Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Even priest physicists can be wrong. We are now starting to understand Copernicus was wrong.
Click to expand...
Copernicus was wrong. The Sun is not the center of the universe. But if you think believing the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun is the center of the universe are equally wrong then you’re mad.
 
Dan123 said:
Copernicus was wrong. The Sun is not the center of the universe. But if you think believing the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun is the center of the universe are equally wrong then you’re mad.
Click to expand...
The satellite data is showing a preferential direction of a supposedly homogeneous universe. that makes earth a special place and overthrows Copernicus.

No need to argue with me, argue with the data.
 
There was no everything. The explosion, if it occurred, exploded into zero gravity, zero temperature and zero other electromagnetic energy.
 
“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.”

I’m not sure what theory you’re describing, but the big bang theory posits an expansion from a singularity, not an explosion from nothing.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps you jumped into the thread late. I showed the WMAP data and a linkk from Univ of Michigan. The “axis of evil” is what it is referred to.
Click to expand...
I have been researching this, and I do find that broadly speaking there is a correlation between the plane of the solar system and a derived plane dividing the observed ‘sphere’ of Cosmic Background Radiation into two halves, on the basis of a difference in overall temperature. I’m not at all sure that the correlation is at all meaningful - it is far from exact - but if it is meaningful, then the next thing to do is to find out how. What it does not imply is that the earth, or even our galaxy the Milky Way, is at the centre of the universe, except insofar as any observer is at the centre of his own observations. A observer in any galaxy of the universe, even one hundreds of millions light years away from us, will observe the CBR as the horizon, at the furthest distance, of his own observations.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I have been researching this, and I do find that broadly speaking there is a correlation between the plane of the solar system and a derived plane dividing the observed ‘sphere’ of Cosmic Background Radiation into two halves, on the basis of a difference in overall temperature. I’m not at all sure that the correlation is at all meaningful - it is far from exact - but if it is meaningful, then the next thing to do is to find out how. What it does not imply is that the earth, or even our galaxy the Milky Way, is at the centre of the universe, except insofar as any observer is at the centre of his own observations. A observer in any galaxy of the universe, even one hundreds of millions light years away from us, will observe the CBR as the horizon, at the furthest distance, of his own observations.
Click to expand...
Since we can put the center anywhere it can be the earth. Where do you choose to put it?
 
Suppose someone stood on the top of a tall building with a clear view all around them. Looking around them they’d see clear to the horizon in every direction, with no horizon being any closer than another.

Does that make them the center of the universe?
 
Dan123 said:
Does that make them the center of the universe?
Click to expand...
No, because you are using a local frame.

When one observes the universe and all the stars are moving away from us and the galaxies are arranged in concentric rings it suggests we are at or near the center. To get away from the data Einstein came up with relativity.

Michelson Morley and Airey’s Failure failed to show a moving earth. Now we have the directionality of the CMB.

Put it all together and a strong case can be made for earth in the center.
 
Last edited:
Our solar system is in orbit around the center of our galaxy. The Cosmic Background Radiation may be limited to our galaxy only.
 
Everyting is moving away from everything. That’s what “expansion” means and it’s why describing the Big Bang as an explosion is incorrect. Here’s an interview where the concept was explained:

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/podcasts/transcripts/070523_universe.html

Rayman: Yes, and his theory was widely condemned and ridiculed at first. Now we know that not only are we humans not at the center of the universe, but there is no center of the universe!

Narrator: Now that is really hard to imagine.

Rayman: It is. But a center just doesn’t fit with what scientists have learned through decades of modern astronomy. The Big Bang is the name scientists give to the events that started the universe. Although the Big Bang is often described as a huge explosion, an explosion has a central point, such as a bomb or a spark. The Big Bang wasn’t like that.

Narrator: Why not?

Rayman: The Big Bang happened everywhere at once. It’s an expansion of space itself, not the expansion of things in space. That means everywhere in space is moving apart from everywhere else. This has been going on in the entire universe for almost 14 billion years.

Narrator: But aren’t we located somewhere with respect to the rest of the universe?

Rayman: We certainly are. We’re right here, and we know where “here” is relative to other objects in the universe! But here is not special, like a center would be, and, for that matter, nowhere is special. That is like asking—if we had a powerful telescope that could see all the way to the end of the universe, would we find more of the universe on one side of Earth than on the other? No. We would find that it looks the same in all directions.

Narrator: So doesn’t that mean we are still at the center of the universe?

Rayman: Well, no, it doesn’t. Observers everywhere in the universe would find the same result. Imagine that you are on one of many dots on a spherical balloon. No matter which way you look along the surface of the balloon, the end of your world seems to be the same distance from you. But that doesn’t mean you are at the center of this little world! The fact is that your two-dimensional world has no center.

Narrator: But what about the continuing expansion of the universe? Doesn’t it have to expand from a center point somewhere?

Rayman: Well, suppose your balloon world is being inflated with air. All the other dots will be getting farther and farther away from you as the balloon gets bigger. In fact, all dots get farther from each other, so no matter where you are, it looks as if you are at the center of the expansion. The expansion of three-dimensional space is similar. Like the surface of the balloon, there is no center in the universe.
 
Completely false. This is a very strange assumption. The universe is expanding into what? Nothing? I don’t buy that. Even a balloon has a center point. Not rational.
 
Yes the simplified version isn’t going to be as clear as the mathematical models, it’s been simplified to try and explain it via analogy. So when you say it’s not rational all you’re really able to say is the universe isn’t a balloon. I think we’d all agree. But you can certainly research why that model fits the evidence better than a fixed point origin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top