Posted on 08/24/2009 9:23:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
August 23, 2009 — An alternative cosmology that doesn’t require dark energy may have the effect of putting the Milky Way near the center of the universe. That’s not the only interpretation, but it is being considered....
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
What distortion of knowledge are you going to use to explain the velocity of the Milky Way compared to the CMB?
Thanks for the ping!
I agree wholeheartedly. However, many of those who take the Genesis account of creation as literally true state unequivocally that one cannot be a Christian without sharing that belief. I am sure, though, that you would disagree with them.
....he velocity of light is relative to itself, not relative to a point against which it is measured. In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.
Actually you want to phrase the question just slightly differnt ——light speed is NOT constant depending upon the medium through which it tracels. In VACCUO the theory ( and most everything we can measure) says that the speend of light is a constant, represented in several different equations as “c”
“What distortion of knowledge are you going to use to explain the velocity of the Milky Way compared to the CMB?”
Human “scientists” conceived of “red shift” after the Fall with inspiration from satan.
“Genesis described creation for a scientifically ignorant audience...”
Yes, and many of them still read Answers in Genesis!
(Sorry—that was a slowpitch softball!)
To convince other cosmologists, the new model will have to pass muster with further inquiry.
"There are many observational tests of the standard cosmological model that the proposed model must pass, aside from the late phase of accelerated expansion," said Avi Loeb, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "These include big bang nucleosynthesis, the quantitative details of the microwave background anisotropies, the Lyman-alpha forest, and galaxy surveys. The authors do not discuss how their model compares to these tests, and whether the number of free parameters they require in order to fit these observational constraints is smaller than in the standard model. Until they do so, it is not clear why this alternative model should be regarded as advantageous."
Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist Mario Livio agreed that to be seriously considered, the model must be able to predict properties of the universe that astronomers can measure.
He said the real test "is in whether they are able to reproduce all the observed cosmological parameters (as determined, e.g. by a combination of the Hubble Constant and the parameters determined by the CMB observations). To only produce an apparent acceleration is in itself interesting, but not particularly meaningful."
In other words, this theory is at the proposal stage now and has never been tested.
Evidence wise, there has never been the slightest doubt!
Thanks, Tenacious 1. I continue to be amazed at how much nonsense people have claimed to be in the very, very short story of creation.
It is my understanding that a 'static point in space' is not a possibility. A 'point in space' would be an acceptable argument.
The proof lies in the fact that the Great Sundial has not been accurate for the past thousand years.
I’ve always felt the copernican principle was a crutch. The simplest most intuitive understanding is that there has to be a center of the universe but the question is where. To say that since we don’t know therefore we’re going to come up with this complicated scheme involving dark energy and hyperspheres so that there is no center (or everything is the center, depending on how you look at it) seems to me a path to madness, just like Ptolemy’s contrivances of epicyclces to show that the earth must be at the center of the solar system.
It’s not about whether the geo’s are right or not or whether the Milky Way (or some other spot) is close enough. It’s about Keep It Simple Stupid and not making our understanding of the universe more complicated than Obamacare.
I love that guy. Is he from Monty Python?
Darwinian evolution is a biological concept. Why would biologists care about the cosmos or cosmic centers?
The idea is patently ridiculous. It's not their field.
Of course when you talk about "Darwinists" (or "Temple of Darwin fanatics") you're not referring just to evolutionary biologists and the others who study evolution and evolutionary processes on a daily basis. Instead, your attack is on all scientists everywhere. "Darwinist" is what you say, but you really mean "scientist."
An astronomer may not have taken Biology 101, may not have any opinions whatsoever about biology, yet you'll still lump him in "The Temple of Darwin" because he holds scientific theories and doesn't adhere to your 12th century religious orthodoxy. Frankly, it's sad enough that people like you still exist 9 centuries after your sell-by date.
That’s Donald Sutherland from the remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
An eye for an eye conflicts with turn the other cheek if the context is not understood. When Jesus suggests that a man that causes a child to sin should have a millstone cast around his neck and thrown into the deepest sea, certain, otherwise, absolutionists want to interpret the meaning while emphatically stating that a man named Adam procreated with a woman named Eve and we are all descendants of them both (or of Abraham which includes some genealogical gaps).
In short, the bible is the word of God and includes all of the rules, regulations, hints, advice, expectations, etc. of how we are to hone our souls during this short 80 year existence to be excepted into the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to update the message to a more advanced crowd and place emphasis through activism on the eventual wealth of the “least of his people.”
I believe David killed Goliath. I believe Moses led the Egyptians out of Captivity. I do not believe that Moses lived to be 1,000 years old. But to a culture whose life expectancy was about 35, a 105 year old man outlived several generations. The Jews were slaves and I doubt their math acumen was very high. But all knew that 1000 years old was a very long life. Back then, even living to be 100 would be a miracle. Did he actually part the Red Sea? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I believe he acted at the behest of God with divine influence and guidance to lead the Jews into the desert.
The light would be infinitely redshifted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.