Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe Erased

Apr 07, 2009 by Miranda Marquit weblog
Texas school standards next attack: Removing references to the age of the universe. Image source: NASA Hubble Space Telescope.

(PhysOrg.com) -- The fight over the new education and curriculum standards for the public schools in Texas has been long and publicized. Most of the publicity, though, focuses on the school board's focus on "intelligent design" as it relates to the biological question of evolution. Because evolution has long been contested in public schools, it is no real surprise that this has gotten the most play from the media. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned as much is the fact that the Texas school standards also remove mention of the age of the universe. Long-standing ideas of cosmology are being challenged as well.

Originally in the Texas school standards was this phrase: "concept of an expanding that originated about 14 billion years ago." However, board member Barbara Cargill thought this wasn't good enough. It was too definite. The standards now read, "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe." You can bet that the age of the is not listed in the Texas curriculum as about 4.5 billion years old -- in spite of the fact that most of the people my age and older have known (or rather, estimated) this for years.

There certainly are many different theories about the formation of the universe. Whether it was a or a big bounce are two of them. Cosmologists and astronomers wonder about the rate of expansion in the early universe, and they debate the effects of gravity (not to mention its nature) as well as consider questions about the composition of the universe and the kinds of particles that exist. However, despite the questions that do exist about the origination of the universe, there is very little debate about its age.

Right now, the latest estimate is that the universe is 13.73 billion years old, plus or minus 120 million years. This information is the latest from results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (WMAP). While the age of the universe is likely to be fine tuned in coming years, it is extremely likely that it will remain in the neighborhood of 14 billion years. And few scientists see the age of the earth being cast in doubt as well. But it appears that could now be thrown into the fray of science v. religion.

Until now, matters of space have been very little addressed in terms of religion. After all, couldn't God have created the universe well before putting humans on Earth? But it appears that by working from Earth outward, some are becoming concerned. If God created humans on Earth just a few millennia ago, then Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. And if Earth isn't as old as all that, surely the universe isn't, either. It's an interesting train of logic. And one that could result in all we know about space science being brought under attack.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

Explore further: Sniffing out a partner at a London pheromone party

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Heavyweight galaxies puzzle astronomers

Apr 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have discovered large galaxies some two thirds of the way back in time to the big bang. This surprising find casts doubt on theories of how the biggest galaxies form.

Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

Jul 07, 2005

The widely accepted idea that the universe began with a Big Bang could be wrong, according to astrophysicists who took part in a "Crisis in cosmology" meeting in Portugal and reported in this month's Physics World magazi ...

Is ours the only universe?

Jul 21, 2005

Is ours the only universe? Astronomers Chris Palma and Jane Charlton answer: Palma: There's a distinction that needs to be made here. When we loosely throw around the term "universe," usually what we mean ...

How did the universe begin?

Jun 24, 2008

One of the most interesting questions considered by astrophysicists deals with the start of our universe. Indeed, there is a great deal of speculation on the subject, with different theories about how the universe began, ...

Survey: Most want evolution taught

Nov 18, 2005

U.S. adults want evolution taught in public schools even though most believe God created humans on the sixth day of the universe, a survey found.

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

Jul 22, 2014

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
4.4 / 5 (25) Apr 07, 2009
Cut off their federal funding, end of story. If they want to live in the stone age, let them.
Doggonit
4 / 5 (21) Apr 07, 2009
Millions of school children should not suffer because of stupid politicians.

This is a perfect example of why local and state governments should not have any control over the education system. It needs to be nationalized.

This is also a perfect example of why the founding fathers implemented the separation of church and state. Religious zealots will push their beliefs on everyone else without any regard for science or any sort of critical analysis.

We need to put an end to this.

MrGrynch
1.8 / 5 (32) Apr 07, 2009
Well, at least they abandoned the age of the universe. We don't have a clue as to the age of the universe. Red-shift? Please! Expanding Universe? right! Dark matter/dark energy? LOL! How is any of that worse than believing in intelligent design. I'm not saying I believe it, but people believe in all kinds of far-fetched ideas with little to no proof. If red-shift is intrinsic, then everything based on it is false. If electric forces are considered in the universe, as put forth by plasma cosmology, then the need for dark matter evaporates as well, along with the ridiculous notion of black holes.

As for defining the nature of gravity:
http://dx.doi.org....3062146
LeeSawyer
4.3 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2009
Creationists and tin-foil wearing pseudoscience peddlers - what a country!
Corban
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 07, 2009
While we're on the topic of rewriting science books, we should recognize that magic COULD exist, and that pink unicorns could be around us. Thus, without making value judgments, we should be forthright about our misgivings and put these in there too.
marjon
2 / 5 (28) Apr 07, 2009
Given the performance of AGW 'scientists' I am not surprised many don't trust scientists.

A bit more humility on the part of science could help since you all look real stupid when a new theory destroys the old.

As for magic, string theory could explain that, no?
thales
4.2 / 5 (21) Apr 07, 2009
This is a triumph of small-mindedness. I guess not *everything* is bigger in Texas.
thales
4.1 / 5 (23) Apr 07, 2009
Given the performance of AGW 'scientists' I am not surprised many don't trust scientists.

I'm not 100% sold on AGW myself, but science isn't about "trusting scientists" anyway. Having said that, science isn't an organization that can be dishonored by the activity of a few individuals. It is a methodological approach to knowledge of the physical world.

A bit more humility on the part of science

Science cannot show humility. That's like saying green should be loving.

could help since you all look real stupid when a new theory destroys the old.

Who exactly looks stupid? Science is an approach to learning. Learning begins with "I don't know." Seems pretty humble to me. But to continue to say "I don't know" once you DO know would be deceptive. In short, "I don't know" means you're either ignorant or deceptive. So are you ignorant or deceptive? Or maybe you DO know. Please enlighten us if so. We love to learn.


As for magic, string theory could explain that, no?

No.
MadLintElf
2.4 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2009
Sheesh, figures Bush comes from Texas...

powercosmic
3.4 / 5 (17) Apr 07, 2009
I live in Texas and the only thing thats big in Texas is Jezuz, and let me tell you people here are STOOOOOOPID. If you get a chance to come to Texas I strongly advise you to decline.

Husky
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2009
it's an interesting derailing train of thought
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2009
They'll be putting glass-cutters on space-craft next-- For cutting through the planets' crystal spheres, you understand ??
GrayMouser
2.6 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2009
Millions of school children should not suffer because of stupid politicians.

This is a perfect example of why local and state governments should not have any control over the education system. It needs to be nationalized.


An the national government is any smarter? All nationalizing would do is set us up for the next Goebbels that came around.
Arkaleus
3.4 / 5 (16) Apr 07, 2009
Coming soon. . .

Redrawing the map of the universe to place earth at its middle. . .

Reprinting world world atlases with inland areas denoted "heare be dragons" and oceans areas with depictions of large ship-gobbling monsters. . .

Reorganizing zoology to reflect the order of the days of creation: Fishes first, followed by fowl, etc. . .

As far the age of the universe, Texans must now consider the possibility that it is 6000 years old, younger than many of the artifacts found from human settlements in North America. The anomolous artifacts would then be classified as "satanic" for being unsupported by biblical teaching. . .

Developing. . .
mharratsc
2 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2009
Creationists and tin-foil wearing pseudoscience peddlers - what a country!


Spoken like a true Big Banger metaphysicist. Your 80 year old superstition and cosmological FAERIE DUST entities like dark matter, dark energy, etc.. and you're calling plasma physicists and the IEEE a bunch of "tinfoil hat-wearing pseudoscience peddlers"??

Hypocrite.
PaulLove
2.8 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2009
Bah Magic does exist its just a sufficiently advanced science. As for the pink unicorn I'm fairly certain I saw an article about a unicorn on this site sometime in the last year. Something about micro surgery implanting a cellular cluster/horn bud that developed along with the animal. Ok, so not pink but buy some spray paint or give a few years for geneticists to work on it. For myself I call dark matter and dark energy correction factors or placeholders to explain why currently observed conditions do not match the models we so love.

The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that 200 years from now there will be many deeply cherished notions of modern day science will be proved to be false. This will come from people who the current scientific establishment despises. It will come in two parts those who wrongly challenge currently held ideas and force those who are at the top to prove in greater detail existing ideas. Additionally from those who challenge currently held ideas who happen to be correct. With all the name calling perhaps we can imprison our next Copernicus, the greatest discoveries are seldom made by popular people as they make the current establishment feel uncomfortable and unworthy.
mharratsc
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2009
Oh the next Copernicus is already here.

His name is Hamilton Arp.
vlam67
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2009
Not surprising at all to me. Since the fanatical Islamic clerics are doing so well brainwashing millions in Middle East and elsewhere, Bible-toting diehards must be feeling they are behind in their game.
bhiestand
3.9 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2009
The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that 200 years from now there will be many deeply cherished notions of modern day science will be proved to be false.

What do you mean by "many", and what do you mean by "false"? Newton's observations are still very much recognized as true to this day, they just don't tell the whole story and apply in every situation. Certainly I hope we can discard Newtonian and Quantum in favor of an even more simplified, elegant unified theory... but I don't expect the main tenets of our current scientific understanding to actually be falsified. That's rather silly. You really think evolution or the age of the universe will turn out to be false? Perhaps we'll find out we were off by a certain [relatively] small number of years, or our understanding of evolution is incomplete, but anybody who seriously expects these to be outright falsified is a fool.

This will come from people who the current scientific establishment despises. It will come in two parts those who wrongly challenge currently held ideas and force those who are at the top to prove in greater detail existing ideas. Additionally from those who challenge currently held ideas who happen to be correct. With all the name calling perhaps we can imprison our next Copernicus, the greatest discoveries are seldom made by popular people as they make the current establishment feel uncomfortable and unworthy.

True, but right now many scientists are spending far too much time defending their science from ideological, baseless attacks. These detract from real science and real research, and only serve to set back our society. People who are using politics to sabotage our science education are actively and intentionally hurting us all.
EWSwan
3.5 / 5 (16) Apr 07, 2009
The saddest part of this is, when God created the universe over 13.5 billion years ago, it was done for us. Now we reject that truth in order to impose our own rules on how God was allowed to do it. If you believe in "Creation," then believe it was done in such a way as to illuminate us, not lie to us. Educators in Texas should be very concerned about the consequences of calling God a liar. they should be trying to understand why God did it this way, according to CLEAR evidence.
Truth
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2009
I am a sixty year-old man who has for a long time given thanks that my grand-kids can study science and learn about the true inner workings of the universe free from the magical-thinking of emotionally high-strung thumpers and other fairy tale spouters. Yet when I read about these childish efforts to stop rational education and replace it with hocus-pocus, 6000 year-old nonsense, I begin to get worried, really worried. I am sure the Taliban is a major role model for these individuals, at least when it comes to their 12th. century mentality.
RichManJoe
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2009
Texans shouldn't be allowed to use telephones, watch TV, drive cars, or even have access to modern medicine. Anyone who denies science shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it. Texas has such potential, but they are such pigheads.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 07, 2009
As a deeply religious person myself I find this particular issue disturbing. I don't give a flying F what many of you on this board think of intelligent design but it's not in the same category as this insanity is.

Let's not compare apples and oranges here. Intelligent design just means THAT. It could have been aliens who've long since vanished (or are maybe still here in some hyper advanced way that we can't detect). There need be no God for the theory of intelligent design to be valid...a non trivial detail that is COMPLETELY lost on the other side in their own form of quasi religious dread of the theory.

All that being said, this is completely idiotic. The same science that tells us that the universe is 13 billion years old is the same science (in a way) that makes your T.V. work, your cell phone work, your car work...etc. etc. etc.

One thing that must be pointed out however is that if this is what Texas decides then TOUGH S*^&! We live in a free society, in case some of you quasi fascists have forgotten that "inconvenient truth". What the HELL are you so afraid of anyway?? That in a straight up debate over the facts creationism will WIN over well established SOLID science?

