Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Derf]

There are many things that we do not know about light that travels from distance stars. You get my point, right?

Which things aren't so much observations, or even lack thereof, but are interpretations of the observations we actually have. Just like a police officer observing a car moving away from him would be able to interpret the observation more accurately than a 6 year old to determine the velocity of the car to some level of precision. That doesn't mean the police officer, having not observed the preceding moments of the car's activity, or even the formation of the car in the factory, would be able to explain those things in any detail, except be extrapolation of the observations he did make.

 

[Right Divider]

Which things aren't so much observations, or even lack thereof, but are interpretations of the observations we actually have.

Again, the issue is that the "observation" is affected by many things that we do not know about (when it comes to distant stars and galaxies).

Just like a police officer observing a car moving away from him would be able to interpret the observation more accurately than a 6 year old to determine the velocity of the car to some level of precision. That doesn't mean the police officer, having not observed the preceding moments of the car's activity, or even the formation of the car in the factory, would be able to explain those things in any detail, except be extrapolation of the observations he did make.

We know very much about this type of observation. We know what the conditions are that affect the light traveling a very short distance to and from a car through a little air. This is NOT the same as the light that comes from distance stars. We do NOT know what those conditions are in full detail, so we do not know what effects those unknowns can have on what we actually receive. If you assume nothing more than a perfect vacuum and no other interference, than you might be quite wrong.

Also note that the typical evidence of speed for a vehicle is not based solely on seeing the car. It is typically either a RADAR reading (which is an example of two-way light and time) or timing the car at two known points (two viewings of one-way light). We do NOT have any of that type of information from stars.

I'm really surprised that you've having difficulty understanding the difference.

 

[Derf]

Again, the issue is that the "observation" is affected by many things that we do not know about (when it comes to distant stars and galaxies).

We know very much about this type of observation. We know what the conditions are that affect the light traveling a very short distance to and from a car through a little air. This is NOT the same as the light that comes from distance stars. We do NOT know what those conditions are in full detail, so we do not know what effects those unknowns can have on what we actually receive. If you assume nothing more than a perfect vacuum and no other interference, than you might be quite wrong.

Also note that the typical evidence of speed for a vehicle is not based solely on seeing the car. It is typically either a RADAR reading (which is an example of two-way light and time) or timing the car at two known points (two viewings of one-way light). We do NOT have any of that type of information from stars.

I'm really surprised that you've having difficulty understanding the difference.

I don't think I'm having any difficulty.you just jumped from a less similar comparison (visible light) to a more similar comparison (doppler shift of a reflected radio signal) to try to convince me that they are more different, and introducing the concept of unknown influences after I had already discussed unknowns. I hope you can see how such a tactic hurts your case, rather than helps. If you can't understand my language, when I mostly agree with you, how are you going to convince others that you understand the language of those whom you mostly disagree with.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think I'm having any difficulty.you just jumped from a less similar comparison (visible light) to a more similar comparison (doppler shift of a reflected radio signal) to try to convince me that they are more different, and introducing the concept of unknown influences after I had already discussed unknowns. I hope you can see how such a tactic hurts your case, rather than helps. If you can't understand my language, when I mostly agree with you, how are you going to convince others that you understand the language of those whom you mostly disagree with.

My point was that these "distant observations" are not the same as local ones and that there is a great deal of assumption built into the "distant observations".

I was referring to some complaints about "assumptions" from a user that blindly accepted the "universe expanding in all directions from the earth" that is based on some assumptions as well.

 

[Clete]

But you understand my point, right? We only "directly observe" something by seeing light that emanates from that thing, either by production of its own photons or by reflection of light from another source. So we directly observe distant stars by the light we receive from them, just like a car 100 ft a way from us.

This is frankly a ridiculous objection. He isn't saying we do not directly observe the stars. He's saying that we do not directly measure the movement of very distant celestial objects, which is 100% the truth. Except for the stars that are close enough to do a parallax measurement, the movement of celestial objects is inferred, primarily by red shift, which ASSUMES that there is no process that can shift spectra lines other than either a Doppler effect or the "stretching" of space and ignores evidence to the contrary.

