little bang

[Riverwalker]

God's beautifully designed order and intertwining systems that support life on this planet from an explosion?  no.

 

and why would God do that?

 

He spoke and it was there....light first, stars didn't come till three days later

 

to believe in the big bang or evolution you have to believe that God was lying about  how He made the earth

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================================================================

 

 

The scientific method is a system with rational implications and has to be justified in logic.

When formulating hypotheses, we don’t just accept an explanation upon the hearing. There may be several competing hypotheses presented to account for the same observation. So at this stage, the scientific method makes provision for discussion, debate and challenge.

 

 

Experiment settles the matter.

 

 

At the hypothesis testing stage, experimental design and robustness are common sources of debate and discussion.  Many scientific documents have an explicit Discussion section where the research implications (including; weaknesses, assumptions, inferences, and any competing, alternate ideas as well as conclusions) are stated and considered – all of which remain subject to scrutiny.

 

 

This is where the only "Discussion" and "Opinion" should take place.  I agree 100%

 

 

Even from the perspective of fundamental logic, the scientific method can never provide certainty (which is why absolutist terminology, such as “proven,” is logically illegitimate in a scientific context).

 

 

I disagree, vehemently. (Short List) The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Information only coming from "a Mind", are Absolutes!  If you disagree, please provide ONE anomaly....?

 

 

We both understand theoretical weaknesses associated with historical claims

 

 

Scientifically, they can't be TESTED/Validated...end of story.  However, the Scientific Method is not the only "method" to arrive @ TRUTH.

 

 

geological sampling methods and chemical measurements are a legitimate source of scientific information

 

 

Define "Scientific Information" and Compare and Contrast with plain ole "Information"....?

 

 

A common strategy of creationist opponents is to claim a disparity between our position and science (e.g. we are allegedly anti-science, or science deniers, or ignore evidence etc.)

 

 

Yes, it's a laugher and doesn't stand up to Formica Deep Scrutiny.

 

 

I’ve also noticed that people disengage when we say “it’s not science”

 

 

I call it as I see it.  If it can't be TESTED.... it's not "Science".  

 

 

 

May The LORD be with you Brother.

 

 

 

Hey Enoch,

 

“Experiment settles the matter”

 

Experiment can ‘settle’ the matter of competing hypotheses. However, experiment is a subsequent stage of the process. Therefore, at this stage of hypothesis formation, (i.e. prior to experimentation) debate is permitted.

 

There are also times when experiment doesn’t 'settle the matter' – i.e. when the results can be interpreted to support both hypotheses. And there are cases where we currently lack the technology to test an hypothesis – and so the hypothesis formation stage is extended until it can be tested.

 

Ultimately, all experimentation really “settles” is that - given identical conditions, identical results will be observed. Though, even this conclusion is heavily reliant upon fundamental assumptions. For example, we’ve all agreed to assume that observation can be trusted. The scientific method also assumes a rationally ordered universe.

 

Even if experiment 1 better supports hypothesis A over hypothesis B, it doesn’t necessarily mean that hypothesis A is ‘settled’. The experimental design could be unknowingly testing an exception to hypothesis B. It could just mean that hypothesis B is incomplete – i.e. not that Hypothesis A is correct. Subsequent experiments could better support Hypothesis B. Both hypotheses could be wrong; based on incorrect assumptions – regardless of how well one experiment supports an existing hypothesis.

 

Experimentation does not always produce the black and white outcomes as your comment implies. Nothing in science can ever be considered to be ‘settled’ beyond question.

 

 

 

“The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Information only coming from "a Mind", are Absolutes!  If you disagree, please provide ONE anomaly....?”

 

This is a specious argument. The absence of an observed exception does not negate the logical possibility that an exception exists. We can only claim confidence in these ideas because they are abundantly supported by observation, and because we have not observed any exceptions. We cannot legitimately make the absolutist claim that there are no exceptions (because we don’t know what we don’t know). Only God has absolute knowledge. Absolute claims fall into the scope of faith. The scientific method is logically obligated to make allowances for the possibility of exceptions to our current knowledge. Therefore, all ideas (including scientific laws) remain subject to rational scrutiny and debate.

 

 

 

“Define "Scientific Information" and Compare and Contrast with plain ole "Information"....?”

 

I was not trying to describe a new semantic construct. I was simply referring to data collection and recorded observations/measurements etc.

 

 

 

“I call it as I see it.  If it can't be TESTED.... it's not "Science"”

 

I would say that reproducibility and repeatability would be better standards for your position. Arguably, historical claims can be “TESTED” – indirectly (via a model of the claim); by a method that is less logically robust than is the case for claims which are currently available for direct (and repeated) experimentation.

[petula]

Thank you kwikand grey,I was getting a bit confused, my fault ,I should have stopped reading, l think I'll just wait,

and ask our

LORD when I get there.please forgive me if I have offended anyone ,it is. Truly not intended

GOD Bless

[standing_alone]

Riverwalker, indeed.

 

Christian evolutionists should think about this: how exactly did Jesus heal people? Did He somehow took a long (evolutionary) time, or was it instantly? Hence, if that’s how (Son of) God does things, then why exactly is it not so in Genesis 1? Solely to make room for human theories? Really? And theories that are in fact… naturalistic? So that God would do things in a way that… excludes God? I find that utterly pathetic.

 

But when God is in my heart, I instead find that heart breaking. To not have a free mind, to be deeply chained into the ways of the world, that must be really bad…

[standing_alone]

I find the dialogue between Tristen and Enoch2021 interesting.

 

Enoch seems to believe that we have access to the universe’s secrets. While that’s aligned with his philosophy (actually religion), meaning that his position (unlike in case of atheists) seems solid, I think it’s actually wrong. Enoch uses what we call science (such as the laws of thermodynamics) to show how horribly wrong the mainstream paradigms are - in this case, big bang. My position however is radical; we don’t know that what we see on Earth (and verify through endless experiments) is actually true out there, in the depths of cosmos. Hence, any cosmology is blind faith without even starting. One has to (blindly!) believe in the principle of mediocrity to even think about conceiving a cosmology. And, just like all the formal principles (including or even foremost the cosmological principle), this one too has been shown wrong, rather than right. Regardless of that, a Christian shouldn’t believe in the mentioned principle, since that’s the very first step in any naturalistic (meaning atheistic) pursuit of ‘understanding’ the universe.

 

But indeed, as Enoch has shown, even if we temporarily admit that physics on Earth are literally universal physics, the big bang universe doesn’t stand at all, which is so ironic.

 

It’s even worse for the mainstream: not only we don’t know about the future discoveries (since obviously they are in the future), but there are already alternative explanations within current physics. So which one we choose, and on what criterion exactly?

 

An example: Joshua260 believes that “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.”

 

Firstly please note the word he chose to use: “prove”. So strong a word, since in reality we can prove very few things, if actually any at all (for example, heavily influenced by the formal interpretations in the quantum mechanics, themselves influenced by ‘religious’ beliefs from deep Asia, quite a few physicists ask themselves, and anybody, if the Moon is actually there when they’re not looking).

 

Then, he obviously ignores that the idea of light bending by gravitation was actually forwarded by Newton, centuries earlier. In other words, if Einstein would have indeed proved light bending, then he would proved Newton right, not himself right.

 

How about the value? Well, there is the historical fact that initially Einstein proposed only half the later, final value. Bringing him, again, on par with Newton. But even the later figure (the doubled one) was actually given long before Einstein. Here’s a name you should research: Georg von Soldner.

 

And finally, we have those alternative explanations. Such as the one forwarded by the proponents of the electromagnetic universe. Explanations, of course, totally ignored by mainstream, which in both schools and media makes not science but only propaganda to its own paradigms.

 

Joshua, please forgive me if I somehow offended you, that was not my intention, I assure you. But if you only repeat what you’ve been taught in schools, instead of checking for yourself what the truth is, then you’re certainly not doing science. Only propaganda, at best. And a Christian should know (both from the Bible and from his own life) that the world is a world full of lies, not full of truth.

 

And Joshua, formally only half of the so-called light bending comes from the claimed curvature of space. And in fact, it’s space-time. And in fact, the initial value of Einstein ignored precisely this. Ironic, wouldn’t you say?

 

Now, given all of the above, you tell me: what exactly is the truth? Because it certainly seems to me that we, Christians, should avoid partial (temporary) truths and instead stick to the only absolute truth. Which, if it is indeed absolute, it cannot be excluded no matter what discoveries in astronomy, or whatever field of science, or even philosophy. And guess what has happened so far?

[standing_alone]

And, Joshua, sorry but you’re also formally wrong about the Doppler effect (universe “speeding away from us”). Let me put it this way: if the formal cosmic expansion is like (let alone the) Doppler effect, then not only is the current formal explanation wrong (expansion of space instead of galactic motion) but the universe also becomes geocentric. To me, that really looks unavoidable.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

“The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Information only coming from "a Mind", are Absolutes!  If you disagree, please provide ONE anomaly....?”

 

This is a specious argument. The absence of an observed exception does not negate the logical possibility that an exception exists.

 

 

You categorize this as a "Specious Argument" via logic by postulating an Argument from Ignorance (Logical Fallacy)    ---- Your argument is based on the veracity of an Unknown Unobserved Cause/Exception to the Rule.

 

However, as I mention below... each postulate and process has to be evaluated based on it's Inherent Tenets.  Postulates/Hypotheses/Experiments/Conclusions are not built the same.

 

Arguably, historical claims can be “TESTED” – indirectly (via a model of the claim); by a method that is less logically robust than is the case for claims which are currently available for direct (and repeated) experimentation.

 

 

If they could, then there would be No Argument   .

 

"Models" aren't TESTS !!!

 

To be "TESTED" (Experiment) You Need:  Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables.  Please Provide an Independent Variable of any "PAST" event you wish to TEST?    You can't; Ergo...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy), IN TOTO.

 

 

I would say that reproducibility and repeatability would be better standards for your position.

 

 

They are Inherently already apart of my position.  Reproducibility and Repeatability of what?  .....of results from.....Experiments.  When I say Experiments and VALIDATED Hypotheses.... I don't mean just one TEST. 

 

 

 

Experiment can ‘settle’ the matter of competing hypotheses. However, experiment is a subsequent stage of the process. Therefore, at this stage of hypothesis formation, (i.e. prior to experimentation) debate is permitted.

 

 

Yes, that's the Stage we are talking about Hypothesis Formation.   I suppose "a Debate" about alternating hypotheses (Different "Plausible" explanations accounting for all of the Observations) is more than reasonable, so as to form a rational coherent Hypothesis/Hypotheses so it/they can be Tested.

 

 

There are also times when experiment doesn’t 'settle the matter' – i.e. when the results can be interpreted to support both hypotheses.

 

 

Perhaps...but it's telling me that the Original competing Hypotheses needed some work i.e., they were too generalized to begin with.  Each situation would have to evaluated specifically.

 

 

The scientific method also assumes a rationally ordered universe.

 

 

Well Yea.  Without that "assumption" there would be no "Science".

 

 

Even if experiment 1 better supports hypothesis A over hypothesis B, it doesn’t necessarily mean that hypothesis A is ‘settled’. The experimental design could be unknowingly testing an exception to hypothesis B. It could just mean that hypothesis B is incomplete – i.e. not that Hypothesis A is correct. Subsequent experiments could better support Hypothesis B. Both hypotheses could be wrong; based on incorrect assumptions – regardless of how well one experiment supports an existing hypothesis.

 

 

I suppose; however, as I said above.... each Hypothesis and subsequent Experiment(s) would have to be scrutinized on their tenets and elucidation of any limitations of the explanatory power of the results documented.  The Process of reproducability and repeatability will further clarify. 

 

 

The scientific method is logically obligated to make allowances for the possibility of exceptions to our current knowledge. Therefore, all ideas (including scientific laws) remain subject to rational scrutiny and debate.

 

 

Generally, I agree in Principle.  There have been Scientific Laws that have been Falsified (Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission comes to mind).....BUT, that was due to: shoddy "assumptions", lack of experiments et al; that should have been Ruled Out in the first place.  Goes back to EACH postulate has to be scrutinized based on it's inherent tenets.

[Enoch2021]

I find the dialogue between Tristen and Enoch2021 interesting.

 

Enoch seems to believe that we have access to the universe’s secrets. While that’s aligned with his philosophy (actually religion), meaning that his position (unlike in case of atheists) seems solid, I think it’s actually wrong. Enoch uses what we call science (such as the laws of thermodynamics) to show how horribly wrong the mainstream paradigms are - in this case, big bang. My position however is radical; we don’t know that what we see on Earth (and verify through endless experiments) is actually true out there, in the depths of cosmos. Hence, any cosmology is blind faith without even starting. One has to (blindly!) believe in the principle of mediocrity to even think about conceiving a cosmology. And, just like all the formal principles (including or even foremost the cosmological principle), this one too has been shown wrong, rather than right. Regardless of that, a Christian shouldn’t believe in the mentioned principle, since that’s the very first step in any naturalistic (meaning atheistic) pursuit of ‘understanding’ the universe.

 

But indeed, as Enoch has shown, even if we temporarily admit that physics on Earth are literally universal physics, the big bang universe doesn’t stand at all, which is so ironic.