There are some things worth debating about. Intelligent design, no matter what some of you zealots think here is a debatable issue because NO ONE has yet demonstrated how life actually began. OTOH we have ESTABLISHED that the Earth is round, that we orbit the sun, that mutations in the genetic code change life over vast periods of time, AND that the universe is 13 odd billion years old.

Quit being so hysterical about it, like it or not people can believe what they want and LIKE IT OR NOT people have a right to have a say in what their kids are taught in school if their tax dollars are paying for it...even if they want them taught that pink unicorns are real. Get over it.

You want to live in a free society? You take the good with the bad, and pointing a gun at someone and saying this is what YOUR kids are going to be taught because this is what I want them to be taught isn't in the equation.
Hoffman147
3.7 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2009
Colleges and universities should not accept students from states, like Texas, that set science standards for schools that are not based upon accepted scientific theories.

Parent will demand solid standards when their children are not accepted into good schools.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2009
Colleges and universities should not accept students from states, like Texas, that set science standards for schools that are not based upon accepted scientific theories.







Parent will demand solid standards when their children are not accepted into good schools.




Sieg heil! You would have made a better Goebbels than Goebbels.



People like you make me want to puke...
thorn
3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2009
Is any of you really that sure you are actually here? Are you, really? Sure? Really? Sure?
DonR
3 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2009
As a deeply religious person myself I find this particular issue disturbing. I don't give a flying F what many of you on this board think of intelligent design but it's not in the same category as this insanity is.



Let's not compare apples and oranges here. Intelligent design just means THAT. It could have been aliens who've long since vanished (or are maybe still here in some hyper advanced way that we can't detect). There need be no God for the theory of intelligent design to be valid...a non trivial detail that is COMPLETELY lost on the other side in their own form of quasi religious dread of the theory.



All that being said, this is completely idiotic. The same science that tells us that the universe is 13 billion years old is the same science (in a way) that makes your T.V. work, your cell phone work, your car work...etc. etc. etc.



One thing that must be pointed out however is that if this is what Texas decides then TOUGH S*^&! We live in a free society, in case some of you quasi fascists have forgotten that "inconvenient truth". What the HELL are you so afraid of anyway?? That in a straight up debate over the facts creationism will WIN over well established SOLID science?



There are some things worth debating about. Intelligent design, no matter what some of you zealots think here is a debatable issue because NO ONE has yet demonstrated how life actually began. OTOH we have ESTABLISHED that the Earth is round, that we orbit the sun, that mutations in the genetic code change life over vast periods of time, AND that the universe is 13 odd billion years old.



Quit being so hysterical about it, like it or not people can believe what they want and LIKE IT OR NOT people have a right to have a say in what their kids are taught in school if their tax dollars are paying for it...even if they want them taught that pink unicorns are real. Get over it.



You want to live in a free society? You take the good with the bad, and pointing a gun at someone and saying this is what YOUR kids are going to be taught because this is what I want them to be taught isn't in the equation.


You remind me of VenomfangX. Armed with half-measure understandings of scientific disciplines, flawed logic and poor assumptions, you adopt the guise of an educated person with something "real" to say.

I'm afraid the world is goiong to bite you on the arse at some point. You have my pity.
DonR
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
Damn that typo! :P
SMMAssociates
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
Government control of our schools? Already happened.... ("No Child Left Behind", or "If you have a measurable IQ, don't bother showing up"....)

Want to make things worse?

We should have _"Freedom FROM Religion"_, not "Freedom OF Religion".... The latter lets us pick whatever faith we prefer, if we can keep our neighbors from bringing out the torches and pitchforks. The former makes 'em leave the hardware at home....

Personally, I can't see the "picture" as accidental. But YMMV, and I'm enough of a "scientist" to at least listen to the current versions. 4004BCE is nonsense by any stretch, IMHO, so where are we? "The Bible Says" doesn't make it for me....

Just IMHO....
jeffsaunders
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2009
Just sitting here wondering who designed the intelligent designer. And lets not forget we should wonder who designed them too, going back in time until we have to run out of designers some time.

Sure it is possible that some benevolent Alien went sailing around the universe dumping lifeforms willy-nilly or with gay abandon. But that in no way changes the age of the universe or makes one wit of difference to evolution or that it is just plain idiotic not to trace back to the source and say this is not how life started.

And yes I guess if we want to read a literal truth written in a book 2 thousand years ago that shows considerable overlap with many religions that went before it, going back as far as these things have been recorded they all appear to have a great deal in common. Magic is the main one, and of course all the best sons-of-gods have to come back from the dead some time in order to make a really good religion. All the really good sons-of-gods can perform wonders that we mortals can only dream of. That is just the way it is.

The authors of this literature knew less about the planet than we do now, but sure why don't we just use their knowledge and throw everything else we have learned since then out the window. Why don't we just switch the clocks back 500 years to the dark ages when religion and ignorance ruled the western world.

I for one would be much happier pondering the cosmological questions which seem to tie the really big with the really small.

I am still trying to come to terms with what the universe is made of if we have units of time which relate Planks constant with the speed of light.

Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (18) Apr 08, 2009
We don't have a clue as to the age of the universe.


Certainly we do. The Earth as well, and the Universe clearly must be older than the Earth.

Red-shift? Please!


And thank you for mentioning that. It does show that all but the closest of galaxies are moving away from us. Thus making it quite clear that had to be closer in the past. Not only that the farther a galaxy is away from us the higher its redshift is, out the limits of our abilities to measure.

Expanding Universe? right!


See above for the proof. If you don't like it then give an explanation that actually fits the laws of physics. There is reason you didn't try. There is no such explanation.

Dark matter/dark energy? LOL!


LOL is no substitute for a rational well written rebuttal.

A lot of people have problems with those two. Whether they are real or not redshift itself is real and the conclusion that the universe is expanding is unavoidable to anyone that is thinking rationally.

How is any of that worse than believing in intelligent design.


One is real science. The other is mostly an attempt to shove a god into a gap. A gap that doesn't actually exist at that. Which is not science.

If red-shift is intrinsic, then everything based on it is false.


Would you like to explain that? It is intrinsic in an expanding universe. There is nothing else that explains it and fits the evidence.

If electric forces are considered in the universe, as put forth by plasma cosmology


Electric forces are massively overstated by the people pushing this almost entirely crank theory. Even Aetherwave silliness has more of a chance of matching reality.

hen the need for dark matter evaporates as well,


Dark matter is real. The main questions about it are how much and what the heck is it made of. Magic hand waving by plasma cranks won't make galaxies slow their rotation.

Speaking of plasma cranks Yep seems to have disappeared.

along with the ridiculous notion of black holes.


They are pretty much inherent in General Relativity. Cygnus X-1 cannot be a neutron star as it is too massive for even the strong force to support it. That leaves a black hole.

Your link leads to an abstract that says nothing about black holes or the plasma nonsense. If you have a link that actually says something that would be much better than a link that costs 15 bucks to follow up on.

Ethelred
nilbud
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
Anyone who receives this religiously corrupted education in Texas should have to have a little sticker on their diploma which simply states "This person has received a religious education, not a real one". It would save employers time when sorting through applicants. That's assuming reading and writing are going to be left on the syllabus, after all the apple of knowledge is sinful so even grunting is an affront to the lord.

Why can't they set up special camps for the gullible and keep them there away from the general populace. Call it "Happy jesusville" and the despicable cowards will pay to join.
JerryPark
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
I have always wondered why there are those who want to present speculation as truth. The ones who do are generally strident in their desire to promote their particular views, but why?

Present theories for what they are -- useful models. They do not necessarily represent reality. We have not run out of ignorance yet.
rab96
3 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2009
Science & Religion is a tricky field. We first need a framework that enables us to relate the two, otherwise it is better to leave science to the scientists and religion to the theologians.
TheRulingQueen
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2009
Hell yes we should all be concerned about what they're teaching in Texas, land of BUSH....those kids will be running our country, therefore the world, in about 30 years......come on people I'm not a rocket scientist but I do possess a measure of common sense.
neokortex
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
Science & Religion is a tricky field. We first need a framework that enables us to relate the two

I don't believe there can be such a framework. Science and Religion are mutually incompatible so far as understanding the natural world. Religious explanations for understanding reality are almost always based on super-natural assumptions, and so by definition are not amenable to methodological naturalism underlying scientific inquiry.
otherwise it is better to leave science to the scientists and religion to the theologians.








True
austux
3.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
Interesting to see the religious persecution reversed. Normally, those who faithfully believe that there is no God are able to force others to accept their faith, without proof.

Halton Arp, not Hamilton Arp, & one day find alternate explanations for his Catalog of Peculiar Galaxies (made in part while assisting Edwin Hubble). There is none.

Goodbye, redshift as a measure of distance. As the quasar in Stephan’s Quintet demonstrates. As does Markarian 205. Or any of hundreds of other physically associated objects.

As for universe before Earth, learn about White Hole Cosmology.

Real evidence is plentiful, but is always shouted down because it causes a faith crisis for Atheism.
ABCThePaddy
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
God help those little Texians!!!!!
Stein
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
Hello MrGrynch

Science is very methodical and not much goes through the cracks. Empirical measurements are there to prove what is proposed in the theory. Yes changes are made when the facts do not match the theory. But unless you have the imagination there is no goal to seek the answer for. Science has enabled technology to be where it is today.

As ehthelred posted these facts have been tested and for good reason and with great accuracy. And I agree with most of what he has posted here.

It is however possible that sometimes the data is misinterpreted and leads science up the garden path. But science is not fixed and when evidence shows up the mistake corrections will be made.

I do agree with most of the scientific findings and theories but there are some issues which I find unconvincing.

I agree with one of your comments for there apears to be some insight when you attribute red-shift to an intrinsic property.

The red shift of distant stars is absolutely correct. But, the assumption that this causes an expanding universe is according to my understanding not the case. And you have put the finger on it when you mention the word INTRINSIC. In my hypothesis the red shift is an intrinsic property of the Photon due to energy loss caused by the rotation of the Photon. And therefore the Universe is not necessarily expanding.

Dark matter on the other hand is a real necessity and recent science is digging up Einstein s Cosmological constant Lambda to explain the latest astronomical observation. So you see Einstein should not have called it his biggest blunder.

Cheers Zwei Stein


Hello ethelred

I understand the concept of the Doppler effect in sound where the frequency of the sound increases when the source emitting the sound moves towards the ear and reduces when it moves away. In this case the frequency changes because the distance is reduced or increased.

With the expanding universe the same principle is envisaged, and so it is assumed that the frequency of the photon reduces because the object emitting the light is moving away from the observer.

However, this cannot be a correct deducton, because the photon can only travel at the speed of light in any reference frame regardless whether the emitting object moved away from the observer or not. This does not change the speed of the photon and therefore does not change its frequency either. There can only be an intrinsic property of the photon itself which can cause the red-shift of its frequency over time.

Furthermore it would fit observations well if such a property were to interact with dark matter by equations which govern special relativity.

This intrinsic property may well be caused by the loss of rotational energy due to the interaction between 2 items which rotate the photon.

And with this analysis I do challange the concept of the expanding universe.

This is also a possible conclusion posted in Europhysics News (2001) Vol 32 No4 A cosmological surprise The Uverse accelerates by Bruno Leibundgut

Cheers Zwei Stein
superhuman
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
Red-shift? Please!

And thank you for mentioning that. It does show that all but the closest of galaxies are moving away from us. Thus making it quite clear that had to be closer in the past. Not only that the farther a galaxy is away from us the higher its redshift is, out the limits of our abilities to measure.
Expanding Universe? right!

See above for the proof. If you don't like it then give an explanation that actually fits the laws of physics. There is reason you didn't try. There is no such explanation.

You and many others fail to understand that cosmology is not a regular science, no control experiments are possible in cosmology and therefore it's theories are necessarily much more speculative. To make matters worse we still don't know the universal laws of physics as our theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, this is the biggest problem of physics and all related disciples and there is simply no way around it, someone has to come up with a proper theory and until this is done all our models will be suspect. The discrepancies between our models and observations consistently show us that we have to get the basics right before we can hope to understand the Universe.

Dark matter/dark energy? LOL!

LOL is no substitute for a rational well written rebuttal.

There is nothing to be rebutted about dark matter/energy, those are names for a discrepancy between our model and the observations.

A lot of people have problems with those two. Whether they are real or not redshift itself is real and the conclusion that the universe is expanding is unavoidable to anyone that is thinking rationally.

Red shift is real but we don't know the source of it. Yes expansion is the explanation which makes the most sense considering modern theories but once again those theories are known to be incomplete so the conclusion that the Universe is expanding is far from "unavoidable to anyone that is thinking rationally". Anyone thinking rationally understands that to draw unavoidable conclusions one has to have a model which agrees with all experimental data.

This is not meant to support the religious nonsense but to point out that many aspects of modern cosmology are still quite speculative and should not be treated as proven fact.

Here is one interesting article which points out some shortcomings of the most popular LambdaCDM cosmology model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2009
@ ModernMystic:

Oh noes! Cosmology deniers and evolution deniers team up! E pur si muove...

"but it's not in the same category as this insanity is."

Sadly it is - both creationists and plasma universe loons tries to replace working science with, not a better, more predictive theory as needed, but with complete junk that doesn't offer an explanation of observations.

"NO ONE has yet demonstrated how life actually began."

And here you show that you don't even know what the science you attack is researching. Evolution is, famously, the process of already existing life. (Though admittedly some of its mechanisms, such as variation, were in play already at the abiogenesis process.)

@ JerryPark:

"Present theories for what they are -- useful models. They do not necessarily represent reality."

Now that would be transparent lying. Scientific theories consists of the observed facts that they are based on, and the facts that they predict. They are not only factful and lawful, they are stronger than any of their components.

Read the article again: "While the age of the universe is likely to be fine tuned in coming years, it is extremely likely that it will remain in the neighborhood of 14 billion years." So while any specific observation may fail, a theory can be solid.

@ superhuman:

"Here is one interesting article which points out some shortcomings of the most popular LambdaCDM cosmology model."

This is a science news aggregate, so it should be about science. Denying the standard cosmology is not a meaningful, nor can it ever be science.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
@ ModernMystic:

My bad, I had missed entirely that today is Paul Nelson day.

[HT Pharyngula. In case yo'all have forgotten, Paul Nelson is the IDiot who would present a theory (about something he picked out of the blue that he termed "ontogenetic depth") "tomorrow" after some conference or other. It is now 5 years and counting...]

So in order to celebrate 7th of April Paul Nelson day, when ID for ever lives on in infamy, I have to ask:

"Intelligent design, no matter what some of you zealots think here is a debatable issue because NO ONE has yet demonstrated how life actually began."

- How do you know that?

I.e. how do you know that intelligent design demonstrates how life actually began?

And how do you know that todays natural abiogenesis pathways, say the hot vent theory, are invalid? (And note that it is sufficient to demonstrate a plausible natural pathway in order to show that there are natural, well, possible pathways.)
jadestar
4 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
That "intrinsic redshift" idea is interesting indeed, mostly because the redshift of faraway galaxies is measured using the Hydrogen emission lines from the stars comprising the galaxy. In the fusion of hydrogen to helium, light is emitted. When viewed through a spectrometer (ie, separated by a prism), the light is found to be a mixture of a signature set of lines, of frequencies *characteristic* of hydrogen. The characterization is unique to hydrogen, and is due to the specific *atomic structure* of hydrogen -- namely, the energies associated with the available and statistically likely electron orbits. In order for the redshift to be "intrinsic", the hydrogen in these galaxies would have to have a completely different atomic structure... one that would require completely different electrons and protons, and indeed a whole different set of chemical elements in order to explain how they're undergoing nuclear fusion to emit the light at all. Further, since the redshift appears to be greater in more distant galaxies than in less distant ones, and that there is a whole *spectrum* of microwaves spanned by these shifts, we would need a comprehensively unique atomic theory for each individual galaxy we find... and then we'd need to adjust it all again next year when the redshifts have all increased! (yes, they do that... which is another reason we think it's all *accelerating*) It's WAY more likely that the luminous chemical signature of Hydrogen is indeed a unique signature (since it's found in EVERY galaxy), leading directly to the rational assertions that a) atomic physics works the same everywhere, and b) galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing rate.

http://en.wikiped...l_series
http://en.wikiped...gen_line
neokortex
3.6 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2009
Interesting to see the religious persecution reversed. Normally, those who faithfully believe that there is no God are able to force others to accept their faith, without proof.
...
Real evidence is plentiful, but is always shouted down because it causes a faith crisis for Atheism.

Sorry to inform you austux but your reasoning is faulty. It requires no faith to assert the negative. There is nothing for Atheists to prove.
All atheism claims is that there is neither sufficient evidence nor necessity
for any supernatural entity. That's all.
Atheism is no more a belief system than not believing in Sasquatch.
jeffsaunders
3 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2009
@neokortex,







On the other hand, If red shift is caused by a decay of photons wavelength over time, then more distant galaxies will have greater red shift and chemistry will not have changed.







And since we cannot expect all galaxies to be stationary on one to one basis, we can expect that they will be moving either towards or away from us.







And since many (about half) would have to be moving away from us then this half would have greater red shifts over time because of the greater distance involved.



Furthermore, more distant galaxies would still have greater red shift.



This theory does end up having a problem with more distant galaxies appearing to be more primitive and closer together than not so distant galaxies - as would be observed if we can see far enough to see galaxies that are closer to the beginning of the creation of the universe.

Not so sure that we have observed anything like that though. In fact it seems that the further we can see nothing much has changed.
E_L_Earnhardt
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
PROVE what? - To Whom? Einstein believes! What is the "Age" of forever?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2009

Atheism is no more a belief system than not believing in Sasquatch.


A system which holds a specific belief isn't a belief system?

Saying you don't know if there is or isn't sasquatch isn't a belief system. Saying there isn't most certainly IS...no matter what kind of idiotic supposed non-arguments you put forth to the contrary.

Idiots...
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
I don't believe there can be such a framework. Science and Religion are mutually incompatible




Tell that to Newton and Galileo.
ancatiurean
2 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2009
The author of this article is practically a student of this Barbara from texas. If you read about her ideas and policy more closely you realize she has always been a simple teacher that improved teaching skills in order to help pupils develop their thinking. Her focus is not on the "truth", but on those tasks that lead to the development of thinking: analysis, comparation, questioning, synthesis, creativity, etc.
She's not at all trying to make a point about the origin of the universe. She's trying to make a point about what to do with this information: indoctrinating our children with it, or allowing children to rediscover it in a step-by-step way.
This article however started a debate about the origins of the universe and the double controversy that has always existed: creationism versus Darwinism - I'd say the author is acting like Barbara's student: he's using his brain to analyze, find evidence, study and draw conclusions. I suppose he would not mind that Ms Barbara encouraged his kids to do that too. I would also assume that Barbara would give him an A for the process of thinking, even though the content (just two theories??? there are more theories than just darwinism and creationism!) is pretty narrow. But the focus can be widened in time, and all of the commentors of this page are contributing to this. So I suppose Barbara's objectives might very well have been reached :)
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2009
I understand the concept of the Doppler effect in sound where the frequency of the sound increases when the source emitting the sound moves towards the ear and reduces when it moves away. In this case the frequency changes because the distance is reduced or increased.


In a sense. It happens because the waves are either piled up or stretched out do to motion of the source relative to the observer.

With the expanding universe the same principle is envisaged, and so it is assumed that the frequency of the photon reduces because the object emitting the light is moving away from the observer.


In part. It generally thought that space itself is expanding. That expansion stretches out the light waves thus producing a shift in frequency towards red.

However, this cannot be a correct deducton, because the photon can only travel at the speed of light in any reference frame regardless whether the emitting object moved away from the observer or not.


The speed of light is not the cause of the shift. It is both the speed of the object emitting the light and the expansion of space itself stretches out the light. According to General Relativity the Universe must be either expanding or contracting. The evidence is that is expanding.

There can only be an intrinsic property of the photon itself which can cause the red-shift of its frequency over time.


Which is false. For one there is no known case of light shifting on its own. Plus you totally misunderstand the cause of redshift. It is the movement of the source and the observer that causes redshift when the two objects are moving relative to each other. This is a well understood phenomena. The concept of the expansion of space-time causing redshift is theoretical but the concept of relative movement has hard empirical evidence and is used in LIDAR everyday. There is no doubt that redshift occurs with moving objects.

Furthermore it would fit observations well if such a property were to interact with dark matter by equations which govern special relativity.


Which is a wild assed guess based on a highly speculative form of matter interacting with a property that is both unneeded to explain anything and completely unobserved. In other words its fantasy.

This intrinsic property may well be caused by the loss of rotational energy due to the interaction between 2 items which rotate the photon.


Which is your own theory and it doesn't hold water. Or photons. Photons are electro-magnetic probability waves and you could call the electric and magnetic fields two items but calling a single force with two aspects seems to better fit the evidence.

And with this analysis I do challange the concept of the expanding universe.


I am so humbled by your wild ass guessing. When you get a Nobel let me know. Considering your failure to understand redshift and the fact that we use it in everyday tools I will continue to go on evidence and actual tested physics as opposed to unpublished speculation with no evidence supporting it. That the Universe is expanding is fairly clear. Tired light is a tired concept without any supporting evidence. The only reason for that idea is to patch up religious beliefs.

As for acceleration that is still debatable. I like debate but I am not fond of the concept. Still if the evidence continues to accumulate I will have to accept it as real. I will be disappointed in the Universe. I am already disappointed in the Universe for not allowing faster than light travel so I guess I can live with further disappointments.

Ethelred
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2009
Hello jadestar

Interesting you should mention the well understood and sound fundamentals of the Spectrometer which I have studied in great detail together with the Rydberg number sequences. As you say spikes in the spectrogram do represent specific elements because the electron orbital dictate the photons frequency. Astronomers use the shift of the peaks towards red to measure the red shift to calculate the distance of stars. However,

That is not the point in contention at all, and it is absolutely true that hydrogen will emit the same photon frequencies no matter how far away from earth this emission take place. However

If the frequency of the light emitted by hydrogen is always the same than so will the rotation of such photon be identical.

In consideration of that fact, than the only parameter that can change the frequency of the photon is the distance travelled per rotation. One would have to conclude that the photons velocity is to increase in order for the frequency to red-shift so that the wavelength becomes longer. However, this statement is in direct violation of the constant and fixed speed of light. Therefore,

if the rotation and the velocity is fixed, than so will the frequency be fixed and red shift will not take place no matter how quickly the space is expanding. However,

The photons are observed to red shifted over large distances and your argument therefore confirms my previous statement with absolute certainty, that the red shift must be an INTRINSIC property of the Photon and cannot be due to the expansion of space.

We do not require different conditions in different galaxies at all. It is just the photon of light which changes towards the red and slows its rotation over time. Just exactly what Hubble originally suggested be the case. Some people call it tired light.

Galaxies may or may not move away or towards us at all, and even if they did, they would emit the same light. Therefore, the fixed speed of light dictates that the rotation of the photon must slows down. Its speed does not change at all.

Cheers Zwei Stein


Hello jeffsaunders and jadestar

There is no difference in the speed of the light coming from a galaxy moving away or towards us. Even in vastly different moving reference frames, the light is still moving at velocity c towards the observer.

To understand this you need to look at velocity as being an intrinsic property of the photon. Please consider the following scenario to explain this phenomenon.

Say a jet is flying at mach 1 towards north and fires a bullet at mach 1 forward and backwards. In this case the forward bullet would travel at mach 2 and the backward fired bullet would be standing still and fall to the ground.

Now let us give the projectile some INTRINSIC property of VELOCITY and change it to a rocket fired ballistic missile which is capable to do the maximum speed of c. When jet pilot fires the missiles forward, backward ore side-wards for that matter all missiles will end up travelling at the speed of c. Therfore,

For light to have a constant speed of c, irrelevant of the movement of the reference frames, it must have INTRINSIC VELOCITY.

Therefore no matter what the speed of expansion between the emitting galaxy and the observer the photon will have the same velocity. The expanding universe will have no effect whatsoever on the frequency or red-shift of the photons observed. Doppler effect of photons based on velocity changes are therefore ruled out.