Parallax measurements, even with the newest space telescope designed for this purpose (GAIA), cannot be done for objects further than about 50,000 parsecs (163,000 light years) which is still within the limits of the Milky Way Galaxy. Meaning there is no such thing as a distance measurement (much less a movement measurement) to any other Galaxy that has been directly measured - period.

The image below is of a galaxy and an accompanying quasar that is physically connected by a stream of material which is clearly visible in the image (i.e. directly observed). The Z values are the red shift values of the various objects in the image. Notice the wildly different values for the objects. The differences in the z values correspond to billions of light years, according to red shift theory, which is obviously impossible for objects that are not merely associated with each other but are physically connected together.

Here are the z values converted to light years for easier comparison...
z = 0.029 = 399 million ly
z = 0.057= 769 million ly
z = 0.243= 2.896 Billion ly
z = 0.391 = 4.249 Billion ly
These numbers are calculated HERE.

There are dozens of such examples which modern cosmology flatly ignores. It gets ignored not because the measurments are bad but because there isn't any way to reconcile their existence with the religion of Scientism and its Big Bang/Gravity only cosmology.

 

[Stripe]

... red shift, which ASSUMES that there is no process that can shift spectra lines other than either a Doppler effect or the "stretching" of space and ignores evidence to the contrary.

A long time ago I asked some Darwinists how red shift from Doppler and red shift from expansion could be differentiated.

Crickets, but to be fair, I don't think they understood the question.

The image below is of a galaxy and an accompanying quasar that is physically connected by a stream of material which is clearly visible in the image (i.e. directly observed). The Z values are the red shift values of the various objects in the image. Notice the wildly different values for the objects. The differences in the z values correspond to billions of light years, according to red shift theory, which is obviously impossible for objects that are not merely associated with each other but are physically connected together.

If they are orbiting each other, one could be approaching and one receding, no?

Do the values line up with a Doppler-only explanation (if the assumed red shift from expansion is eschewed)?

There are dozens of such examples which modern cosmology flatly ignores. It gets ignored not because the measurements are bad but because there isn't any way to reconcile their existence with the religion of Scientism and its Big Bang/Gravity only cosmology.

Is there something other than Doppler required to explain Z values?

 

[Right Divider]

Is there something other than Doppler required to explain Z values?

That's a fundamental problem... We just don't know what factors might be involved with light traveling these immense distances.

 

[Clete]

A long time ago I asked some Darwinists how red shift from Doppler and red shift from expansion could be differentiated.

Crickets, but to be fair, I don't think they understood the question.

Very likely that they did not understand the difference.

If they are orbiting each other, one could be approaching and one receding, no?

Do the values line up with a Doppler-only explanation (if the assumed red shift from expansion is eschewed)?

Not at all, no.

First, light goes really really fast in comparison to the physical motion of these bodies and so actual Doppler effect is quite tiny in comparison to the shift supposedly caused by the stretching of the light due to space expansion.

Second, the differences between the number literally mean a difference of billions of light years worth of redshift such that one of those objects is supposedly ten times further away from us than one of the object which is in direct contradiction to what is clearly observed through the telescope.

Is there something other than Doppler required to explain Z values?

The best theory I know of right now has to do with what they call "intrinsic redshift", which basically says that the light is emmitted shifted toward the red right from the start. How it works, I don't know, but if it turns out to be right, it means that we have no way of knowing how far much of anything is in the night sky aside from the parallax measurements and assumptions about how intrinsically bright an object is.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

Very likely that they did not understand the difference.


Not at all, no.

First, light goes really really fast in comparison to the physical motion of these bodies and so actual Doppler effect is quite tiny in comparison to the shift supposedly caused by the stretching of the light due to space expansion.

Second, the differences between the number literally mean a difference of billions of light years worth of redshift such that one of those objects is supposedly ten times further away from us than one of the object which is in direct contradiction to what is clearly observed through the telescope.

Ah. Cool. Thanks.

