Jump to content


Photo

Aig's Cosmology


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4 replies to this topic

#1 Dgeneration

Dgeneration

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 May 2005 - 04:17 AM

Was wondering if anyone could help me with the following claim by AIG in their new book Refuting Compromise (pg 156-157), i am attempting a critique of it and would like some assistance:

The claim goes like this. Symmetry patterns such as octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator detected in the WMAP are given as evidence against the isotropy of the universe. It is however, seen as consistent with his theory that the matter in the cosmos is experiencing slow rotation, this would produce the quadrupole and octopole moments.

Anyone with some knowledge in this area that can shine some light on the issue for me would be greatly appreciated!

Damien S

#2 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 14 May 2005 - 12:04 PM

Was wondering if anyone could help me with the following claim by AIG in their new book Refuting Compromise (pg 156-157), i am attempting a critique of it and would like some assistance:

The claim goes like this. Symmetry patterns such as octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator detected in the WMAP are given as evidence against the isotropy of the universe. It is however, seen as consistent with his theory that the matter in the cosmos is experiencing slow rotation, this would produce the quadrupole and octopole moments.

Anyone with some knowledge in this area that can shine some light on the issue for me would be greatly appreciated!

Damien S

View Post


To be quite honest, I have absolutely no idea what the claim is. It seems the claim is that the cosmos is rotating? Am I right? Can you provide a little more information?

I am doubly confused by your wording. You seem to imply that the book is written or endorsed by AiG, but they clearly are not happy about it at all since it contradicts most of their stances.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 May 2005 - 02:33 PM

The claim goes like this. Symmetry patterns such as octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator detected in the WMAP are given as evidence against the isotropy of the universe. It is however, seen as consistent with his theory that the matter in the cosmos is experiencing slow rotation, this would produce the quadrupole and octopole moments.


I don't know what it is your looking for, but it may linked to the idea of the universe having a center of gravity. Dr. Russell Humprery's states the one of the major assumptions in Big Bang cosmology is that the universe is unbounded in all directions, and doesn't have a center of gravity.

If the universe is rotating, then it has a center of rotation, and a center of gravity. If the assumption about the universe being unbounded can be demonstrated to be false, or most likely false, then then Big Bang cosmology would seem to take a big hit.

That's about the limit of my understanding.

He's worked out a white hole cosmology that is based on relativistic cosmology that shows how the universe could have aged an apparent 15 billion years, in six actual earth days, using the earth's clocks as the frame of reference.

You can read about it here in starlight and time. That link also covers what I was trying to describe about the universe having or not having a center of gravity.

Terry

#4 Dgeneration

Dgeneration

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2005 - 04:46 AM

I don't know what it is your looking for, but it may linked to the idea of the universe having a center of gravity.  Dr. Russell Humprery's states the one of the major assumptions in Big Bang cosmology is that the universe is unbounded in all directions, and doesn't have a center of gravity.

If the universe is rotating, then it has a center of rotation, and a center of gravity.  If the assumption about the universe being unbounded can be demonstrated to be false, or most likely false, then then Big Bang cosmology would seem to take a big hit.

That's about the limit of my understanding.

He's worked out a white hole cosmology that is based on relativistic cosmology that shows how the universe could have aged an apparent 15 billion years, in six actual earth days, using the earth's clocks as the frame of reference.

You can read about it here in starlight and time.  That link also covers what I was trying to describe about the universe having or not having a center of gravity.

Terry

View Post


My apologies for not being clear about the claim. The heading of this section in this book from AIG is titled "CMB Patterns Indicate a Rotating Cosmos", he is trying to undermine the Cosmological principle by advocating this incoherence in the CBR manifested in the octopole and quadrupole components referred to above. I think the comment above about the bounded and unbounded universe is key to his claim. I think since he has a bounded universe as proposed by Humphreys he would see the center of gravity at the center of the universe with the universe rotating as a black hole might rotate.

This has cleared up my thinking on the issue, though if others have some more technical insights then i would love to here them!

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 May 2005 - 02:56 PM

Don’t know if I am way off track here, but unless the article is some sort of ‘mathematical theory’ I don’t see how one could infer if the entire universe is rotating or not. It would be like travelling in a aircraft and trying to determine if you were moving or not (don’t take the analogy too literally).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users