Summations Only

First of all, you've got no clue what the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is. You just allege it is a remnant of the Big Blank. That is an unsupported claim. It might be something else. Some suggest that it is the result of the ubiquitous orbital decay.

And I think it's the left-over magic dust from the God unicorn when He waved us into existence for the second time.

First time was...well, we don't talk about the first time.

- Oni

Well. once again no one has come forward and presented a Creation cosmology model that was anything more than magic.

It really is that simple.

There are some really good technical posts on relativity from one of our resident physicists in this thread. Anyone interested in this subject who missed these should take a look at SonnyG’s contributions.

As for creationist cosmology – There isn’t much to say. As usual creationist “theories” amount to little more than incredulity towards evidenced scientific explanations, a complete disregard for the role of prediction in the scientific method, an abandonment of any notion of objectivity in assessing the relative merits of competing theories and some rather fantastical and ill conceived post hoc explanations and interpretations.

The premise of every creationist theory I have encountered is that a scientific theory is simply an interpretation of data and that because they find their own interpretation subjectively more plausible than any other it should be considered at least equal to, if not superior to, what they perceive to be the God-denying innately-biased scientific consensus. Each pet theory invariably contains a whole raft of unique contradictions, misapprehensions and conflations of terminology which result in the proponent of said theory thinking that they have come across something genuinely novel and uniquely insightful that the scientific community has somehow failed to spot. But once these specific flaws are unravelled and the foundations laid bare all these pet theories essentially boil down to the same thing. A deep-seated ignorance of the methods science applies to distinguish between fact and fiction and a desire to insert some form un-evidenced mysticism/magic.

This thread has followed the same trend.

I want to thank everyone for there thoughtful participation.

First off I want to apologize because I have been preoccupied else ware. I did make efforts to return here but something has always side tracked my effort.

What is wrong with this? Velocity is not a dimension! Even if you pretend the idea makes sense the equations have no sensible solutions, they feature 5D universes being blown apart by gravitational radiation.

I appreciate Son Goku’s bloviation but if you look at Carmeli’s treatments, they are unique. A model devoid of the necessity for the poison pill of dark matter is innovative. Son presented the field equation devoid of the dark energy component, which is necessitated by quantum theory. Namely p(vac)*(space-time metric tensor) being multiplied to the (stress energy tensor). I call attention to the inability by quantum physics to explain the tiny value of the calculated term for omega energy. Therefore, if there is any nonsense put forth it is current paradigm of the FLRW metric. By the way, if velocity can be excluded as a “dimension” (not sure, if the term is correctly applied here) then you might want to exclude time as a dimension also (even less descriptive as a dimension).

As for the list I gave for the BB problems, most of which have no reasonable explanation, I did not originate them. Except maybe the inflation on Jean’s length or Jean’s diameter (just now observed by astrophysicists as delayed star formation).

By only protesting that the list is incorrect does not make it so.

I look forward to continuing some of these discussions in future posts…

Thanks again Zaius137

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

I'd like to thank the people who know something about physics for some interesting posts.

As for zaius and Maddenstein, they've been interesting too, but probably not in any way they intended. Zaius has been consistently wrong, but Maddenstein is, I think, even worse, since he has been "not even wrong". In zaius's case, he simply doesn't understand the phrases he's using; in Maddenstein's case, no-one else does either, because they are devoid of meaning in the English language as it is spoken.