This minor technicality may be enough to explode pillars of the Big Bang Theory into interstellar vapour.

You refer to the beginning of the universe as if there was some big bang beginning. This assumption is incorrect.

However I draw your attention to some consequential conclusions from which Hubble derived the Hubble Sphere or Hubble Volume. This sphere has a radius of 13.8 billion light years. However,

that number is not the age of the universe. It is simple the time it take for a photon to completely lose all its rotation and at this point will no longer be visible. Therefore,

any photon emitted by an object which lays beyond the Hubble sphere, or more than 13.8 billion light years away, becomes invisible before it reaches us. Therefore,

such photons will undetectable because they exist as part of the cosmic microwave background of the universe.

Therefore the age of the universe cannot be determined by light or astronomical observations and is simply a continuum without beginning or end.

Neither can such observations reach the limits of the universe, even if such a limit were to exist.

So it may be a wise decision to remove the age of the universe form all scholarly literature, without the necessity to resorting to politic, rhetoric or other non scientific argument.

Perhaps some specialist of the big bang theory such as Dr E L Write should be brought into the discussion in its defense. I don%u2019t like to disagree with established scientific theory, but simple errors should be corrected sooner rather than later.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
You and many others fail to understand that cosmology is not a regular science, no control experiments are possible in cosmology and therefore it's theories are necessarily much more speculative.


Cosmology is an attempt to understand what is happening in the Universe. It does contain speculation but the speculation is based on sound physics and physical evidence. Redshift is real. We can measure the distance to galaxies by using a number of standard candles starting with the Cepheid variable. Cepheids get us out to as much as 60 million light years. Some of the standard candles are clearly going to be more trustworth than other. The Cepheid is pretty trustworthy and there are others that are worth using for farther out.

http://en.wikiped...d_candle

To make matters worse we still don't know the universal laws of physics as our theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible,


We understand things well enough to be pretty darn certain that the Universe is expanding. There is a big difference between knowing everything and knowing nothing. General Relativity and Special Relativity have stood up to every test so far and they and not QM are what is involved in the evidence for the expansion of the Universe. I seriously doubt that a theory that combines QM and GR will overturn the expanding Universe.

The discrepancies between our models and observations consistently show us that we have to get the basics right before we can hope to understand the Universe.


Actually they show that we have good enough understanding for us to confident that the Universe is expanding and is billions of years old. The main thrust of the objections to the size and age of the Universe on this thread is a need for Young Earth Creationists to force fit the Universe to their beliefs.

There is nothing to be rebutted about dark matter/energy, those are names for a discrepancy between our model and the observations.


Maybe. There is definitely matter that we cannot see and much of it is more diffuse than the stuff we can see. The question is the kind of matter and how much. I think of Dark Matter as at least 30 to 50 per cent reality and the rest is subject to future evidence and theory. Mostly I was pointing out that he hadn't tried to rebut. Its not that hard where dark matter is concerned and LOL remains a bad sign in almost any discussion outside of comedy.

Red shift is real but we don't know the source of it. Yes expansion is the explanation which makes the most sense considering modern theories but once again those theories are known to be incomplete so the conclusion that the Universe is expanding is far from "unavoidable to anyone that is thinking rationally".


Well it doesn't matter all that much. He wasn't interested in the details, he wants to make the whole universe go away so he can have his 10,000 year Young Earth. If the galaxies are moving away because the actually moving through space they are still all moving away which shows that they had to be closer in the past. That space is expanding comes from the evidence and GR which is exceeding well grounded in testing. Still it may be that space is not expanding. The galaxies are moving away and that makes it an expanding Universe no matter what the cause.

Anyone thinking rationally understands that to draw unavoidable conclusions one has to have a model which agrees with all experimental data.


Which we have despite not having a TOE. We don't need a Theory of Everything to know that galaxies that are red shifted are moving away and that is almost all of them.

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate.


Speculation. It MAY be but only if several methods of checking and measuring are all full of it. It is the confluence of several independent threads of research that leads to the expanding universe. I think I will check out the agenda of that site. Always a good idea whichever way you think about a single page of any site.

Richard Liu seems to be a legitimate scientist. He does seem to have a bit of a thing against Dark matter and dark energy. Can't say I blame him on that. Its the first sentence in the abstract that does seem to be a bit over the top. Perhaps things have gotten out of hand in the last five years or so.

Dark Matter and especially Dark Energy aren't needed for the Expanding Universe model to be correct. That part is pretty solid. The Accelerating Universe is debatable and I wouldn't mind it loosing the debate. I am not fond of the idea of the Universe tearing itself apart that rapidly. I wasn't fond of Omega = Zero in the past either. So far I am getting my way on that one. Yeah for my side.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
This is a science news aggregate, so it should be about science. Denying the standard cosmology is not a meaningful, nor can it ever be science.


You have been arguing with the cranks too long. That is over the top. Dark Matter is only partly solid. Dark Energy is questionable. At least read the abstract if not the whole article. Its from a real scientist and the site is Cornell University, its not AWITSBS or Plasmatical fantasticle.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
Otherwise you're pissing into the wind while pretending you're actually hitting the toilet through the eye of a cheerio.


Oooh. I have got to steal that one in the future. I will try to remember to post the source.

Ethelred
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2009
Hello Ethelred

Stretching space and light waves increases the speed of light. Which is in violation of the constant c.
The speed of the emitting object in space has no bearing on the frequency of the photon please check with spectrometry and jadestar has just confirmed that in his posting which received a score of 5/5. Sorry but space is unable to stretch a particle such as the photon it takes a black hole for that to happen.

On the contrary, according to my information Einstein based his theory of relativity on static non expanding space and introduced the Cosmological constant to accommodate for the red shift. Proponents of the Big Bang dismissed the Lambde constant in favor of the expanding universe however, the latest adjustments to the big band Theory have to resort to Lambda Cold Dark Matter to make the equations fit the latest observations of the acceleration at long distance. This in itself is a confirmation that something is wrong with the expanding universe theory

The red shift in photons is one known case of light reducing its frequency when interacting with dark matter as proposed by LambdaCDM. I am sorry you should review the consequences of constant light speed with respect to moving reference frames. And you should come to the conclusion that the velocity of emitter and receiver have no bearing on the speed of light. Please see my simple explanation by means of jet and missile above. Which highlight the consequences of an intrinsic property.
Please explain how light can accelerate from the speed of the electron to the speed of light in a split second if it does not have intrinsic velocity.

Yes red shift may occurs with moving objects at velocities below the speed of light where the velocity of the objects can vary. But this cannot be the case when the velocity is fixed and constant.

The concept of expanding space causing red shift is an iincorrect interpretation of facts.

Sorry the concept of dark matter is now also considered in the BB Model Please check with Dr E L Wright and his article on Error in the Steady State and Quasie SS Model. So you may want to read up on this before making accusations. Please check the published article on the accelerating expansion by Bruno Leibundgut bublished by Europhysics News (2001) Vol 32 No 4. Which suggest something to the effect what I am suggesting here.

True the concept of the photon composing 2 items is my idea but unfortunately science has no plausible explanation for the photon wave particle duality. At least I have an answer for it which fits the observed data. And until you find a better model I will stick to my model of the photon.

Perhaps you should seriously question some aspects of the BB Model in particularly with regards to the expanding universe. It may reduce your future disappointment in our universe. And to think that the BB model may fail on such a small technicality as the constant velocity of light may prove to be rather embarrassing.

Cheers Zwei Stein
neokortex
3 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2009
Re ModernMystic,
Cheap rhetorical tricks like name-calling (idiots and fascists?) are always attempts to halt debate, so I will oblige. I suggest you might want to expand your sources of knowledge and argumentation skills beyond watching Ben Stein's Expelled.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
Re ModernMystic,



Cheap rhetorical tricks like name-calling (idiots and fascists?) are always attempts to halt debate, so I will oblige. I suggest you might want to expand your sources of knowledge and argumentation skills beyond watching Ben Stein's Expelled.


Either all that pretentious nonsense you just said, or you just know I'm right and can't debate the point...
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2009
Hello ethelred
I have reviewed the theory of Relativity before making this posting and make the following Points

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was conclusive proof that the speed of light does not change regardless of the relative movement of emitting object and Observer. This on its own proves my point.

Secondly length is contracted when reference frames move relative to each other.

In addition there is no difference in the effect whether the reference frames move away. towards or sideways to each other.

Therefore the frequency change is the same whether the universe expands or contracts.

Thirdly the frequency of the observed photon is always greater than the emitted photon. Therefore
Reference frames which move relative to each other cause a Blue-Shift in the observed light.

This is contradictory to the BB Theory.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2009
Stretching space and light waves increases the speed of light. Which is in violation of the constant c.


No and no. First stretching space and time does not increase the speed of light through space therefor it does not go faster than C. Again you fail to understand both General and Special Relativity.

The speed of the emitting object in space has no bearing on the frequency of the photon


I said it was the RELATIVE velocity between the source and observer. Its not my word its what every test has shown when testing SR and GR.

lease check with spectrometry and jadestar has just confirmed that in his posting which received a score of 5/5.


Jadestar has exactly one post. A monoblock post which is rarely a good sign. He posted two links that don't agree with you and has little to do with the way the redshift of galaxies is measured. Interestingly he said nothing that supports you so it is weird that you are claiming that it does so. From his monoblock:

. In the fusion of hydrogen to helium, light is emitted.


Gamma radiation and kinetic energy are the main ways energy is released by fusion. It takes about a million years for that energy to reach the surface of a star.

The part jadestar's post you appear to have ignored:

's WAY more likely that the luminous chemical signature of Hydrogen is indeed a unique signature (since it's found in EVERY galaxy), leading directly to the rational assertions that a) atomic physics works the same everywhere, and b) galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing rate.


That completely disagrees with you. It agrees with standard theory. The only problem is that hydrogen is generally not the element that is used for examining redshift.

Have a link to something relevant to the way redshift is measured. Its not the hydrogen lines in most cases. Its absorption lines and emission lines of OTHER elements than hydrogen.

http://en.wikiped...Redshift

Sorry but space is unable to stretch a particle such as the photon it takes a black hole for that to happen.


Sorry but pulling stuff out thin air and then engaging in handwaving doesn't change Jadestar's post nor does it change reality. You don't understand black holes either but that was on the other thread you turned to garbage with your cranking.

I will say this for you. You are excellent at keeping your temper unlike many cranks.

On the contrary, according to my information Einstein based his theory of relativity on static non expanding space and introduced the Cosmological constant to accommodate for the red shift.


No. Again you manage to misunderstand well known facts.

He ADDED the Cosmological Constant when he noticed that the Universe MUST either expand or contract. When the redshift evidence was LATER discovered he said:

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life.
-- George Gamow, My World Line, 1970


From Einstein's 1917 paper:

It is to be emphasized, however, that a positive curvature of space is given by our results, even if the supplementary term [cosmological constant] is not introduced. That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars.


It wasn't until Edwin Hubble's work showed the movement of galaxies that Einstein figured out that he goofed.

So if he figured it out, what is your problem?

The red shift in photons is one known case of light reducing its frequency when interacting with dark matter as proposed by LambdaCDM.


Handwaving again. Its NOT KNOWN its a wild assed guess. Your guess at that. And its not part of the Lambda-CDM model plus CDM is still speculative even if it did support you which it does not.

Going over your stuff is tiring. You have multiple mistakes per paragraph and you just ignore it when they are pointed out.

Reality time. A link to the actual theory instead of the thing your are pretending is the theory:

http://en.wikiped...DM_model

It would help if you read things occasionally. Especially the things you claim support you when they don't.

And you should come to the conclusion that the velocity of emitter and receiver have no bearing on the speed of light.


Since I never claimed it did I suppose I might just possibly come to that conclusion except that I ALLREADY KNEW THAT. It has a bearing on REDSHIFT and there is no need to the speed of light to change for redshift to occur.

I am constantly astounded at the way you can read stuff and think it meant something quite unlike what was actually there.

You think I claimed that light was sped up when I said no such thing. You think Jadestar supports you when he supported the standard theories.

Can you read anything without distorting it to mean something 'almost exactly unlike tea'?

Please see my simple explanation by means of jet and missile above.


I have seen them. They are still crap. Just like they were before.

Please explain how light can accelerate from the speed of the electron to the speed of light in a split second if it does not have intrinsic velocity.


Who claimed it didn't? The speed of light in a vacuum through space-time is equal to C. The speed of light was calculated in the 1800's by Maxwell. However the speed of light is different when it is not in a vacuum. It has even been slowed to zero by using a Bose-Einstein Condensate. I told you that before in the other thread you wrecked.

The concept of expanding space causing red shift is an iincorrect interpretation of facts.


You are the Past Master of misinterpretation so please forgive me if I don't take your word on that. Especially considering that you can't read what I write correctly.

Sorry the concept of dark matter is now also considered in the BB Model


By some. Not by everyone and the standard Big Bang models are based on all that stuff you think is wrong so why do you think its relevant to you. Weird the way you claim stuff that shows you are wrong supports you.

Please check with Dr E L Wright and his article on Error in the Steady State and Quasie SS Model.


Why? So you can pretend it supports you? It doesn't. He is commenting on the late Dr. Sir Frederick Hoyle's Steady State hypothesis and the Quasie Steady State version he came up with when he found he could no longer ignore the expansion of the Universe. Fred was wrong. Wright was supporting the Big Bang theory.

It is SO BLOODY WEIRD that you thought that was in your favor.

You don't seem to know this stuff is ancient history. Fred was wrong for decades. Brilliant but wrong. I haven't seen any brilliance from you but you have the wrong part down pat.

Which suggest something to the effect what I am suggesting here.


That will be the day. The hard part of your posts is the way you claim things support you when they don't. So I have to check to see if its a crank or just another of your bizarre claims of support.

http://www.europh...=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epn/pdf/2001/04/epn01401.pdf

Interesting how it shows you botched Einstein as I showed above. Do you read this stuff or just make wild assed guesses that it might support you? Is it just one bluff after another?

That article shows that the author doesn't agree with you. Again. What is that 3 out of 3? Its from 8 years ago and I had heard of it. Just not read the original article. There is plenty of room for error in the ideas in it. Its dependent on a standard candle that very well may be non-standard. As the article admits.

I am curious why think it supports you when it definitely has the expansion of space-time as a part of it? Just more wishful thinking on your part?

True the concept of the photon composing 2 items is my idea but unfortunately science has no plausible explanation for the photon wave particle duality.


Sure it does. Several in fact. One is that that is just the way things are. Another is the Many Worlds model yet another is the one I mentioned already where the photon is a probability wave and if you test it as a particle the probabilities produce particle like results or wave like results if those are tested for. I find all of those plausible and its possible for the Multi Worlds model to be correct with either of the other two.

Perhaps you should seriously question some aspects of the BB Model in particularly with regards to the expanding universe.


Why? Because you don't like it but post stuff that doesn't support you and indeed supports the Big Bang? You shot yourself in the foot so why should I take your word.

And to think that the BB model may fail on such a small technicality as the constant velocity of light may prove to be rather embarrassing.


That is a weird thing to claim since the Big Bang is dependent on the constant velocity of light.

Reading your posts is like a trip through the Looking Glass. Even Alexa makes more sense. He doesn't post stuff supporting his opponents and then claim it supports him.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was conclusive proof that the speed of light does not change regardless of the relative movement of emitting object and Observer.


More ancient history that I learned fourty years ago. And agree with. I NEVER claimed that the speed od light in a vacuum is a variable. If I did I would be the crank.

Secondly length is contracted when reference frames move relative to each other.


And you had to review this stuff? This standard stuff that is coverered in nearly every popular book on physics?

In addition there is no difference in the effect whether the reference frames move away. towards or sideways to each other.


Correct.

Therefore the frequency change is the same whether the universe expands or contracts.


Incorrect. Contraction would compress the wave of light. Expansion would EXPAND the waves. Thus producing red shift or blue shift depending on whether the universe if expanding or contraction.

Thirdly the frequency of the observed photon is always greater than the emitted photon.


False. Do get a clue. Redshift is real. Please get a clue.

This is contradictory to the BB Theory.


Also reality. So you continue your unabated record of error.

Please read something real without distorting it beyond recognition. That link to Redshift above. Practicly ANY book on relativity. Here go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Its old but still relevant. And you can see it free, well there is advertising and you have to join Hulu but that is free:

http://www.hulu.com/cosmos

This episode covers the Big Bang, Redshift:

http://www.hulu.c...-forever

He starts with doppler shift at the 11:30 mark

Lets see if I can find something more specific:

http://www.youtub...9ulEYSgk

http://www.youtub...nqboacV0

There is lots out there. There is no reason you have to just pull things out the air and then execute poor logic on the bogus premises.

Ethelred
smiffy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2009
The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was conclusive proof that the speed of light does not change regardless of the relative movement of emitting object and Observer
This experiment was conducted using the Sun as a source of light and receiving equipment attached very securely to the Earth. There was no radial change of speed between the source and the receiver at any time. The experiment did not have anything to say about relative velocities of source and observer. What it did was virtually demolish belief in the existence of an aether.

Constancy of the speed of light between observer and source was demonstrated by De Sitter by appealing to observations of Binary Star systems.
http://en.wikiped...periment
brant
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2009
Summary
"Special Relativity (SR) is divorced from Science because it places the observer rather than the test object at the center of inquiry. SR deals with what an observer sees, perceives, or measures and not
with what actually is or happens out there. Without testimony, SR collapses at the speed of light. Followers of this religion propose that length shortens, mass increases, and time dilates simply because an object travels at great speeds (Fig. 1). The different relativity sects cant seem to agree as to whether these counter-intuitive claims are real or just optical illusions."
http://www.youstu...mSR.html
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2009
Special Relativity (SR) is divorced from Science because it places the observer rather than the test object at the center of inquiry.


False. It makes both the observer AND the observed important.

SR deals with what an observer sees, perceives, or measures and not
with what actually is or happens out there.


It deals with both.

Without testimony, SR collapses at the speed of light.


Without bullshit it predicts exactly what experiment shows.

Followers of this religion propose that length shortens, mass increases, and time dilates simply because an object travels at great speeds


Deniers of evidence engage in religious attacks on SR. SR is exceedingly well founded on experiment.

The different relativity sects cant seem to agree as to whether these counter-intuitive claims are real or just optical illusions


Prevaricators can't seem to agree on just how much mendacity to engage in.

So just is your problem with a well tested theory? Why the fantasies? The link you posted was wonderfully free of facts or logic. Untainted by actual evidence it depends on fantasy.


Why does Physorg bring out so many cranks.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2009
Daniel82

If you are still reading this thread post your PM to me here.

Some of your questions have already been covered on this thread so you might want to revise it a bit. I will not put that much effort into a private message especially since you have contributed nothing to the site so far.

If you want to discuss things ENGAGE the masses of Physorg. Do not hide your light under a bushel. Speak out and be counted.

Some cowards say it is better to thought stupid because of silence than to speak and remove all doubts. They have tiny minds and no courage. Stein may be an utter crank but at least he the guts to put his thoughts on the line.

Don't be another Carl Friedrich Gauss and claim after others have published that you thought of first. We use the notation of Leibniz for calculus because he published what Newton had dithered over for at least a decade. Darwin nearly lost out on Natural Selection because he spent 20 years fiddling around.

Ethelred
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2009
To make matters worse we still don't know the universal laws of physics as our theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible,

We understand things well enough to be pretty darn certain that the Universe is expanding. There is a big difference between knowing everything and knowing nothing. General Relativity and Special Relativity have stood up to every test so far and they and not QM are what is involved in the evidence for the expansion of the Universe. I seriously doubt that a theory that combines QM and GR will overturn the expanding Universe.

Then better stop doubting. GR can just as well accommodate contracting or static universe, besides QM or rather TOE calculations are absolutely required since one has to calculate the contribution of vacuum energy to the cosmological constant and present theories completely fail here.

The discrepancies between our models and observations consistently show us that we have to get the basics right before we can hope to understand the Universe.

Actually they show that we have good enough understanding for us to confident that the Universe is expanding and is billions of years old.

So to you discrepancies between model and data show we have a "good enough understanding"? Interesting

There is nothing to be rebutted about dark matter/energy, those are names for a discrepancy between our model and the observations.

Maybe. There is definitely matter that we cannot see and much of it is more diffuse than the stuff we can see. The question is the kind of matter and how much. I think of Dark Matter as at least 30 to 50 per cent reality and the rest is subject to future evidence and theory. Mostly I was pointing out that he hadn't tried to rebut. Its not that hard where dark matter is concerned and LOL remains a bad sign in almost any discussion outside of comedy.

Mainstream cosmology postulates 22% for dark matter so I have no idea where you get those values but anyway, how do you know "there is definitely matter that we cannot see"? We only know there is unaccounted for force acting on visible matter.

Anyone thinking rationally understands that to draw unavoidable conclusions one has to have a model which agrees with all experimental data.

Which we have despite not having a TOE.

We don't we can't explain a whooping 96%(!) of the energy content of the Universe and you claim we have a model which agrees with experimental data?
We don't need a Theory of Everything to know that galaxies that are red shifted are moving away and that is almost all of them.

And we certainly need TOE to rule out other possibilities as expansion is just one of them even if it looks most probable in the light of what we know, the TOE is bound to alter all fundamental concepts of physics just as every other paradigm shift did so far, the data will survive of course but many interpretations won't.
bfast
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2009
This article is balderdash. The Texas standards do not prohibit the teaching of any theory. The problem, as the scientific community sees it, is that their pet theories will not be taught in a vacuum. However, their theories, including the theory of evolution and the big bang theory will be taught -- and will be the dominant theory taught.

My bet is that very few schools will even bring out theories other than the mainstream theories. The only thing that the science standards will do is protect the enterprising student from a science fair project, or open ended assignment from being ostracized if he presents a view that is outside of the mainstream. Students should be protected from the this kind of institutionalized bullying.

If science is so vulnerable that it must legislate that other views not be presented then it is way too vulnerable. If science really has the facts on its side, it merely has to present those facts and the issue will be solved.
Auxon
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2009
I just want to point out the fact that recently there has been some discoveries of galaxies that are much younger (looking) than they should be, "casting doubt" on how we age the universe. Here's one ref: http://www.physor...471.html

Not that I think the universe is 6000 or so years old mind you ... just saying, it looks like the 14.5 billion year number could be completely wrong too.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2009
Then better stop doubting. GR can just as well accommodate contracting or static universe,


I know GR supports EITHER contraction or expansion. Only by jamming in an extra constant was Einstein able to produce a static Universe. He added it in after he discovered that the Universe would not be static and at that time there wasn't any evidence that that the Universe was changing size. He later said it was a mistake to add the constant.

Now it has been revived to deal with the Supernova Ia standard candle evidence that may show that the Universe is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating. That candle is still open to question.

besides QM or rather TOE calculations are absolutely required since one has to calculate the contribution of vacuum energy to the cosmological constant and present theories completely fail here.


No. Any TOE must fit the evidence. Therefor any hypothesis must be able to match the redshift evidence. Redshift is the proof that the Universe is expanding. A TOE is not needed to show that since the evidence already does.

So to you discrepancies between model and data show we have a "good enough understanding"? Interesting


Yes. Evidence is what people use to come up with theories. So the model must fit the evidence. GR fits the evidence. So what are the discrepancies between GR and the evidence? Don't care about QM in this as it is clearly not able to fit the evidence on a cosmological scale.

Mainstream cosmology postulates 22% for dark matter so I have no idea where you get those values but anyway,


I don't think you understood what the percentage was there for. Possibly it was a bit ambiguous in the way I wrote it. It is not a claim that Dark Matter makes up 30 to 50 percent of matter. It is a claim that at least 30 to 50 of the CLAIM is real, a level of confidence.

