Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
March 26th, 2010, 12:50 PM
Quote:
I know knee jerk reactions* are hard to overcome but think about it. Only raisins near the true center would see the other raisins moving away at nearly all the same rate.**
No. That's not what happens. But if you want to try it, go ahead. The two-dimensional analogue is the surface of a balloon, but in the bread, each raisin will see every other raisin moving away from it, and the farther away the other raisins are, the faster they will be going. If this makes no sense to you, you need to try it first with a balloon and then, if you still can't see how it applies in 3 dimensions, with raisin bread.
Quote:
Does it bother you that we may be near the center of the universe?
We could be at the "center of the universe", in the same sense that Topeka, Kansas might be at the center of the Earth's surface. If you don't get that, go to the library and get an introductory text on topology.
Quote:
* disagreeing with everything a creationist says.
Actually, many creationists are smart enough to know that this isn't evidence that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Most 8th graders know better.
Or should.
Quote:
** I'm not even sure this is why someone is saying we are near the center of the universe, but still, your analogy is stupid.
As I said, try it, or just go learn about the subject. It will be a revelation for you.
And rainee, science can only talk about what's in the loaf. (if the loaf is an analogy for the universe) What's outside the loaf is beyond the reach of science, and as you know, there are perfectly good ways to learn about that, even if science can't do it.
No. That's not what happens. But if you want to try it, go ahead. The two-dimensional analogue is the surface of a balloon, but in the bread, each raisin will see every other raisin moving away from it, and the farther away the other raisins are, the faster they will be going. If this makes no sense to you, you need to try it first with a balloon and then, if you still can't see how it applies in 3 dimensions, with raisin bread.
Did you listen to the show? I'm speaking in context of the claim in the show. Apparently glaxies are arranged in concentric sphere's around us. That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers. So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon, but we see the same rates for each concentric sphere of galaxies, which we would only see from the center.
"I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
"Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot
Did you listen to the show? I'm speaking in context of the claim in the show. Apparently glaxies are arranged in concentric sphere's around us. That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers. So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon, but we see the same rates for each concentric sphere of galaxies, which we would only see from the center.
Does anyone know if that is accurate? I learned some time ago that everything Pastor Bob and his science advisors claim is not necessarily accurate. Well to be fair, I guess I would have to say--not likely to be accurate.
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley
"Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon
"If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL
Does anyone know if that is accurate? I learned some time ago that everything Pastor Bob and his science advisors claim is not necessarily accurate. Well to be fair, I guess I would have to say--not likely to be accurate.
I just went a read more about that. The non-creationist scientists found that redshifts fall into clear groupings. Its the creationist scientist who took those groupings of redshifts to mean distances (doesnt seem like much of a stretch). So that would put galaxies in concentric sphere's around us, with us nearly at the center. Here's a link to where I read about it.
galaxies are in clusters, not concentric rings. Certainly not around the Earth.
Quote:
That's the finding of some non-creationist astronomers.
Nope. At least none I ever read about. Can you show us someone who disputes the data to which I just linked?
Quote:
So, no we don't see the same rates for every object, like a balloon,
The rates are all different. The farther away they are, the faster they are receding from us. But for every other galaxy out there, the same thing is true.
Of course for galaxies in our own cluster, we can be moving closer or farther away, but outside that, every galaxy is moving away from every other one. There is no "center." You've been taken down the path, I'm afraid.
galaxies are in clusters, not concentric rings. Certainly not around the Earth.
Nope. At least none I ever read about. Can you show us someone who disputes the data to which I just linked?
Look at the link I gave Jukia and you can look up the studies.
And that is definitely a picture of blobs, can't argue with that. Some explanation to go with it would be nice though. For all we can tell from that picture, its a snapshot of his lava-lamp.
"I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
"Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot
And rainee, science can only talk about what's in the loaf. (if the loaf is an analogy for the universe) What's outside the loaf is beyond the reach of science, and as you know, there are perfectly good ways to learn about that, even if science can't do it.
Ok, my friend, I love that! HUG!
But just because someone like Richard Dawkins is restricted on what he is able to talk about scientifically - why is this disability used as if it is some kind of "evidence" that there is no reason to go one step further and suspect there is God? Who could answer that.
For in science, we do not know where the loaf is, or where its basic elements came from according to what you have said...
(Have a good one, Barbarian, taken any more great pictures lately?)
Sorry All and HI to YOU
( I Cannot PM yet, sigh, and I have felt an attachment to that Barbarian for a long time. Plz excuse)
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
March 26th, 2010, 07:08 PM
From Guy's source: After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[21] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
March 26th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Quote:
Ok, my friend, I love that! HUG!
Quote:
But just because someone like Richard Dawkins is restricted on what he is able to talk about scientifically - why is this disability used as if it is some kind of "evidence" that there is no reason to go one step further and suspect there is God?
That's not what science says about it. Science just says that it can't say anything about that. Doesn't say there's no reason to seek God.
Quote:
Who could answer that.
For in science, we do not know where the loaf is, or where its basic elements came from according to what you have said...
Science can't answer that. Fortunately, there are other ways to do it.
Quote:
(Have a good one, Barbarian, taken any more great pictures lately?)
From Guy's source: After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[21] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.
Did you actually read it, Guy?
Yes I read it you dork. Its not my hypothesis, Im just pointing out what Enyart was talking about, since you criticized it without having a clue what he was talking about. Call Tifft and tell him that other people criticize his hypothesis.
"I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
"Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
March 26th, 2010, 09:31 PM
Quote:
Yes I read it you dork.
I'm above average, but do you have any idea how big a dork is? Actually, I'm wondering if you even know what a dork is.
Quote:
Its not my hypothesis, Im just pointing out what Enyart was talking about, since you criticized it without having a clue what he was talking about.
So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.
Linear Mode
