|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Starlight Within a Young Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6347 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
It has been a challenge within the Christian community to come up with an answer to the question: "If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the millions of years it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth?".
I want to talk about two cosmologies; a well known cosmology, the Big Bang, and the creationists cosmology that D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. has put forth. There is a book called "Starlight and Time; Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe" by Humphreys himself. This talks both about the Big Bang and his cosmology. The Big Bang, if I am correct, says that space AND matter are expanding. But also that matter goes out to infinity in any direction.That in the beginning of the big bang, matter was more dense and hotter, but still goes out to infinity. Space itself was smaller in the beginning as well. It stretches and matter stretches with it. Like blowing into a balloon that has dots that represent galaxies on it expand as the balloon (space) expands. The dots are evenly spread out over the surface of the balloon. The balloon's surface is a 2-d representation of the 3-d universe to explain a 4-d universe in 3-d. the fourth dimension is not time. Humphrey uses the balloon to make it easier to understand. Humphreys cosmology is similar to this, except there is a center and a edge to the universe. But space and matter also expand. Consider the same balloon except the dots are located at one spot on the balloon. From what I understand is that the physics both cosmologies use, are IDENTICAL, like general relativity. The only difference is the starting assumptions. The Big Bang uses the starting assumption that the universe has no edge, and therefore has no center. But Humphreys assumption is this, that the stars are numbered, that is the universe has an edge, and therefore has a center. And we are close to the middle of it. Since matter distorts space, the whole universe in the beginning can be closely related to a black hole. That is, there is a dip in the balloon where the center of the mass is. And earth was below the event horizon where it experiences no time. So the outside boundary of the universe, as God is spreading out the heavens, move outside this event horizon and experience time faster than earth. Time also is distorted by gravity. So as the light travels from these outside galaxies, earth 's time is still slowed down or still stopped. But as time goes on, maybe on the sixth Earth day as space and the universe is spreading earth finally is at a point where time is matching more closely to that of the outside universe. This is because as matter spreads out the 'dip' in the black hole gets 'shallower' and thus eventually space is distorted less at the center as the universe gets less dense. Then on the 6th day when God created man, the light already on its path for billions of years came in on the sixth earth day for Adam to see all that God has created, including far reaching galaxies. Which starting assumption is correct? Or, if we do not know, why chose one over the other? Well, Humphreys has an explanation, he uses the Bible as a guide, and the Bible says that the stars are numbered. But also that earth, and us, human beings are central to God's creation. What reason does the big bang have over choosing the no center/no edge? I believe Humphrey is correct in saying that secular scientists have no scientific evidence for choosing this one. For only the two assumptions proposed can explain why every direction we point our telescope, the universe is relatively homogeneous. Instead, secular scientists have tried avoiding a center/edge due to religious implications. If we are at the center, (Life itself is improbable to form on its own, let alone forming a place that is relatively close to the center of the universe), it would seem we are maybe part of a special creation. We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
Information, Science and Biology
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Confidence writes:
This makes no sense. If we are below the event horizon, how come we aren't ripped apart by gravitational forces?
But Humphreys assumption is this, that the stars are numbered, that is the universe has an edge, and therefore has a center. And we are close to the middle of it. Since matter distorts space, the whole universe in the beginning can be closely related to a black hole. That is, there is a dip in the balloon where the center of the mass is. And earth was below the event horizon where it experiences no time. Time also is distorted by gravity. So as the light travels from these outside galaxies, earth 's time is still slowed down or still stopped. But as time goes on, maybe on the sixth Earth day as space and the universe is spreading earth finally is at a point where time is matching more closely to that of the outside universe. This is because as matter spreads out the 'dip' in the black hole gets 'shallower' and thus eventually space is distorted less at the center as the universe gets less dense. Then on the 6th day when God created man, the light already on its path for billions of years came in on the sixth earth day for Adam to see all that God has created, including far reaching galaxies.
Nothing in here makes any sense. Do you even understand what a black hole is? But let's assume that somehow all of this is correct. Wouldn't it have been more accurate for the bible to say something like "a very very very old universe with a very young earth"?
Which starting assumption is correct?
Here's the thing. How does Humphrey's version explain the cosmic background radiation predicted and discovered by the BB theory?
For only the two assumptions proposed can explain why every direction we point our telescope, the universe is relatively homogeneous.
Um, no. It's not just the direction that appear to be homogeneous, it's also the distance. According to Humphrey's version, shouldn't we find a hell of a lot more "stuff" nearer to us and a hell of a lot less "stuff" farther away?
Instead, secular scientists have tried avoiding a center/edge due to religious implications.
Scientists don't buy into the center implication because there is no evidence for them to do so. Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4630 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
confidence writes: Since matter distorts space, the whole universe in the beginning can be closely related to a black hole. If we were within the event horizon how did we escape? The only way I have heard of for anything to escape the gravity of a black hole is via Hawking Radiation.
quote: What evidence is there to suggest we are the center of the universe? Edited by Vacate, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Confidence.
It is an interesting question, and I suspect that we will have to wait until cavediver or Son Goku notice this thread and give us the benefit of their expertise. Now, the earth placed in a homegenous isotropic universe (the standard Big Bang theory), versus being the actual physical center of a mass distribution of finite extent -- these do not sound equivalent to me. I don't know General Relativity, so I cannot answer this question myself, but surely these two models predict different phenomena that we should be able to observe. I mean, shouldn't we be able to use astonimical observations to determine which model is more likely? So the relevant questions would be: what differences do these models predict for the behavior of space time? What differences do we expect to see if we look at very, very distant objects (which would be objects which existed long, long ago)? What different phenomena would we observe? And what do we actually observe? Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
What reason does the big bang have over choosing the no center/no edge? I believe Humphrey is correct in saying that secular scientists have no scientific evidence for choosing this one. For only the two assumptions proposed can explain why every direction we point our telescope, the universe is relatively homogeneous.
In Humphrey's cosmology how far away is the edge?
The Big Bang uses the....including far reaching galaxies.
There are several things which are unusual about this paragraph. The kind of cosmological evolution implied would be far to violent for almost anything to form.It also discribes Earth as being within an horizon and then, due to external conditions, the horizon disappears and Earth emerges from it to join the rest of the universe. Such at set up is grossly artificial and probably involves unrealistic distributions of matter. Also a black holes "dip" can't get shallower because material outside it spreads out. Most black holes are materially isolated anyway and by this logic would disappear rather quickly. This isn't including the fact that a center of the universe wouldn't be well defined in GR and very little (none?) of the solutions to the Field Equations have an edge. So I think this cosmology very much goes against the grain of GR.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This makes no sense. If we are below the event horizon, how come we aren't ripped apart by gravitational forces? Event horizons are independent of any gravitational "force". Around a Solar mass black hole, the tidal forces in the region of the event horizon would be enormous, but this is by no means always the case. Around a hypermassive black hole, the tidal forces at the horizon could be unnoticeable.
Nothing in here makes any sense. Do you even understand what a black hole is? The black hole in this case is significantly different to the normal layman presentation of a black hole. "this makes no sense" is typically not a good defence against the physics of General Relatvity... very little of it makes sense! But don't worry, Humphrey's interpretation of his model IS nonsense and hopefully I'll get to some of it before the end of the evening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
cavediver writes:
I highly doubt that's what he was after.
Around a hypermassive black hole, the tidal forces at the horizon could be unnoticeable. The black hole in this case is significantly different to the normal layman presentation of a black hole. "this makes no sense" is typically not a good defence against the physics of General Relatvity... very little of it makes sense!
I take his meaning of black hole as it is, an object with its mass so concentrated that its gravitational pull is infinitely strong and that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. How on earth... how in the universe are we expected to believe that the earth lies beneathe the event horizon and not get squashed? Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I take his meaning of black hole as it is, an object with its mass so concentrated that its gravitational pull is infinitely strong Right, and this isn't what Humphrey means. This is a type of universe usually referred to as a black hole cosmology. It is not a black hole that forms as the result of gravitational collapse. The gravitational "pull" of a black hole only becomes unbounded as you head towards the singularity. For a large enough black hole, you can be well within the horizon yet so far from the sigularity that you wouldn't be aware of the singularity... not yet anyway!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
how in the universe are we expected to believe that the earth lies beneathe the event horizon and not get squashed? We could be 'on the way' to getting squashed but not there yet, no? Or is it an instantaneous squashing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Here is what Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross has to say about Starlight and Time.
quote: So Humphreys asked for expert opinion - and then ignored it ?
quote: So Humphreys has abandoned his original arguments because they have been proven false, but kept the conclusions ? It doesn't look good for Humphreys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
cavediver writes:
So, in other words, in Humphrey's universe, we could be falling into the singularity right now? The gravitational "pull" of a black hole only becomes unbounded as you head towards the singularity. For a large enough black hole, you can be well within the horizon yet so far from the sigularity that you wouldn't be aware of the singularity... not yet anyway!
Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and the creationists cosmology that D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
quote: It would appear that your source is ignoring evidence that contradicts his precepts. That is not science, it is delusion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : preview, not send ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6347 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
I will talk mostly about some misconceptions on the theory,
The Creationists cosmology uses a 'white hole' (black hole running in reverse). So the universe is spreading out, not collapsing. This, appearantly, comes from the theory of relativity, so its not something just made up. Evidence that the earth is close to the center:Observations were made on the redshifts themselves, and they appeared to be quantized, this would make it seem that our galaxy is the center of concentrated rings of galaxies outside of our universe. There is debate on this, but from what I can tell, redshifts are quantized. Here is the forum on redshifts itself from this siteEvC Forum: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe Here is a recent paper on redshifts(quantized)Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report - NASA/ADS Redshift is mainly caused by the expansion of space itself. Not just by the recession of galaxies. (for both the big bang and humphreys cosmology).
But let's assume that somehow all of this is correct. Wouldn't it have been more accurate for the bible to say something like "a very very very old universe with a very young earth"? Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Notice that there is a beginning to time itself, probably because it is closely related with matter and space. But remember that in the Humphrey's cosmology there are multiple times of reference, but God uses earth's point of reference for time.
If we are below the event horizon, how come we aren't ripped apart by gravitational forces? This is a misconception about black (& white) holes. Gravity forces, and density are not always huge. And in the beginning water was at the center, being compressed until nuclear reaction took place to cause the expansion (and perhaps the light which God said He made before the sun and stars).
Here's the thing. How does Humphrey's version explain the cosmic background radiation predicted and discovered by the BB theory? Funny how a theory can discover things, I thought people made the discovery. In any case, the cosmic background also follows from Humphreys cosmology, since the physics are similar as that of the big bang. The only difference is the assumptions.
Um, no. It's not just the direction that appear to be homogeneous, it's also the distance. According to Humphrey's version, shouldn't we find a hell of a lot more "stuff" nearer to us and a hell of a lot less "stuff" farther away? Humphrey's model suggests that the radius of the universe is a bit bigger than we are able to observe. His model does not predict the radius of the universe. God created the universe that we observe today out of water. Humphrey does talk about the radius of the waters that God has created. But I forget how big that number is, from this we can predict the average amount of mass in the universe. However, God did spread two bodies of waters in the beginning. So in Humphreys model, there is a ring of water around where the universe is held 'captive'. Like a giant wall. As for the density, I do not see how there should be more mass in the center. For the density will be the same at the beginning, before the expansion out of the 'white' hole, and as it comes out of the 'white' hole.
Humphreys says that...and dismisses another source, the Kuiper Belt Hmmm...
No known object in the Kuiper belt is a remotely possible candidate to become a comet.
Kuiper belt - WikipediaThere are definitely Kuiper objects around, they just aren't comets!! So Humphrey's argument still hold regarding comets. This is just a weak website you use. Click on the websites they point to for more Kuiper objects, they don't mention comets.
On October 18th, 2005, Dr. Taylor replied (with his permission to cite) that My take on their problem Emphasis mine. His take??, means what to you? You really think RATE is out to lunch that bad? My take is that your sources are not so reliable as you think they are. I encourage more criticism, but not ignorance. Humphrey, in his book, suggest that the theory be called a theory not a fact. He hopes others will be interested in what he proposes to flesh out mistakes etc, like what real scientists do. Do keep in mind that most of you have read my version of it, which could be a bit off. I encourage you to read up on what Humphrey has to say himself. In the future, when you do make criticism, do not write as if we believe this is fact and the infallible word of God. I believe it will change, but as of yet, there does not seem to be a big problem with it. Especially regarding the quantized redshifts. Edited by Confidence, : No reason given. Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Confidence writes:
If the gravitational pull isn't always huge, then by what miracle can a black hole maintain itself and not allow anything, even light, from escaping?
This is a misconception about black (& white) holes. Gravity forces, and density are not always huge. And in the beginning water was at the center, being compressed until nuclear reaction took place to cause the expansion (and perhaps the light which God said He made before the sun and stars).
The evidence for this being?
Funny how a theory can discover things, I thought people made the discovery.
Good nitpick there. I'll be more careful with my words next time.
In any case, the cosmic background also follows from Humphreys cosmology, since the physics are similar as that of the big bang. The only difference is the assumptions.
Please expand on this a little. You are simply making unsupported assertion for now.
So in Humphreys model, there is a ring of water around where the universe is held 'captive'. Like a giant wall.
Nice prediction there. I'll just wait for someone to find this wall of water that is suppose to surround our universe.
As for the density, I do not see how there should be more mass in the center. For the density will be the same at the beginning, before the expansion out of the 'white' hole, and as it comes out of the 'white' hole.
While black holes have been discovered, or rather cosmic objects that behave like black holes have been discovered, white holes are nothing but pure speculation. Here, you are using it as though it's fact. I'm simply not convinced. But going back, according to Humphrey's model, there should be more mass in the center in order for enough mass concentrated in an area to produce black hole-like affects, like having an event horizon and time dilation. Without such concentration of mass, where's the immense gravity coming from?
Humphrey, in his book, suggest that the theory be called a theory not a fact.
And yet you are using concepts like white holes and the wall of water as if they were facts. PS Is it water or ice that's suppose to contain our universe? Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: We wouldn't see comets in the Kuiper belt because they are so small. So Humphrey's argument doesn't provide any positive reason to think that they aren't there. The fact that there are larger objects in that part of space that we can see, on the other hand, is a good reason to think that there will be smaller objects. And why should they not include comets ? So Humphreys' argumetn was never any good in the first place, and there is good circumstantial evidence against it - which he is ignoring. Hardly the mark of good scientific work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024