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I try but sometimes I fail to achieve the level of clarity I want. It's hard when dealing with things no one has a high level of confidence in. The Standard Model good at many things but its crap on vacuum energy so I have no confidence in it to produce functioning model of the Universe.

It is clear from the rotation rates of galaxies that there is SOMETHING we don't see. How much is the part that is questionable. The 22% you mention is theoretical based on things that I think are still not solid.

We only know there is unaccounted for force acting on visible matter.


Matter that we can't see is the best explanation for the rotation rates of galaxies and the gravitational lensing affects. Nether of those are requiring the levels of dark matter in that 22% you are using, since that number is from a model with Dark Energy supplying most of the total mass.

I don't feel beholden to theories that I consider speculative. You seem to think I must use them in this reply of yours which is odd since you don't seem to like them either. If you don't like them why demand the I take them into account? I am just using evidence, SR and GR but not QM as it produces vacuum numbers that are wrong by many orders of magnitude. Any future TOE must produce vacuum numbers that produce a fairly flat universe because it what the evidence shows.

From:
http://en.wikiped..._lensing

Galaxy clusters are among the largest gravitationally bound structures in the Universe, surpassed only by superclusters, with approximately 80% of cluster content in the form of dark matter[2].


The original source for that part of that Wiki:
http://www.spring...08m5536/fulltext.pdf]http://www.spring...text.pdf[/url]

The abstract and link to the PDF:
http://www.spring...08m5536/

I do so like it when the original article isn't behind a payment bar. Even if I can't hack reading all of it. The math is kind of dense.

Known forces are Gravity, Electro-magnetic, the Weak and the Strong. Only gravity and electro-magnetic are are needed to deal with gravitational lensing. Any claim of other forces is highly speculative at best and therefor are not relevant to a non crank discussion. That's you a me (I hope) but clearly not Stein.

I wondering if Stein will reply. It will be interesting to see how he does if he does.

We don't we can't explain a whooping 96%(!) of the energy content of the Universe and you claim we have a model which agrees with experimental data?


We have GR and SR but no TOE. That 96% you mention is including Dark Energy, is it not? Dark Energy is speculative and based on a standard candle (type Ia supernova) which may not be standard enough to deal with distant and therefor low metal stars. Plus Ia supernova may not be what we think they are since the source of them has yet to be nailed down. At present it is supposed to be white dwarfs with a companion. The theory makes for a strongly standard candle but IF the source is incorrect or the metal level effects the brightness than its not standard enough to use at long distances. It is the long range stuff where Dark Energy shows up. Or doesn't if the Standard Candle isn't standard.

Either way we still have redshift and that shows an expanding universe.

Any TOE must deal with the redshift evidence. It simply doesn't seem likely that any TOE could show the redshift evidence is a strange artifact and not real evidence of expansion.

Of course it may be that there is no possible TOE. That is, a QM based model that includes gravity. It could be that gravity simply is not a Quantum type force. If it is simply a distortion of space-time and there are no gravitons or equivalent particles, than it won't be Quantifiable.

This sort of question is one reason I want a an extended life span. Its going to take a while to get answers. Maybe a very long while. In the meantime there is simply no reason to doubt that the universe is expanding except for the religious needs that spawned the article that spawned this discussion.

Young Earth Creationists simply need to make most of the universe disapear in a puff of anti-logic. Hence the LOL posts above.

LOL. When you don't have a leg to stand on, its your only choice!

LOL, the standard of the evidentially challenged.

LOL, when you are as full of it as Baron Munchhausen.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2009
UncleDave

If you are going around scoring all the posts then why don't CONTRIBUTE something?

I don't much mind people going around giving me a one IF they post why they do it. Then I have a chance to either change your mind or a least see what your objection is.

Ethelred
bmcghie
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2009
Give it up, Ethelred. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than waste it attempting to educate the oblivious.

Good posts though.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2009
UncleDave has responded.

He gave me another on, no guts at all.

Dave I am going to respond in kind. I am sure it will make no difference to you but a petty revenge seems justified at the moment.

Ethelred

Archivis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2009
Cut off their federal funding, end of story. If they want to live in the stone age, let them.


On the surface, I would tend to agree with that thought, however...

The problem runs much deeper than one state being "behind the times" or "in the stone age". See, the bigger picture in a situation like this is; they do what they want, they fall behind, and the average national intelligence drops another 2 points.

In actuality, it's people like this that are holding back the advancement of my species. Please, get the hell off the planet, thanks!
Mountainbiker
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2009
They do not go far enough. The problems are with all the %u201Creceived%u201D Copernican knowledge. The Bible says creation happened in only six days. Something like stage lights turned on and off to mark the first three days. On the fourth day those little bright specs called stars were placed on a dome called the sky. The sun was also placed on this dome to rule the day with light and the moon stuck on it to rule the night. How else could these lights stay in the sky? The primary purpose of the dome, however, is to separate the waters. Below the dome we have dry land floating on the water. This explains why we can find water under the ground. There is water above the dome on which the sun, moon and stars are pasted. When some of the water leaks through this dome from time to time, we call it rain. When God got mad in Noah%u2019s time, he let all the water out, both from below and from above. It was a mess.

Now consider the Copernican stuff. Everybody believes it, even though they do not have a clue why. The Church fought hard against it a few centuries ago but has given up the struggle to concentrate on the Darwin problem. There is no way that the earth can be orbiting the sun and spinning around on an axis at the same time. This is completely contrary to the earth centered universe described above and to the Bible. Do you feel as if the earth is moving? If so, which direction is it moving? If you calculate speeds according to these so-called modern scientific theories, you are moving nearly 1000 mph from the spin alone. Why, you%u2019d fly off, just like a dog shaking water off its back (and its back%u2019s not moving close to 1000 mph). If you calculate the %u201Cso called%u201D orbital speed, you would be moving about 17,000 mph. I would be afraid to jump off the ground, if the earth was moving like that. I would be in the next county by the time I landed. These modern scientific theories are clearly nonsense. You say the astronauts have been out there, and they did not hit any dome. All this space travel stuff is just a government conspiracy to get taxpayers to fund the kind of modern science claptrap I am talking about. Why don%u2019t you have any evidence of the conspiracy? Well, you don%u2019t have any evidence, because it is a conspiracy. That%u2019s a pretty tight circular argument, don%u2019t you think? The best explanation for anything you want to explain is that God did it. It%u2019s a more reductive argument than any physics or biological argument can be. It%u2019s almost impossible to refute and can explain anything. What more could you want?

I. M. Wright

Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2009
The problems are with all the %u201Creceived%u201D Copernican knowledge.


Since it is based on easily checked evidence it is NOT received knowledge.

The Bible says creation happened in only six days


And we are supposed to take it's word for it despite the evidence, why?

Something like stage lights turned on and off to mark the first three days. On the fourth day those little bright specs called stars were placed on a dome called the sky.


This is a joke right? Please tell us you are joking.

The sun was also placed on this dome to rule the day with light and the moon stuck on it to rule the night. How else could these lights stay in the sky?


Oh maybe because they are all suns at different distances which can be checked by triangulation techniques.

Below the dome we have dry land floating on the water.


So you are claiming that land floats? Want to try proving it?

When God got mad in Noah%u2019s time, he let all the water out, both from below and from above. It was a mess.


Hey this silly. Even believers do better nonsense. Now it clear. You are kidding but on a first post, that is strange.

Everybody believes it, even though they do not have a clue why


I can use a telescope. Heck I can see the moons of Jupiter with twenty power binoculars.

The Church fought hard against it a few centuries ago but has given up the struggle to concentrate on the Darwin problem.


The Church usually equals the Catholic Church. It accepts evolution as real. It recently apologized for it's treatment of Galileo. So its clear that the Catholic Church doesn't consider Genesis as the literal truth.

What more could you want?


Oh maybe another post. Without the badly done satire. I can do a much better imitation hit and run Creationist post.

See my next post.

Ethelred
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2009
Hello Ethelred

I have taken a short brake, It being Easter and all.

Stretching space and light waves increases the speed of light. Please let me illustrate this by the following logic:
Frequency is the same as rotation per second.
Red shift increases the length of the wave if rotation per second remains constant.
The velocity is increased, if a longer distance is traveled per rotation. Therefore
Velocity of light would not remain constant and is increased.
When the velocity is increased from the maximum velocity c the maximum speed of light is violated. Therefore
To attribute the red shift of light to an expanding universe would violate the maximum speed of light.

I understand that the red shift of distant objects is real and that is not in dispute here at all.

In dispute is the assumption that this red shift is due to the expanding universe.

However, the maximum and constant speed of light would not be violated if the reduced rotation of the photon was causing the red shift.
De Sitter proved that the relative velocity between source and receiver does not change the speed of light and if the rotation per second is unchanged so will the frequency remain unchanged when the meters per second remain unchanged. Therefore, relative velocity does not cause red shift

jadestar posting confirmed that the frequency of the emitting photon of an element such as hydrogen is always identical no matter how far away the emission is. I fully agree with that statement and it confirms that the rotation is therefore also identical if the speed of light is constant. There is simply no room for a probability wave function of differing frequencies at all.

I am not manipulating the content of spectrometry posted by jadestar I am just using it in my argument to disprove the expanding universe theory. I am not disagreeing with sound science. However I do not agree to the conclusion that the red shift is to do with a expanding universe.

I am only giving you and others who read these postings the simplest sequence of logic which will disprove the assumption of the expanding universe. So that anyone who is not necessarily a cosmologist can see and determine by themselves that the theory is flawed on a minor technicality such as the maximum velocity of light. There are other ways to disprove it however that is more complex and not necessary.

I am doing you a favor by giving you this information so that you can clear your mind from misleading aspects of a model and concentrate on the other aspects which are quite correct. When you are ready to re-evaluate the situation and look at it from a different perspective you may see that an alternative solution may fit the data even better.

I can assure you the statements I make here are not wild guesses or crank ideas. They are not based on some religious dogma. They are based on the same science you are basing your theory on. Only my interpretation is different. Please open your mind and look outside the square you are currently in. My information is based on subatomic particle physics and simple logic.

Einstein s statement is clear that some invisible energy or matter must account for the red shift observed in distant stars. With better means of testing it will come to pass that Einstein did not goof on Lambda at all, but was wise enough to appease the reviewers, because dark matter would have been considered as taboo.

Perhaps I am a fool to try to break the main pillars of such a model as the BB. But I do like a little challenge. And I have appreciated your debate on both the Big Bang and the Black Hole. The Lambda-CDM model is speculative because it works against the principles of the Big Bang. And yes I am working on old scientific models and facts.

I am not distorting your comments I am simply suggesting that your argument is contradictory and when considered with clear logical analysis you will come to the same conclusion that I have arrived at.

I am glad you already knew that the speed of the emitter and receiver are irrelevant to the speed of light. In that case you must also conclude that the only property which can vary to cause red shift is rotation. Because changing the distance / time violates the constant speed of light.

I give you visually explainable models of the jet & missile to explain how the intrinsic property of the photon works. I thought that was such a simple example that anyone can understand it with little knowledge of physics. You may put it in the category of crap but someone else may find it very interesting analysis of a phenomenon which is up to now has been difficult to explain. It does indeed prvide and answer to the intrinsic nature of energy and until you understand how that works you will remain in the scientific wilderness which currently exists with respect to the photon characteristics.
Please consider the following.

How can a photon which has been reduced to near walking speed as in Bose-Einstein concentrate experiments suddenly take off at the speed of light. Where is this sudden velocity coming from. It can only be an INTRINSIC PRORETY OF THE PHOTON.
Because the Bose Einstein condensate is almost at absolute zero temperature so the photon cannot have obtained its velocity from the condensate. Thank you for mentioning this condensate experiment which also proves that the photon velocity must be INTRINSIC.

The LCDM findings and Einstein%u2019s Cosmological constant is required in a non expanding universe as proposed by Einstein to account for the red shift.

I am not saying that Dr E L Wrights article was in my favour I was simply saying that he is an expert on the BB theory and has studied both the SS and QSS models. And he may well be someone who could ask me some difficult question.

Yes. You are correct Leibundgut does not discount the expanding universe but at the same time he does suggest that dark matter may be the cause of the acceleration. Because the BB cannot. And Leibundgut does make the following statement which supports my argument.

AN OBVIOUS CANDIDAT ISTHE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT AND SHOULD BE REINTRODUCED TO EXLAIN THE DATA. ANOTHER POSSIBILTY IS A PARTICLE FIELD THAT THROUGH ITS DECAY ACTS LIKE A COSMOLOGICAL COSTANT

Incidentally when you talk about the Hubble Constant you should use the constant which Hubble first introduced which combines Red shift with distance. But please do not confuse the Hubble constant with universal expansion, because this conversion is based on an incorrect interpretation.

Pity HULU is not available for viewing outside the USA.

I have watched the Youtube videos and must say it is fascinating how many scientists stumble on such a thing as constant velocity of light and have made the erroneous assumption that light acts like sound waves. Sound waves require a medium for propagation. Photons are rotating particles which travel through empty space at velocity c.

Michelson %u2013 Morley proved there is no aether so there is no medium of propagation. De Sitter proved there is constant velocity. No matter if it moves towards or away.

All these observations point to the fact that my theory is correct. The red shift must be due to other things than expanding or contracting universes.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2009
Hello smiffy

You are correct the Michelson-Morley experiment was to disprove the aether theory but it also noted that no change in the velocity of light from any direction was detectable and the same constant velocity of light was confirmed by De Sitter observations.

Cheers Zwei Stein


Hello brant

Perhaps you should leave religion out of the argument and adopt a less belittling tone. Please do not shoot the observer and messenger just because the observation reported does not match expectations. Perhaps you should instead seek the explanation of it.

Cheers Zwei Stein


Hello superhuman

I see that like me you have an open mind, with room for doubt, without losing sight of the facts.

Perhaps we should exchange some ideas of what dark energy and dark matter may be. And how H and He can be continuously created without a big bang. What quark actually are. How dark energy & dark matter interacts with photons. What causes CMB without big bang. What does the nucleus look like. What is quantum mass and gravity. What are the structures and properties of dark energy, the ITEM. All this can be explained without a Big Bang.

Judging from ethelred comments I am not sure if scientists at this point in time are ready to consider alternative concepts based on different interpretation of the observed facts.

Perhaps when my theory of the beta decay, black holes jets & Item (dark energy) velocity, non expanding universe and intrinsic energy of photons is finding some appeal in high circles of physics, science may be interested to listen and consider my concepts with a more open mind.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2009
Hello bfast

If what you say is correct little Ben Stein may not be expelled after all. Perhaps Texas is the place where new ideas may flourish. That is a good thing provided we do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cheers Zwei Stein


Hello Auxen

I am not surprised that doubt may exist as to the age of the universe and galaxies. I for one, see observations of the universe will not be able to determine a beginning or end. And galaxies may be created at different times.

The age of galaxies may not be determined by observable from the distance. This statement has to do with the black hole emission of jets of item particles which are smaller than the photon and can escapee the black hole. These items are dark energy and may convert into photons or other matter in outer space.

Black holes in galaxies reach a maximum mass. At that point photons and matter which is accreted in excess of the maximum mass are separated into items. When the maximum mass is reached any further matter or photon entering the black hole will be emitted as items (dark matter) as jets from the poles of the black hole. This creates the galactic gravitational stability. And galactic black holes cannot grow to unlimited size. Photons and matter are recycled in this process

This aspect of black holes and galaxies makes the term age of galaxy somewhat a misnomer, because once they reach the maximum mass they may continue to exist indefinitely. Universes which have lots of young stars may well be due to higher incidence of items combining into new matter and photons. This may well occur where 2 item jets intercept each other in space. The newly created stars may therefore have nothing to do with the age of the galaxy where such stars happen to be formed. The galaxy with young stars may simply be located where the jets of dark matter emission of 2 other universal black holes meet and interact to form into new matter.

Not only does this process create a possibility for near to even distribution of hydrogen creation in outer space but at the same time it allows the concentration of some hot spots in the Cosmit Microwave Background energy where jets intercept each other.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
2 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2009
Hello Ethelred

I am not certain as to the question, because I did not see a question in your posting. I assume you would like my opinion on mass and gravity. I will have to let another cat out of the box to explain that.

As you posted gravity may be a long way off from solving, but there may be a small glimmer of hope. Let me highlight another misinterpretation and explain my theory of why mass varies which may shed some light on this subject.

The current theory states that mass increases as velocity increases so that mass becomes infinitely large as velocity approaches the speed of light. This is correct in mathematical terms and gives the correct answer that the speed of light cannot be exceeded no matter how hard one tries. However it is somewhat illogical and misleading.

There is however an alternative solution which makes more sense and has the same mathematical result. To explain VELOCITY please consider the following logic process.

1. Free photons have Zero mass and velocity c
2. Photon interacting with matter are the cause for quantized energy as in Plank h
3. Energy has components of kg m^2 / s^2 therefore
4. photons must have energy to displace electrons in the phtotelectric effect.
5. Therefore photons must have some mass to satisfy point 3.
6. If photons have INTRINSIC energy as posted above by Stein then Photons represent the energy quantum.
7. The photons INTRINSIC energy must be fixed and constant with respect to velocity at zero mass.
8. The photons energy must be constant and proportional in terms of E=mc^2
9. Point 1 and 3 suggest photons may have mass if that is the case than point 6 quantifies the proportionality between velocity and mass.
10. Therefore, at maximum velocity the photon has Zero mass because all of its intrinsic energy is used for velocity and none is left over as mass and therefore mass is Zero.
11. The photon cannot exceed the speed of light because the speed of light is the situation when all its intrinsic energy is used and no more is available. Therefore
12. Increasing mass is not required to limit the speed of the photon or matter to velocity c. Therfore
13. Unlimited mass is not required to restrain velocity to c when INTRINSIC and fixed photon energy is considered to be the cause of fixed velocity.

The concept of INTRINSIC energy of photons has another implication which governs the mass of matter. T explain MASS, please consider the following logic process:
14. Photons are particles because they propagate through vacuum space.
15. Particles exist and are real in photons as well as matter, because
16. Electrons and Positrons consist of a photon and possibly something else which is undetectable such as dark energy, because 2 photons are emitted when they annihilate each other and the dark particles becomes invisible.
17. Other forms of nuclear decay also emit photons therefore matter contains at least some photons among other particles.
18. Electrons and other matter has velocities lower than the speed of light, such that the faster the speed the lower the mass. Photons which have fixed intrinsic energy must balance velocity with a component of mass to comply with conservation of energy. Therefore
19. Photons have variable mass depending only on the velocity of the matter within which they are located. Therefore
20. Mass is variable and inversely proportional to the velocity of matter in terms of E=mc^2
21. Photons velocity is independent of the reference frame of the emitter or receiver. Therefore
22. The maximum mass is reached when the photon is at rest relative to universal space.
23. If mass is at rest and has 0 velocity than there will also be Zero energy. Therefore
24. such mass will become dark mass because velocity is missing. Therefore
25. Photons have no observable energy when either velocity or mass is Zero, but they have constant or a fixed amount of energy in between these 2 extremes.
26. If centers of massive black holes of galaxies have nearly maximum mass and therefore, lowest possible velocity relative to universal space. They are acting like surveying pegs in the 3 dimensional space of the universe which therefore move only very slowly.
27. Obviously earth is not at rest and mass of matter is not at maximum. However mass of matter will increase if particles are accelerated against the motion of the earth.
28. Due to the rotation of the earth the mass of matter has a slight variation and the mass of atomic particles may therefore exhibit small deviations in their mass and will not have a constant value of mass. One must always consider the relative velocity of the matter when determining its mass.
29. Acceleration of particles will affect their mass. This causes strange, charmed quarks to appear in the observation when a quantized amount of energy is suddenly applied be external means to slow down the velocity relative to universal space. Because the externally applied energy is quantized the mass increase will also be quantized.

Gravity is the interaction between 2 masses as described by Newton laws. But gravity also interacts with photons by causing blue and red shift when they pass through a gravitational field. Please consider the following thought experiment.
30. Photons must have an intrinsic component which reacts to the gravitational field, if they are affected by a gravitational fields. Therefore
31. Gravity must have an INTRINSIC property in the photon.
32. Gravity must have similarities to electromagnetism, if Gravity interaction is similar to electromagnetic interaction between opposite charges. Therefore,
33. Gravity is a quantum effect of the photon which interacts in the presence of other mass of matter proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to distance as defined by Newton laws.
34. Photons may interact gravitationally with dark matter and dark energy as proposed by the cosmological constant to maintain flat non expanding space. And to explain the slow rotation of galaxies.
35. Photons must react with such gravitational fields by changing its rotation frequency in order to account for red shift observed over long distances.
36. Photons must be attracted towards mass of observable matter as well as mass of unobservable matter in order to create the gravitational lensing observed.

I hope this gives some insight into how I see the interaction between mass and velocity. You may consider this as a hypothesis at this stage until you check if in fact it does come to the same mathematical conclusion as those which is currently proposed.

I have come to the conclusion that the Intrinsic property of maximum photon velocity is a better logical match to the observed. And at least in my mind I have a clear understanding of how relativity relating to velocity and mass confirms that which is observed in the photon. Rather than mass reaching unlimited values at the speed of light, it actually reaches Zero mass at the speed of light. I think this matches closer to the observed photon.

I do believe that the mathematics come to the same conclusion however the interpretation of the effect is opposite. So please apply the formulas of special relativity in a way which closer matches the observed and you will come to the conclusion that energy must indeed be an intrinsic property of photons and matter.

Please consider the following thought process of the TRIPLETS on the intrinsic nature of particles.
1. Consider Space is empty flat 3 dimensional and void of energy. (A empty room)
2. Only 3 identical pieces of matter exists in this space. ( 3 entities like Triplets )
3. If each of these 3 pieces have no intrinsic energy they will not be able to interact with each other. ( Lame triplets cannot kick each other)
4. At least 2 must have intrinsic energy in order for them to energetically interact (2 non-lame entities are required for a good fight)
5. If all are identical than all must have identical intrinsic energy. (If the triplets are identical they are all able to kick)
6. For simplicity, let us reduce the complex triplet into the smallest particle the photon
7. If the Photon has intrinsic energy than all other particles, which contain them, must also have intrinsic energy.
8. If all matter and photons reduce to 1 single particle (the Item as in the Item based theory of everything) than this particle must have intrinsic energy. Therefore
9. This particle (which I call Item) must have energy of mass velocity, electromagnetism, gravity. And it must have the subatomic close range interaction between Items called Strong and Weak force.

I know the theory of intrinsic energy of Items is so way out there that it ranks among the most ordatious and outrageous. Many scientists may not give it the time of day. I am pleased that you have at least read my postings and engaged into critique and dialog, and for that I give you my respect and credit, for I know that you are very knowledgeable of the physics as it is portrayed now.

I hope you can look far enough outside the square, (that you and other scientists are in), to see that there may be a tiny glimmer of truth in what I suggest. There may be answers where currently there are none. From there you may find the answer to gravity at a Quantum Mechanical or subatomic level without having to expand your life and thus reset your age beyond the physical barrier.

Cheers Zwei Stein
nilbud
3 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2009
....those kids will be running our country, therefore the world, in about 30 years...


That would be their "manifest destiny" I suppose. Proof that the US educational system is a joke already. Illiteracy is a major problem in the US yet according to official figures the US is 99% literate. So when Toyota, Nissan and Honda have to put pictograms on everything because the majority of shop floor workers can't read or write that must be some kind of "enemy" propaganda or jealousy.
US education stats are as fictitious as the accounting controls on US corporations.
Daniel82
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
Greetings. I was reading some articles on Physorg and started reading the comments left on the one about "Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe Erased". This story caught my eye and after reading the comments from many people as well as yours, I felt the need to ask you some questions; mainly about your reply to another poster. I mainly just have a series of questions for you that will give me light into how much you actually KNOW.

First, if you could explain to me what RED SHIFT is. And not only in terms of distant space objects. Why do they mean when they say "red shift"?

How exactly do you determine speed from a value of red shift. Or age from red shift for that matter?

