Quote:not true, by quite a large margin.
Really? Well then, here's something to think about...
The universe has a boundary-- in other words, it has a center and an edge, and if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space. This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("Big Bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make the arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries-- no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so therefore all the net gravitational forces cancel out.
Also, there appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past. If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a "white hole"-- a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).
It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no "massaging" -- the results "fall out" so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the Big Bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called "
what the experts don't tell you about the 'Big Bang'").
This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the "Big Bang," including progressive red-shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth. There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman's level, in the book by Dr. Humphreys,
Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.
Quote:No scientist, in their right mind or otherwise, talks in terms of complete truth, that's for philosophers and tv preachers.
Which is exactly the point I was trying to make to khaled-- that "no scientist in their right mind would be stupid enough to go off and say that it is completely true", which is what he was implying with his statement.
Quote:That basically at least shows that it is NOT a bunch of junk. And of course I could dig up countless sites to say the same.
And I could dig up countless more that say that it
is a load of crap (getting in-depth about how the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect, etc., etc.). But Einstein once said to 100 physicists that disagreed with him, "If I were indeed wrong, they would have only needed one to disagree with me."
Quote:If it has some evidence for it, it's not a load of crap it has some plausiblity.
Not exactly when that "evidence" is twisted around. Of course I could go outside, pick up a handful of gravel, and proceed to use it as evidence for an alien invasion, stating that the gravel are pieces of debris from a crashed alien warship.
But in reality, and according to real science, that's a load of crap. Same with the Big Bang theory.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace