Well the stretching out idea is intriguing and I'm not expert enough to know if this model is a better model than the BB model. I read somewhere that the universe is a lot flatter than the BB model would support which gives credence to the stretching out model of the universe. The universe is more like an accordion. Also the mature galaxies seen way out should not be as mature as they are. RJ Einstein did not over turn Newton he enhanced the ideas about motion and gravity. I'm a Christian but I don't trust a lot of the so called creation scientist because it seems they jump on any little thing they can to make a model fit even if overwhelming evidence does not support their theory.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Don't forget none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, creationists
Well the stretching out idea is intriguing and I'm not expert enough to know if this model is a better model than the BB model. I read somewhere that the universe is a lot flatter than the BB model would support which gives credence to the stretching out model of the universe. The universe is more like an accordion. Also the mature galaxies seen way out sh ...[text shortened]... an to make a model fit even if overwhelming evidence does not support their theory.
Manny
and evolutionist, alike.
Originally posted by RJHindsAgreed nobody is perfect hence the need for a savior 🙂 The stretching idea would explaing a lot of the so called anomolies we see in space. If a young universe then either light once travelled at a faster speed (I doubt) or maybe the universe was stretched out. The scriptures say God stretched them out. This would account for the apparent age of the universe question. I'm aware that there are issues with each model but it's cool to try and figure it out. I do believe God created the universe however and it declares How mighty He really is. I just think creationist are so desprate to make a model fit is all.
Don't forget none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, creationists
and evolutionist, alike.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71"While I don't have a clue on the maths involved it makes some sense to me. "
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html#wp1030385
This is a good argument for the age of the earth and moon actually being younger than 4.5 billion years old. While I don't have a clue on the maths involved it makes some sense to me.
Manny
A disturbingly honest statement.
Originally posted by JS357Well we know the moon did not come from the earth as once believed. Also if 4.5 billion years of time the moon would be much further away from the earth. As stated on this site and I once saw an episode on I believe it was the science channel there are many problems with the earth-moon system to be 4.5 billion years old. I don't understand the equations but does not mean I can't understand the crux of the problem with dating the earth and moon to 4.5 Billion years old.
"While I don't have a clue on the maths involved it makes some sense to me. "
A disturbingly honest statement.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Atheists have to use the old dates in order that that it could all happen
Well we know the moon did not come from the earth as once believed. Also if 4.5 billion years of time the moon would be much further away from the earth. As stated on this site and I once saw an episode on I believe it was the science channel there are many problems with the earth-moon system to be 4.5 billion years old. I don't understand the equations but ...[text shortened]... d the crux of the problem with dating the earth and moon to 4.5 Billion years old.
Manny
by chance. And even with these old dates it seem near impossible.
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71"1.Evolutionists believe that the Earth formed by gravitational accretion of smaller bodies. If so, the impacts would have left a molten Earth. The Earth, throughout its history, would have been less rigid than it is today. Therefore, tidal bulges would have been larger, causing the Moon to spiral away from the Earth even faster than we calculated here."
http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html#wp1030385
This is a good argument for the age of the earth and moon actually being younger than 4.5 billion years old. While I don't have a clue on the maths involved it makes some sense to me.
Manny
That is from that article on 'creationscience'.
I wonder how they came up with that juicy statement. Lets see. What do evolutionists study? Oh yeah, I remember. Evolution. Wow. If I am not wrong I THINK that is the study of how life developed AFTER it started here on earth. Which of course has nothing to do with creationism.
Just exactly how do we go from evolutionists studying of all things, evolution, to planetary formation? Can someone explain that one to me?
Originally posted by menace71This seems to be a very interesting book. But it will take some time to read.
Well we know the moon did not come from the earth as once believed. Also if 4.5 billion years of time the moon would be much further away from the earth. As stated on this site and I once saw an episode on I believe it was the science channel there are many problems with the earth-moon system to be 4.5 billion years old. I don't understand the equations but ...[text shortened]... d the crux of the problem with dating the earth and moon to 4.5 Billion years old.
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsTell that to a black hole. Black holes have such warped space around them nothing can come out, gravity is so strong mass goes in and more stuff goes in and the mass of a big black hole can = millions of sol masses and space is curved around the black hole so severely light at one distance away from the 'center' can only orbit, and if it gets further in, can never escape.
As you know the earth is like a big magnet with a north and south pole.
It exerts an attractive force so that we can use a compass to tell direction.
These magnetic forces are really electrical forces and are related to
gravitation.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces,
which is used to calculate the magnitude of el ...[text shortened]... his easier to understand by
putting it on graph paper rather than using the formulas.
Hawking says black holes can 'evaporate' due to virtual particles being created just at the surface of the event horizon, where one half of the pair shoots into the black hole and the other one can escape so it can slowly lose mass, a big one like in the center of the galaxy would take trillions of years to lose its mass but small ones lose their mass a lot quicker so don't last as long.
But the space around the black hole is extremely bent, it is like a 4 dimensional bathtub drain, except happening in all directions away from the black hole. This is a fundamental effect of nature.
Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Scroll down to the 'perihelion Precession of Mercury'.
This is a perturbation in the orbit of mercury which was measured very precisely but classical physics had no answer for (Newtonian gravity and such).
There was this tiny left over perturbation of mercury's orbit that was figured out by Einstein due to space being curved slightly by the mass of the sun, a very small amount but Einstein used his theory of relativity to calculate it very precisely.
Because space curves. The entire universe is one big space curve. If you took a spacecraft out into the universe at very very very close to c, you would come back to the same place you left because traveling in space at galactic distances is like shooting around on a sphere, like the Earth.
A plane could fly forever over the surface of the Earth if it had enough fuel because there is no start or finish to the circumference of Earth. Just going straight into galactic space forces you to come back to where you started, just like that plane, say going around on the equator of Earth.
At some point, the plane revisits the same part of the equator every time it goes 360 degrees. Same with the space craft. Going straight means being on a gentle many billions of light year wide curve.
Originally posted by sonhouseIs this Hawking a god to you?
Tell that to a black hole. Black holes have such warped space around them nothing can come out, gravity is so strong mass goes in and more stuff goes in and the mass of a big black hole can = millions of sol masses and space is curved around the black hole so severely light at one distance away from the 'center' can only orbit, and if it gets further in, ca ...[text shortened]... ce craft. Going straight means being on a gentle many billions of light year wide curve.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI think "Black Hole" is a bad term to describe such a massive object.
Tell that to a black hole. Black holes have such warped space around them nothing can come out, gravity is so strong mass goes in and more stuff goes in and the mass of a big black hole can = millions of sol masses and space is curved around the black hole so severely light at one distance away from the 'center' can only orbit, and if it gets further in, ca ce craft. Going straight means being on a gentle many billions of light year wide curve.
P.S. And I have explained to you before that space does not curve.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23348
Originally posted by RJHindsscary
Some people read the Holy Bible and say it leaves open the possiblity
of an old universe and they believe that because they can't get past the
starlight problem and don't understand how God could have done it so
that we see the starlight as we do today. I believe since God did the
rest of creation very fast that he was consistant and did it all in the ...[text shortened]... d as a baby. How He did it we may never know, but I believe
He did it because I believe God.