The best theory I know of right now has to do with what they call "intrinsic redshift", which basically says that the light is emmitted shifted toward the red right from the start. How it works, I don't know, but if it turns out to be right, it means that we have no way of knowing how far much of anything is in the night sky aside from the parallax measurements and assumptions about how intrinsically bright an object is.

Clete

I think it might be something to do with the gravitational constant, which would decrease with distance from the universe's center.

 

[Clete]

Ah. Cool. Thanks.

I think it might be something to do with the gravitational constant, which would decrease with distance from the universe's center.

There is no evidence that the universe has a center but your point is still valid in that modern cosmology does make the assumption that the gravitational constant, as well as all the other constants, are the same everywhere as there are here.

Arp, the guy who made the observations in that image I've posted, discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter, as is clearly seen in the image. So, redshift cannot be a measure of distance. According to various theories, the most prominent of which, right now, is called "Electric Universe Theory" or "Plasma Cosmology", most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object.
Also, in addition to finding these "anomalous redshift values", Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp’s new view of the cosmos, active galaxies “give birth” to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift then becomes a measure of the ages quasars relative to their nearby galaxies, not their distance from us. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

There is no evidence that the universe has a center.

Well, apart from simple geometry.

There's some serious magic going on if there is a bunch of matter with no center.

but your point is still valid in that modern cosmology does make the assumption that the gravitational constant, as well as all the other constants, are the same everywhere as there are here.

My idea is that the gravitational constant on Earth (whatever its actual value) is what it is because of Earth's location. The center of the universe is where the effects of every bit of matter will have the most gravitational effect. As the distance from the center increases, the effect of the half of the universe that has been left behind diminishes.

And it might be that light move faster in areas where Newton's inverse square law for the entirety of existence adds up to less effect than elsewhere.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no evidence that the universe has a center

Well, apart from simple geometry.

There's some serious magic going on if there is a bunch of matter with no center.

Actually there is evidence that the universe has a center. It's a (poor) philosophical argument that says there's no center, not a scientific one.

The Cosmological Principle & the Center of the Universe | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Clete]

Well, apart from simple geometry.

There's some serious magic going on if there is a bunch of matter with no center.

What is infinity divided by two?

Another way to think of it....

What is the center point of the surface of a sphere?

My idea is that the gravitational constant on Earth (whatever its actual value) is what it is because of Earth's location. The center of the universe is where the effects of every bit of matter will have the most gravitational effect. As the distance from the center increases, the effect of the half of the universe that has been left behind diminishes.

Again, there is no evidence that the universe has a center. We are as much at the center of the universe as is anything else is so far as it make sense to speak about the center of the universe.

Also, even if the universe has a center, the mass of the universe would not necessarily have its greatest effect at that point. In fact, no amount of mass has any appreciable gravitational effect past several billion miles. Even black holes, assuming that they actually exist, affect only a small region around the center of their galaxy and the entire mass of the Andromeda Galaxy has far less gravitational effect on you that do the walls in the room you're sitting in.

And it might be that light move faster in areas where Newton's inverse square law for the entirety of existence adds up to less effect than elsewhere.

True and, if so, all bets are off on ever figuring out how far away anything is past a few hundred light years distance where parallax measurements are possible.

 

[Clete]

Actually there is evidence that the universe has a center. It's a (poor) philosophical argument that says there's no center, not a scientific one.

The Cosmological Principle & the Center of the Universe | KGOV.com

kgov.com

The argument is based on redshift, the cause of which is what is being questioned here.

If redshift is a measure of distance, which I don't believe it is, or if there was evidence that the universe has finite edges then I'd agree that there is some point that could be meaningfully called the center. Those are, however, pretty big IFs.

 

[Stripe]

What is infinity divided by two?
Another way to think of it....
What is the center point of the surface of a sphere?

I regard the universe as all matter that exists.

I do not think that there is infinite matter. Although if there were, that would scupper my idea.

Also, even if the universe has a center, the mass of the universe would not necessarily have its greatest effect at that point. In fact, no amount of mass has any appreciable gravitational effect past several billion miles. Even black holes, assuming that they actually exist, affect only a small region around the center of their galaxy and the entire mass of the Andromeda Galaxy has far less gravitational effect on you that do the walls in the room you're sitting in.