In your post you are quoted as saying... "Electric forces are massively overstated by the people pushing this almost entirely crank theory." ... refering to plasma cosmology. Could you please tell me what you think the ratio of strength is between gravitational and electromagnetic forces? Both forces have been very accuratly measured so this one should not be hard.

Can you please link me to just one article or even a picture of a directly OBSERVED black hole?
Or even an accretion disk for that matter.

Could you explain to me how "knowing" the distance and speed of distant galaxies tells us the age of the universe. If you can include the equation that spits out roughly 14 billion years, that would be perfect.

Could you explain dark matter and how it came to be "discovered". You are quoted as saying that it IS REAL.

And last, could you explain to me what the big fuss is about when a text book changes "WE KNOW THAT...." to ""current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.....". Last time I checked, all the numbers about the age and size of the KNOWN universe are based upon the big bang THEORY. (what was the definition of a theory again?)

I hope you choose to reply because I am not going to claim I know anything about anything without evidence of experimentation and direct observation over and over again, and since you seem pretty sure of your answers, I just wanna make sure I havn't missed anything big over the past few years.

-Daniel

ps. Although I don't agree with everything on this site, i believe it does give some great insight into some plasma experiments that have been conducted in a lab which might explain some of the workings of the solar system and such. Oh and it is free. www.holoscience.com
nilbud
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2009
RED SHIFT is when you wait until the rev counter is in the red zone of the gauge before shifting up a gear. Red shift is also the change in the wavelength of light as an object moves away making the light appear more red than blue. There are many pictures of black holes but seeing as they are black it's not an exciting prospect.

Honestly if whatever nonsense you're peddling involves there being no black holes then you're clearly a deluded charlatan and not worth bothering with.

If you're trying to pretend there are many competing theories you are a liar. If you are a liar it's probably got something to do with some nonsense religion. There are no invisible friends spells goblins magic books or ghosts. Stop being a liar.

PS if you don't understand what a theory is please don't try to sell hypotheses as theories.
laserdaveb
not rated yet May 03, 2009
i'm little disappointed that this thread seems to have come to a conclusion. i'd like to add a few pennies if you all are still around..nilbud i'm laughing but i wont buy a used car from you!
jeffsaunders
not rated yet May 16, 2009
Couple of things:

Stein and Ethelred I agree with both of you some of the time and neither at other times - and having been misquoted myself I will find it difficult to point to actual location of departure.

However, why not give it a go?

In terms of velocity of light it seems we are all in general agreement. Here is where I tend to lean towards Hoyle and his original idea which he later abandoned to some extent and then returned.

Tired light as it is known and the many attempts to describe the cause. The idea has been thrown out in exchange for a limited universe for no apparent reason. Sure describing the cause of tired light has been difficult but it is only one thing and there have been many fudges needed to maintain the BB universe. I tend to think the problem with tired light was a lot simpler than the problem with BB and therefore using the KISS principle will stick with tired light until something better comes along.

Dear Daniel82


First, if you could explain to me what RED SHIFT is. And not only in terms of distant space objects. Why do they mean when they say "red shift"?


To answer your question, I will first make a short detour. Stars give off light and when you look at that light in detail you will find that the light is not uniform across the spectrum. When the light is broken down using a prism for example, you can see all the colours. Different chemicals give off different spectrums of light when they are heated and this is observable in the stars. Since you can determine the original elements that were heated up to produce the light in the first place by looking at absorption lines in the spectrum you can see what the stars are made of. The absorptions lines for particular elements will always be in the same place no mater where they were produced. So if the absorption lines for one element say Oxygen were shifted down the rainbow towards the red end we call that light red shifted. If the absorption line is shifted in the oposite direction, towards the blue end of the rainbow we all that blue shifted.

That should be enough of an answer for that question but as Stein states now and Hoyle stated many years ago photon have a number of Intrinsic aspects. If in it's travels through space the photons wavelength shifted towards red for any of a number of reasons then it would be red shifted and interpreted as meaning that the light source is receding from us.

Yes the Doppler effect in sound is caused by change in relative velocity between source and observer but is it the same for light? And even if it is, does that rule out other means of wavelength stretching?

Ethelred: you pointed out one possible cause by accident I think. When you stated expansion of space stretching the gap in the wavelength of light.

Daniel86: Increasing the wavelength of light is another description of the red shift of the light. The red end of the spectrum is the longer wavelength end of the spectrum which I think is open ended.

So anything that happens to a light wave between the source and the destination that lengthens the wavelength would cause a red shift. The more distance the light travels the more likely it is that something can happen to stretch that wavelength. I am leaving open what might happen to the photon in its travels but see no reason why it would not lose rotational velocity over distance and thus appear to be receding from us at ever greater velocity the further away it is.

In fact I see no reason why light wavelengths cannot be affected by two simultaneous causes - both by Doppler effect and by "tired light" effect at the same time.

Thus we cannot measure the universe past the point where all wavelengths are red shifted off any measurable scale even though the Universe may well be infinite.

Daniel86:

How exactly do you determine speed from a value of red shift. Or age from red shift for that matter?


I may have covered this already but red shift is generally believed to be caused by Doppler Effect - i.e. Difference in relative velocity of source and recipient. Therefore greater red shift equals greater relative velocity in opposite directions. Meaning the greater the speed that two objects are travelling apart. Since objects are travelling away from each other they must have been closer together in the past. SO measuring backwards one can determine the age when two objects occupied the same place. The amount of red shift is a measure of the stretching of the wavelength of the original light as explained above therefore the actual speed can be calculated and by inference the distance apart ( assuming a constant velocity from when the two objects were located in the same place.) The distance is inferred from the inferred velocity which is calculated from the actual red shift. Should I or Stein or Hoyle be correct the velocity is still not known from the red shift. By Stein (and Hoyle) you can calculate the distance apart of any two objects from the red shift. By me where Doppler and distance can both have an effect, the red shift does not conclusively tell us either velocity or distance. But we can have a rough estimate between several parameters.

Daniel86:
In your post you are quoted as saying... "Electric forces are massively overstated by the people pushing this almost entirely crank theory." ... refering to plasma cosmology. Could you please tell me what you think the ratio of strength is between gravitational and electromagnetic forces? Both forces have been very accuratly measured so this one should not be hard.


That was pointed at Ethelred perhaps? in any case Plasma Cosmology states that as electrical forces are far greater than Gravitic forces and as most matter in the universe is in the plasma state therefore most cosmological effects of universe can be computed using Plasma Cosmology. You are no doubt supporting Plasma Cosmology somewhat in your statement. I agree, Plasma Cosmology has to play a big part in cosmology in general and I am not sure why it is completely ignored or treated as crank theory. So I cannot help you with that one.
Daniel86:
Can you please link me to just one article or even a picture of a directly OBSERVED black hole?
Or even an accretion disk for that matter.

Why are you picking on black holes? Is it because under Plasma Cosmology there is no such thing? of course it is. Well I have seen plenty of images that I am told are Black Holes, but how can I know if they are or not? You may well be correct, I can see the math in the black holes but I have no idea if they can actually exist for real. And if Plasma Cosmology is correct - they cannot.

Daniel86:

Could you explain to me how "knowing" the distance and speed of distant galaxies tells us the age of the universe. If you can include the equation that spits out roughly 14 billion years, that would be perfect.


That is not so difficult. If you understand red shift and the Doppler effect then you can calculate when all objects red shift observations would occupy same place and therefore if everything is in same place that must have been start of everything. Right? It is simple matter even for me to calculate but I have not done the math because many others already have over and over again it is just that I think the assumptions are wrong at the start - not the math.


daniel86:to Ethelred
Could you explain dark matter and how it came to be "discovered". You are quoted as saying that it IS REAL.


Dark matter is mathematical prediction based on discrepancy of gravity effects in galaxy. Oopps have to go to airport will continue this another time.
Truth
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2009
Religious types say "read this book, this is the way it is, period, end of discussion, no talking back allowed." Scientists work day after day in the trenches, skipping meals, staying up all hours just trying to discover the mechanisms of the universe, arguing amongst themselves, until finally they come up with the solution...and yes, the next day another scientist comes up with new evidence and the work starts all over again....That's the difference in mind-set between the two types...One lays back on the couch and does no work at all concerning his beliefs, the other spends a lifetime doing the gritty hard work...which one do you think is the true explorer?
JerryPark
1.3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2009
Truth,

It is ironic that you would use the alias Truth.

You decry that God/religion does not change while lauding the continual change associated with scientific endeavor.

Truth does not evolve/change. What was true yesterday remains true today.

You are making an argument for the truth though you intend to argue against it.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009

Truth does not evolve/change. What was true yesterday remains true today.


Yet our knowledge changes every day. So our knowledge of the details of truth is modified every day.

You decry that God/religion does not change while lauding the continual change associated with scientific endeavor.


Well I do notice that most Christians are of the opinion that Jehovah does not change. Religious beliefs do change over time. Fundamentalism in America didn't really become a significant part of American religion until after Darwin published the Origin of Species. I suspect that most of the literalist concepts were there, just few noticed that there was conflict with the real world.

I thought this thing was dead.

Ethelred
Archivis
2.3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2009
Eh go back before the times of Christopher Columbus and just about any person/scientist/leader you spoke with would tell you it is absolute truth that the world is flat. We are limited in our ability to reconize truth by our level of understanding. As we understand more, we can more accurately say what is true and what is not.

Jump forward 100-200 years from now and I'm sure a lot of "truths" we live with today will have changed, modified, or out right be disproven.

By giving students all of the current theories, beleifs, and ideas, we increase the chance that greater understanding will be reached, thus paving the way for progress and advancement of the species.

If on the other hand, you wish to censor, edit, or otherwise remove this information, you are only hindering our understanding of Earth, the universe, and everything else. Hence; get off my planet...
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2009
Hence; get off my planet...


Not your planet...hence kindly tone down the neo-fascist diatribe.
Truth
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009
See, it is so much easier for a couch-loving lazy moron to say "well, I read it in the bible, so it must be true.." He has invested no work, no sweat, no missed meals, no cerebral power, no dirty hands, no twenty years in the trenches, no work whatsoever to arrive at his "conclusion." Scientists, on the other hand, invest sweat, time, money, effort, dirty hands, missed meals, twenty years in the trenches, and a whole lot of work just to finally conclude what the physical world is telling him.....That is the difference between scientists and parrots.
Archivis
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2009
@Modernmystic - it IS my planet, in the sense that it is the planet I live on. May want to inquire on the context of a post before leaping to neo-fascism conclusions. :P

My underlying point is that even if BOTH sides end up being wrong, providing information on both sides of the argument to the developing young minds in our schools, is a much better approach in that it provokes thought on both and will inevitably lead to a better understanding of not only our planet, but everything else out there.

Anyone that does not see that is far too close minded to be entrusted with the education of the future of my species. (Again, context, the species to which I belong.)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2009
My underlying point is that even if BOTH sides end up being wrong, providing information on both sides of the argument to the developing young minds in our schools, is a much better approach in that it provokes thought on both and will inevitably lead to a better understanding of not only our planet, but everything else out there.


There are 'no both sides' in a scientific sense in this matter. There is not a shred of science behind Creationism, not even the latest version by Dr. Behe. When he does an actual experiment or manages to show that something is REALLY impossible to have evolved than he will have some science. Till then all he is saying is the usual "god did it" and don't you look farther or least HE was unwilling to look to at any evidence that shows he was wrong. He got book after book showing his errors shoved in his face on the stand at Dover. He still pretends that he hasn't been shown wrong.

Now again if you want to have a comparative religions class that would be different.

So far the whole thing about "teaching the controversy" is a snow job to get Creationism into schools without ever actually having a speck science to back it.

Anyone that does not see that is far too close minded to be entrusted with the education of the future of my species.


I strongly suspect that you are one of the people that wants to sneak religion into science classes. This is not Neo-Fascism. Its a request for some support for any alleged science. Without actual science it doesn't belong in a science class.

Evolution is real. It is not going to go away in a puff on bogus controversy. It is no more going to go away than gravity.

Show evidence.

Ethelred