us the measurements and the maths.
faith
- The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
So Mark… do you THINK common descent is true? Or do you KNOW it to be true? If the former, you believe it on faith.
I don’t think so. The stars were sparkling last night. 
1 Like
The evidence is consistent with common descent.
It’s about evidence, not faith.
1 Like
I don’t believe that. God created various creatures, and gave them the ability to both reproduce and rapidly adjust to their surroundings from the beginning. Since that time, that is what has been happening. No tinkering needed, or indicated by scientific evidence.
Yes, I have been aware of your bias and irrationality on this matter from the moment you refused to answer simple and direct questions.
You could have helped me by simply answering the questions in an honest and direct manner. Since you refused my requests for help, I reconciled it by just answering them truthfully for you.
Thanks for asking. The help I offer you now is to point out that next time things will go a lot easier if you just answer the questions as honestly as you can the first time. Hope that helps.
The only help you can give Mike is the science of the solid firmament. Where does it start? How far does it go? What’s it made of?
1 Like
I posit no such thing. I posit whether they did,