Yeah, gravity is a weak force. However, it might still add up enough to have an effect on a universal scale.

 

[Stripe]

If so, all bets are off on ever figuring out how far away anything is past a few hundred light years distance where parallax measurements are possible.

I don't know about that. If the gravity environment idea is at play, there might be a scale that could be determined and applied to accurately convert Z shifts into distance.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The argument is based on redshift, the cause of which is what is being questioned here.

The fact remains that redshift exists, and measurements of it show structure on a universal scale.

If redshift is a measure of distance, which I don't believe it is,

Here's the thing, I don't believe it is either. Your past arguments on the topic have convinced me that it is not.

I've always considered redshift (and blueshift, for that matter) to be caused by motion, not by distance, specifically motion towards or away from an observer, which fits, considering scripture plainly telling us that God stretched out the heavens, which is a matter of motion, or more accurately, velocity, in the direction of "away" from earth. This even fits with the idea proposed on https:/kgov.com/stretch that "God pulled the light from the stars," in that He did so while moving the stars away from the earth.

of if there was evidence that the universe has finite edges then I'd agree that there is some point that could be meaningfully called the center. That are, however, pretty big IFs.

I think the problem I'm seeing is that what you've said so far is based on a lack of evidence, rather than positive evidence for either side.

To be sure, the universe either has or does not have a center and edges (or at least, a boundary where "matter is present in this location" ends and sheer vacuum (where no matter is present) begins). There's no in between.

But so far, you've simply asserted that there is no center because there is no evidence for it, but this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, which I will address in responding to your reply to Stripe below:

What is infinity divided by two?

Upon what basis do you assert that the universe is infinite?

It almost seems like you're begging the question...

Again, there is no evidence that the universe has a center.

Saying it doesn't make it so, though. Hence my above question.

We are as much at the center of the universe as is anything else is so far as it make sense to speak about the center of the universe.

This is begging the question that there is no center.

Also, even if the universe has a center, the mass of the universe would not necessarily have its greatest effect at that point. In fact, no amount of mass has any appreciable gravitational effect past several billion miles. Even black holes, assuming that they actually exist, affect only a small region around the center of their galaxy and the entire mass of the Andromeda Galaxy has far less gravitational effect on you that do the walls in the room you're sitting in.

But the fact remains that it does, in fact, have an effect, even if it is infinitesimally (man, that's a word I haven't typed in a while, lol) small.

True and, if so, all bets are off on ever figuring out how far away anything is past a few hundred light years distance where parallax measurements are possible.

Something else I want to point out regarding center of mass that should help us in determining if there is a center that seems to have been forgotten...

The so-called "Axis of Evil" indicates a north and south pole for the universe.

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I would argue that if the universe were infinite, then there would be no indication whatsoever that it has an axis, which is, per the Cambridge dictionary, "a real or imaginary straight line going through the center of an object that is spinning, or a line that divides a symmetrical shape into two equal halves."

axis

1. a real or imaginary straight line going through the centre of an object that…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Right Divider]

If redshift is a measure of distance, ...

I don't believe that this is the claim.
They are claiming that the redshift is an indication of motion, specifically motion away from earth.

 

[Clete]

I don't know about that. If the gravity environment idea is at play, there might be a scale that could be determined and applied to accurately convert Z shifts into distance.

Nothing that we know of today. Who knows what we'll figure out tomorrow.

 

[Clete]

I don't believe that this is the claim.
They are claiming that the redshift is an indication of motion, specifically motion away from earth.

It's the same thing. The same theory behind redshift distance correlation is the same theory that suggests that everything is moving a way from us. There's way too much redshift than can be accounted for by the bodies physical motion through space. It's all predicated on the idea that space itself has been stretching for hundreds of billions of years. The redshift data would suggest that everything is moving away from everything else (mostly). Stuff isn't moving away from us any more than its moving away from Alph Centuri or the Andromeda Galaxy. Every point in space, based on the redshift data, appears to be the center as much as any other point.