 

It’s even worse for the mainstream: not only we don’t know about the future discoveries (since obviously they are in the future), but there are already alternative explanations within current physics. So which one we choose, and on what criterion exactly?

 

An example: Joshua260 believes that “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.”

 

Firstly please note the word he chose to use: “prove”. So strong a word, since in reality we can prove very few things, if actually any at all (for example, heavily influenced by the formal interpretations in the quantum mechanics, themselves influenced by ‘religious’ beliefs from deep Asia, quite a few physicists ask themselves, and anybody, if the Moon is actually there when they’re not looking).

 

Then, he obviously ignores that the idea of light bending by gravitation was actually forwarded by Newton, centuries earlier. In other words, if Einstein would have indeed proved light bending, then he would proved Newton right, not himself right.

 

How about the value? Well, there is the historical fact that initially Einstein proposed only half the later, final value. Bringing him, again, on par with Newton. But even the later figure (the doubled one) was actually given long before Einstein. Here’s a name you should research: Georg von Soldner.

 

And finally, we have those alternative explanations. Such as the one forwarded by the proponents of the electromagnetic universe. Explanations, of course, totally ignored by mainstream, which in both schools and media makes not science but only propaganda to its own paradigms.

 

Joshua, please forgive me if I somehow offended you, that was not my intention, I assure you. But if you only repeat what you’ve been taught in schools, instead of checking for yourself what the truth is, then you’re certainly not doing science. Only propaganda, at best. And a Christian should know (both from the Bible and from his own life) that the world is a world full of lies, not full of truth.

 

And Joshua, formally only half of the so-called light bending comes from the claimed curvature of space. And in fact, it’s space-time. And in fact, the initial value of Einstein ignored precisely this. Ironic, wouldn’t you say?

 

Now, given all of the above, you tell me: what exactly is the truth? Because it certainly seems to me that we, Christians, should avoid partial (temporary) truths and instead stick to the only absolute truth. Which, if it is indeed absolute, it cannot be excluded no matter what discoveries in astronomy, or whatever field of science, or even philosophy. And guess what has happened so far?

 

 

=======================================================================================================================

 

Enoch seems to believe that we have access to the universe’s secrets. While that’s aligned with his philosophy (actually religion), meaning that his position (unlike in case of atheists) seems solid... . 

 

 

Define Religion.....?

 

 

.... I think it’s actually wrong.  Enoch uses what we call science (such as the laws of thermodynamics) to show how horribly wrong the mainstream paradigms are - in this case, big bang.

 

 

And your argument is.....?  How am I wrong?

 

Are you saying the big bang is "possibly true" based on what we don't know?  How did they come up with it in the first place?

 

And, I really don't need the Laws of Thermodynamics to refute the big bang; all I need is....

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

It's not "science"...you can't get to Step 1.

 

 

My position however is radical; we don’t know that what we see on Earth (and verify through endless experiments) is actually true out there, in the depths of cosmos

 

 

Your argument isn't "Radical" it's just a simple Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy)---- the veracity of a premise is based on the unknown and/or that it hasn't been proven false.

 

It's Tantamount to postulating:  Possibly, There are 3 toed gnomes behind the crab nebula throwing pixie dust in a black hole producing dark matter; we just don't know!

 

And I think this speaks volumes....

 

(1 Corinthians 14:33) "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

 

Absolute TRUTH isn't a Quantitative Statement.... it's Qualitative.

 

Are you postulating Different LAWS "somewhere else" governing the Universe....?

 

 

It’s even worse for the mainstream: not only we don’t know about the future discoveries (since obviously they are in the future) ...

 

 

This is another Logical Fallacy....Argument to the Future.

 

 

So strong a word, since in reality we can prove very few things, if actually any at all

 

 

Then why did the LORD admonish us to...

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

??

 

but there are already alternative explanations within current physics.

 

 

For instance....?

 

 

So which one we choose, and on what criterion exactly?

 

 

I suggest Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 based on the WORD of GOD. 

[Guest]

And, Joshua, sorry but you’re also formally wrong about the Doppler effect (universe “speeding away from us”).

 

Let me put it this way: if the formal cosmic expansion is like (let alone the) Doppler effect,

 

then not only is the current formal explanation wrong

 

(expansion of space instead of galactic motion)

 

but the universe also becomes geocentric.

 

To me, that really looks unavoidable.

 

 

Amen Beloved, Formally Only God Knows

 

It is beautiful how God has done everything at the right time. He has put a sense of eternity in people's minds. Yet, mortals still can't grasp what God is doing from the beginning to the end [of time]. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (GOD'S WORD® Translation)

 

As the turn of the next century approaches, we again find an established science in trouble trying to explain the behavior of the natural world. This time the problem is in cosmology, the study of the structure and "evolution" of the universe as revealed by its largest physical systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A growing body of observations suggests that one of the most fundamental assumptions of cosmology is wrong.

 

Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum. Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift". Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

 

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift vs. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

 

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift v.s. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

 

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?

 

Clearly, new and independent data were needed to carry this investigation further. The next step involved examining the rotation curves of individual spiral galaxies. Such curves indicate how the rotational velocity of the material in the galaxy's disk varies with distance from the center.

 

Several well-studied galaxies, including M51 and NGC 2903, exhibited two distinct redshifts. Velocity breaks, or discontinuities, occurred at the nuclei of these galaxies. Even more fascinating was the observation that the jump in redshift between the spiral arms always tended to be around 72 kilometers per second, no matter which galaxy was considered. Later studies indicated that velocity breaks could also occur at intervals that were 1/2, 1/3, or 1/6 of the original 72 km per second value.

 

At first glance it might seem that a 72 km per second discontinuity should have been obvious much earlier, but such was not the case. The accuracy of the data then available was insufficient to show the effect clearly. More importantly, there was no reason to expect such behavior, and therefore no reason to look for it. But once the concept was defined, the ground work was laid for further investigations.

 

The first papers in which this startling new evidence was presented were not warmly embraced by the astronomical community. Indeed, an article in the Astrophysical Journal carried a rare note from the editor pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."

 

Recognizing the far-reaching cosmological implications of the single-galaxy results, and undaunted by criticism from those still favoring the conventional view, the analysis was extended to pairs of galaxies.

 

Two galaxies physically associated with one another offer the ideal test for redshift quantization; they represent the simplist possible system. According to conventional dynamics, the two objects are in orbital motion about each other. Therefore, any difference in redshift between the galaxies in a pair should merely reflect the difference in their orbital velocities along the same line of sight. If we observe many pairs covering a wide range of viewing angles and orbital geometries, the expected distribution of redshift differences should be a smooth curve. In other words, if redshift is solely a Doppler effect, then the differences between the measured values for members of pairs should show no jumps.

 

But this is not the situation at all. In various analyses the differences in redshift between pairs of galaxies tend to be quantized rather than continuously distributed. The redshift differences bunch up near multiples of 72 km per second. Initial tests of this result were carried out using available visible-light spectra, but these data were not sufficiently accurate to confirm the discovery with confidence. All that changed in 1980 when Steven Peterson, using telescopes at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and Arecibo, published a radio survey of binary galaxies made in the 21-cm emission of neutral hydrogen.

 

Wavelength shifts can be pegged much more precisely for the 21cm line than for lines in the visible portion of the spectrum. Specifically, redshifts at 21 cm can be measured with an accuracy better than the 20 km per second required to detect clearly a 72 km per second periodicity.

 

Red shift differences between pairs group around 72, 144 and 216 km per second. Probability theory tells us that there are only a few chances in a thousand that such clumping is accidental. In 1982 an updated study of radio pairs and a review of close visible pairs demonstrated this same periodic pattern at similarly high significance levels.

 

Radio astronomers have examined groups of galaxies as well as pairs. There is no reason why the quantization should not apply to larger collections of galaxies, so redshift differentials within small groups were collected and analyzed. Again a strongly periodic pattern was confirmed.

 

The tests described so far have been limited to small physical systems; each group or pair occupies only a tiny region of the sky. Such tests say nothing about the properties of redshifts over the entire sky. Experiments on a very large scale are certainly possible, but they are much more difficult to carry out.

 

One complication arises from having to measure galaxy redshifts from a moving platform. The motion of the solar system, assuming a doppler interpretation, adds a real component to every redshift. When objects lie close together in the sky, as with pairs and groups, this solar motion cancels out when one redshift is subtracted from another, but when galaxies from different regions of the sky are compared, such a simple adjustment can no longer be made. Nor can we apply the difference technique; when more than a few galaxies are involved, there are simply too many combinations. Instead we must perform a statistical test using redshifts themselves.

 

As these first all-sky redshift studies began, there was no assurance that the quantization rules already discovered for pairs and groups would apply across the universe. After all, galaxies that were physically related were no longer being compared. Once again it was necessary to begin with the simplest available systems. A small sample of dwarf irregular galaxies spread around the sky was selected. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

[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.