Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
DrBlake

I Think, So Here I Am.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms