Jump to content


Photo

I Think, So Here I Am.


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 March 2016 - 05:01 PM

Unfortunately Goku, we observe and measure everything from our point in time and space, which does not always provide the real picture.  You will have seen the balloon effect, where any two points on the surface of the balloon move apart much faster than the air molecules in the centre of the balloon.  However in our case the inflation is rather like filling a balloon with some gas and placing it in a vacuum chamber and gradually increase the vacuum.  The balloon will expand, but now the gas inside the balloon changes density, the molecules also spreading out, so we now not only have different rates of expansion between the centre and the surface, we also have a changing 'fabric' (dark matter).  Despite the conditions locally being relatively constant, in other localities the rate of change is huge.

 

My understanding of the expansion is that it is caused by dark energy, which I thought is supposed to have a relatively consistent density throughout the universe which is related to the universe's isotropy and homogeneity. I subscribe to the lambda CDM model by the way. So the idea that the universe has a center and that the edges expand faster than the center is foreign to me. It's not that gas is expanding to fill a vacuum, rather space itself is expanding and the gas is just along for the ride. I personally prefer the bread dough analogy to the balloon, but both are just analogies and shouldn't be taken too literally in my opinion. 

 

I am confused on your use of dark matter. My understanding is that dark matter (once you account for MACHOs that are hard to detect which artificially raises the amount of dark matter in cosmological surveys) is a non-baryonic substance(s) of matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force. So I don't know what you mean by dark matter being related to the fabric of space, can you expand on what you're talking about there? 



#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 March 2016 - 06:53 PM

Welcome to the forum Derek, I hope you enjoy your time here :)



#23 Dr. Derek P. Blake

Dr. Derek P. Blake

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redruth, Cornwall, UK
  • Interests:Love science, have a Ph.D and degrees in cosmology and astronomy. Fanatical about photography, an avid landscape painter, love to do crafts, spend most of my time writing which I love to do. I play guitar and drums.
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Redruth, Cornwall, UK.

Posted 30 March 2016 - 07:24 AM

My understanding of the expansion is that it is caused by dark energy, which I thought is supposed to have a relatively consistent density throughout the universe which is related to the universe's isotropy and homogeneity. I subscribe to the lambda CDM model by the way. So the idea that the universe has a center and that the edges expand faster than the center is foreign to me. It's not that gas is expanding to fill a vacuum, rather space itself is expanding and the gas is just along for the ride. I personally prefer the bread dough analogy to the balloon, but both are just analogies and shouldn't be taken too literally in my opinion. 

 

I am confused on your use of dark matter. My understanding is that dark matter (once you account for MACHOs that are hard to detect which artificially raises the amount of dark matter in cosmological surveys) is a non-baryonic substance(s) of matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force. So I don't know what you mean by dark matter being related to the fabric of space, can you expand on what you're talking about there? 

Hi Goku, the problem is that no one really knows how this works, simply because we cannot replicate the conditions anywhere in this universe, we can only make guesses based on how things work within our universe, which may be totally wrong. Whatever the fabric of space consists of, dark matter or some other unknown substance, we just know it's there and calling it 'Dark Matter' is just a label that may not be accurate.  So my hypothesis is conjecture in the light of what the Bible tells me, there is much of the CDM that I would subscribe to, but it always surprises people how little cosmology doesn't know, hypotheses are often assumed to be fact.  We have only just found detectable evidence that that fabric actually exists with the recent detection of Gravitational waves, because waves need a medium to transmit, but that was also suggested by the wave property of light.

 

Some cosmologists suggest that this 'fabric' of space is made from dark matter, who knows if this is true or not, however, if indeed there is a boundary of the universe and if beyond that boundary there is neither space nor time, then the universe can expand until the universe runs out of energy.  If the universe is expanding, we must assume that there is something tangible to expand, or as the Bible puts it 'to stretch', on the basis that we 'cannot stretch nothing'.  The universe could not have been created in space, because the fabric would not have allowed that expansion, especially under the understanding that it is the fabric, or dark matter, that holds the galaxies in place.  Every principle says that if we stretch something it becomes thinner, and I can see no convincing evidence that shows otherwise.

 

As to the balloon illustration, I would agree, and the illustration I have used when lecturing was what call the 'Muffin' hypothesis, which is full of chocolate chips or currants, which represents spacial objects.  The chips in the centre hardly move but the ouret ones move more rapidly away from each other (relatively).   This gives us an almost constancy at the centre (even if we are somewhere close to the universal centre which the logically must be if the universe's singularity occured at a point in time or space - an event horizon) but retains residue expansion locally. In reality, although CERN has found a new particle, it is far from clear if they have indeed found the so called 'God Particle' the theoretical Higgs Boson. we just have to wait until this is confirmed in reverse observation, we can say this is the particle but until we see it doing what we say it does, it could be fairy dust.



#24 Dr. Derek P. Blake

Dr. Derek P. Blake

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redruth, Cornwall, UK
  • Interests:Love science, have a Ph.D and degrees in cosmology and astronomy. Fanatical about photography, an avid landscape painter, love to do crafts, spend most of my time writing which I love to do. I play guitar and drums.
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Redruth, Cornwall, UK.

Posted 30 March 2016 - 11:53 AM

Welcome to the forum Derek, I hope you enjoy your time here :)

Thanks Gilbo, I think I might when I get time to post. 



#25 Dr. Derek P. Blake

Dr. Derek P. Blake

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redruth, Cornwall, UK
  • Interests:Love science, have a Ph.D and degrees in cosmology and astronomy. Fanatical about photography, an avid landscape painter, love to do crafts, spend most of my time writing which I love to do. I play guitar and drums.
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Redruth, Cornwall, UK.

Posted 30 March 2016 - 02:30 PM

My understanding of the expansion is that it is caused by dark energy, which I thought is supposed to have a relatively consistent density throughout the universe which is related to the universe's isotropy and homogeneity. I subscribe to the lambda CDM model by the way. So the idea that the universe has a center and that the edges expand faster than the center is foreign to me. It's not that gas is expanding to fill a vacuum, rather space itself is expanding and the gas is just along for the ride. I personally prefer the bread dough analogy to the balloon, but both are just analogies and shouldn't be taken too literally in my opinion. 

 

I am confused on your use of dark matter. My understanding is that dark matter (once you account for MACHOs that are hard to detect which artificially raises the amount of dark matter in cosmological surveys) is a non-baryonic substance(s) of matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force. So I don't know what you mean by dark matter being related to the fabric of space, can you expand on what you're talking about there? 

I forgot to say one part of the lambda CDM model that I do not subscribe to is the static universe element.  I am quite sure that the fact of the universe's expansion has been proved at this point, as the Bible and says and as Redshift shows.



#26 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 March 2016 - 06:16 PM

Hi Goku, the problem is that no one really knows how this works, simply because we cannot replicate the conditions anywhere in this universe, we can only make guesses based on how things work within our universe, which may be totally wrong. Whatever the fabric of space consists of, dark matter or some other unknown substance, we just know it's there and calling it 'Dark Matter' is just a label that may not be accurate.  So my hypothesis is conjecture in the light of what the Bible tells me, there is much of the CDM that I would subscribe to, but it always surprises people how little cosmology doesn't know, hypotheses are often assumed to be fact.  We have only just found detectable evidence that that fabric actually exists with the recent detection of Gravitational waves, because waves need a medium to transmit, but that was also suggested by the wave property of light.

 

Some cosmologists suggest that this 'fabric' of space is made from dark matter, who knows if this is true or not, however, if indeed there is a boundary of the universe and if beyond that boundary there is neither space nor time, then the universe can expand until the universe runs out of energy.  If the universe is expanding, we must assume that there is something tangible to expand, or as the Bible puts it 'to stretch', on the basis that we 'cannot stretch nothing'.  The universe could not have been created in space, because the fabric would not have allowed that expansion, especially under the understanding that it is the fabric, or dark matter, that holds the galaxies in place.  Every principle says that if we stretch something it becomes thinner, and I can see no convincing evidence that shows otherwise.

 

As to the balloon illustration, I would agree, and the illustration I have used when lecturing was what call the 'Muffin' hypothesis, which is full of chocolate chips or currants, which represents spacial objects.  The chips in the centre hardly move but the ouret ones move more rapidly away from each other (relatively).   This gives us an almost constancy at the centre (even if we are somewhere close to the universal centre which the logically must be if the universe's singularity occured at a point in time or space - an event horizon) but retains residue expansion locally. In reality, although CERN has found a new particle, it is far from clear if they have indeed found the so called 'God Particle' the theoretical Higgs Boson. we just have to wait until this is confirmed in reverse observation, we can say this is the particle but until we see it doing what we say it does, it could be fairy dust.

 

I am just confused because dark matter usually refers to a particle(s) (which observation indicates is concentrated in the halo of galaxies), hence the "matter" part, and not part of the spacetime fabric anymore than 'normal' matter.

 

My understanding is that the singularity didn't occur at a point in time or space, and that there is no center or edge to the universe. The muffin analogy is a decent visual demonstration of Hubble's law, but one of the consequences of this model is that it doesn't matter where you are in the universe you will observe the same thing: the recessional velocities of objects is proportional to the distance from them, and this observation is not dependent on either position or direction within the universe.
 

The lambda CDM model doesn't advocate a static universe; the lambda part refers to dark energy which is thought to be responsible for the universe's expansion.

 

To get back to my original question how does your model explain the distribution of population I, II, and III stars within the universe from a YEC perspective? The big bang combined with an old universe explains this very nicely; after the big bang the universe was filled with hydrogen and not many other elements so the first stars would have low metallicity, generation after generation of stars (which takes time) the metallicity of the stars will increase. When we look at modern stars (e.g. stars in our own galaxy) we only find stars with high metallicity, and when we look back in time at distant galaxies we find that they have low metallicity. This suggests that a long time has past since the beginning of the universe, at least enough time for multiple generations of stars to exist.

 

I really don't know how a young universe could accommodate this observation, thus my reason for bringing it up, but I would be interested to hear the YEC explanation. We can start a new thread in the Young Earth vs. Old Earth section of the forum if you prefer. It doesn't matter to me where we discuss it, but it wasn't my intention to clutter your welcome thread either.



#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:04 AM

 

Einstein is credited with the quip that he did not like the big bang model. He mused had there been an explosion all the energy would have radiated from the epiccenter and coalesed at the edge of the universe into matter. He also concluded the universe was "too lumpy" in areas to be caaused by an explosion. And then there is the issue of angular momentum with several planets and moons rotating the wrong way. Big bang has some real issues!

One question I have is why are the planets in our solar system so different if they were all formed at the same time and out of the same stuff?





 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users