Joshua260

standing_alone: thanks for being contrite about possibly offending me. No worries, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain further about why you thought I was wrong. It seems to me though that the only thing I said that could be disputed is about using the word "prove". I'd like to review to clarify and also to admit where I might have been wrong: 1) I did not say that I agreed with the Doppler effect in regards to the expanding universe. If you re-read my statement in post #22, you should see that I was opposed to that idea. 2) My actual proposal was that maybe the redshift measurements were due (at least partly) due to the elongation of light from the local gravity and cited the Einstein solar eclipse experiments as supporting evidence. I knew about the Einstein miscalculation, but thought that it was irrelevant to the point that light was "bent" never-the-less. 3) I take your point about a possible alternate explanation to the curved space around the Sun, but I think that electromagnetism idea is unrealistic. I studied physics for several years, and no one has ever demonstrated that gravity could be related to electromagnetism. Even in the attempt to unite the forces in a grand unified theory (GUT), gravity doesn't seem to want to "play along" with the other known forces. 4) I totally take your point that "prove" might be a strong word. Hmmm...can I say this...that he postulated that light coming to us passing by the sun during an eclipse would be moved to a certain extent and it was later confirmed, although maybe not to the same extent that Einstein calculated? I don't see anything not factual about that statement. Summary: So it seems to me like the only thing in my comment about Einstein proving that gravity bent light that one could take issue with was using the word "prove". The fact that Newton might have postulated it before or that Einstein's figures were off is really secondary to the point that gravity bent light. I'm going to ignore the electromagnetism idea because like I said, the two forces have never been successfully demonstrated to be related and also because E=MC2 equates mass (affected by gravity) to light. Maybe "prove" was too strong a word, but curved space currently seems to be the most plausible explanation for the Einstein solar eclipse experiments.

standing_alone: I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that I support the big bang theory. What I was saying is that the red-shift that has been recorded may be due to a different cause (local system gravity) other than that of universes speeding away from us (the Doppler effect). Einstein did indeed prove that gravity pretty satisfactorily (or actually the curvature of space) bent light coming to earth while passing close by the sun. The delta was measured by noting light coming from stars in a specific area of space, and then later again while there was a solar eclipse in that same area of our sky.

I'm a YEC also, but I wouldn't mind a discussion about the Big Bang. I remember measuring spectral frequencies in physics and read books discussing the redshift, and also about general relativity and how it was proven that gravity affects light. Then I wondered whether the gravity of our immediate surrounding space could be affecting the light wavelengths, essentially causing a redshift. Later I found where that exact idea had been hypothesized and tested to confirm it. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this effect or those experiments. I read about this over twenty years ago and can't remember the scientist.

Still haven't figured out how to quote here...but to answer Nobody 2441's question, I think the story of Jesus and Peter walking on the water applies to the OP because the idea is that when one looks at their own capabilities within a given situation (like Peter looking around and realizing that he is walking on water...and shouldn't be), one could be tempted to focus on their own inadequacies and the possibility of failing. Think about it...if Peter had taken the time to assess how inadequate he was to walk on water all by himself a few minutes earlier, he might never have gotten out of the boat...just like those people (back to the OP) who choose not to try to become a scientist because they compare themselves to their idols. I find that when I am challenged to go "out of my comfort zone", I have much better success if I keep my focus on Jesus. I hope that helps explain my comment a little better.

I already thought Paul was awesome, but you guys have enlightened me to some new revelations, and I appreciate that. Great answers.

Interesting OP. So the exaltation of some may discourage others from even trying? It seems to me that could very well be true to some extent. More reason to give to keep our focus on Jesus. It occurs to me that the story of Peter and Jesus walking on the water applies.