• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Need help debating cosmology with YECs

Is there any way to know we are not at the center of the universe for sure?
Click to expand...

Maybe, it depends on whether you want to know if it is possible to do at all, or if you want some easy demonstration which could be used in a discussion.
I don't know any convenient method of checking which could be done at home but it should be theoretically possible to do, although it might require more advanced technology than we possess today.
The common theory which says that the universe lacks a center says that it is shaped like a four-dimensional sphere (or torus, or saddle) upon whose surface all matter and energy is stuck. The curvature of the sphere (or torus, etc) then means that two really long parallell lines will meet, eventually.
Their theory says that they will not meet.
Then it should be possible to test this using two, very finely aimed, parallell laser-beams. If they meet (or possibly diverge, the torus might have that effect) then that should prove which theory is wrong.
The only problem is that the beams may have to be several light-years long.

BTW, their argument about how the universe must be geocentric (or almost so) because we can see uniform amounts of galaxies in every direction is bogus. They are uniformly distributed around us because they are uniformly distributed all over the universe.
The argument about how all galaxies appear to be ordered in concentric spheres of different redshiftedness around us (and that they therefore are all moving away from us, as though we were the center) is bogus as well. The universe seems to be receeding from any given point in space, just as all dots are receeding from any given point on the surface of a dotted, inflating balloon.
I didn't know if you knew this, sorry if you already did.
 
From KingMerv's link:
The gist of it was that the universe expanded from a white hole at the beginning of time. While 6,000 years passed on earth, millions or more of time passed in astronomical terms. It had several factors involved.

-- Grahamcracker
Click to expand...
It would certainly be a lot easier if you could dismiss this nonsense as gobbledee gook.

According to Curious About Astronomy - What is a White Hole?:
What is a white hole?

The short answer is that a white hole is something which probably cannot exist in the real universe. A white hole will turn up in your mathematics if you explore the space-time around a black hole without including the star which made the black hole (ie. there is absolutely no matter in the solution). Once you add any matter to the space-time, the part which included a white hole disappears.


How can you have a black hole with no mass?

1. Mathematically this is actually the simplest kind of black hole. Once the singularity is set up it will hold itself together, so the tricky part is setting up the singularity.

2. The only way to set up the singularity in the real universe is to start with it being there. Somehow the universe has to form with ready made singularities.


Why can't white holes exist in nature?

1. There is no reason to suggest that the universe started out with ready made singularities. It would actually be quite odd if it did.

2. Once even the tiniest speck of dust enters the part of space-time which includes the black hole, the part which includes the white hole disappears. The universe has been around for a long time and so even if it did start with white holes, they would have all disappeared by now.
Click to expand...


But, basically, this quote sums up everything you could care to take away from that thread:
Right or wrong, this theory illustrates that God's thoughts truly are higher than our thoughts. It also illustrates that He did things and actively does do things that we will likely never understand
Click to expand...
In other words, the argument for God is essentially "he is to complex for our puny minds to comprehend, therefore he exists".


Epress makes an apologetic:
Day 1 the heavens and Earth, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Genesis 1:2. Humphreys says, Earth on Day 1 is formless and in undefined region within the deep, empty of inhabitant or feature. And the deep is about 2 light years in diameter.

Then on Day 2, Gen 1:6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." Humphreys suggests that there was a rapid stretching out of space not limited by the speed of light, on Day 2. And God called the expanse "heavens." These heavens are interstellar space.
Click to expand...
It goes on like that for a while. Basically, this is nonsense, and the entire concept would have been completely foreign to the authors of Genesis.


Acemcdonut says:
In my opinion no scientific theories regarding creation are fully verifiable. All theories regarding velocities, expansion, rotational dynamics and all cosmological forces are based on the models of physics that we have experienced in and around our area of the universe (particularly Newtonian physics). As God is the one that set these laws in place in the first instance, it is utterly pointless and unverifiable to speculate on how everything got to where it is and in what time frame
Click to expand...
Translation: Goddidit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom