Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?
Creation Ministries International ^ | 7 February 2017 | Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?

Posted on 02/08/2017 8:35:56 AM PST by fishtank

Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?

by John G. Hartnett

Published: 7 February 2017 (GMT+10)

Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).

On the scale of galaxies and even clusters of galaxies Newtonian physics is used as it is the low gravity limit of general relativity. But without the addition of dark matter the resulting theory, using the known density of visible matter in galaxies (see Figure 1) and clusters, does not match observations. But for more than 40 years now dark matter has been sought in various lab experiments with consistently negative results. This has developed into what is called the dark matter crisis.1

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; gravity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: I want the USA back

If the Universe expanded from a single point,in the Big Bang theory, and everything is spreading from that point, then surely we must know exactly where in the Universe that point is.

Do we ?


61 posted on 02/08/2017 3:43:01 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

“Then a Miracle Occurred.” All I need to know about our existence, except perhaps we are going to need another miracle to survive islam...Amen all say a prayer for our continued free existence. Amen


62 posted on 02/08/2017 5:20:45 PM PST by This I Wonder32460 (I'd rather be deplorable then delusional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mlo

He thought God’s language was hidden in mathematical algorithms. That when we find all the answers we would find him. Really.


63 posted on 02/08/2017 6:24:53 PM PST by enduserindy (I always smile when my competition doubles down on stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: YogicCowboy

Whereas 7 days of Creation, now that’s a FACT, no B.S. “theories” for you, just cold hard reality. I like it! Good going.


64 posted on 02/09/2017 5:17:43 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I have read that Aristotle at least used a form of the Contingency Cosmological Argument to conclude there were either “unmoved movers” or an “unmoved mover” beyond the Greek gods (who were themselves contigent, just vastly more powerful than mortals on his view).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aquinas, being a scholar in Greek philosophy, simplified and formalized the argument for Catholicism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefont/2014/10/aquinas-and-the-unmoved-mover/


65 posted on 02/09/2017 6:59:17 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.

Consciousness being the biggie. They’ve tried all sorts of explanations that were not really explanations, like it’s an emergent property, etc., but all they can see is brain tissue that doesn’t do enough per se to cause all of the effects they observe.

So in my opinion, the Steady State (or Static State) is unworkable from a scientific viewpoint, and Robert Jastrow was on the money:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”


66 posted on 02/09/2017 7:13:35 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman

“Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.”

Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism. So if they assumed that, then they would have two basic contradictory assumptions, and would be building a house on a foundation of sand.


67 posted on 02/09/2017 7:38:45 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No it’s not, that’s the point.

The Big Bang supports a proposed entity outside the universe that somehow initiated cosmic inflation.

Hence my previous statement:

“In short, Big Bang needed an unexplained period of inflation (which was an EXTREMELY brief period of time - a 32-position decimal fraction of one second), which needed an entity outside of the universe to initiate - an entity that we have known for millennia as God.”

Nothing I wrote was untrue. What you call an entity that is external to the universe doesn’t matter, just like whatever theology you attribute to it doesn’t matter.

It’s science that claims the entity exists. So does Judaism, Christianity, and every other monotheistic religion.

The big deal is that science has claimed this for only 60 years. Monotheism has claimed it for millennia.

Hence Robert Jastrow’s somewhat humorous quote.


68 posted on 02/09/2017 8:51:22 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman

Sorry, but your argument is just not logical. Science cannot on the one hand hold to the assumption of naturalism and on the other hand attribute things to supernatural causes. That’s an obvious and direct contradiction.

If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself. Alternatively, they could hold to that hypothesis and instead declared naturalism to be falsified, but that would undermine everything else they have based on the presumption of naturalism. There’s no alternative third option where they can hold both and be consistent.


69 posted on 02/09/2017 9:04:21 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Strange as it sounds, science assumes there is no center of the universe. This is called the “cosmological principle”.


70 posted on 02/09/2017 9:09:07 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_magnetic_field


71 posted on 02/09/2017 9:14:18 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Mr. K

The different shapes of galaxies can be easily explained if you understand the major component of galaxies is plasma, which is a charged conductor of electromagnetism.

All of the observed shapes of galaxies can be produced on a miniature scale simply by manipulating electrical currents running through plasma in a laboratory. The three main factors that determine what shape will result are a) the number of electrical current filaments passing through the plasma, b) the plasma density of the regions that the currents pass through, and c) the passage of time.


72 posted on 02/09/2017 9:22:22 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

so why do most of them look like water spiraling down a drain?


73 posted on 02/09/2017 9:49:40 AM PST by Mr. K ( Trump kicked her ass 2-to-1 if you remove all the voter fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Salman

The Decreasing Speed of Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU


74 posted on 02/09/2017 10:25:31 AM PST by Mechanicos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

When two current filaments passing through plasma (at the galactic scale, these are known as “birkeland currents”) get close enough to each other, they will be attracted to each other and begin to orbit around each other, much like the stars in a binary star system orbit each other. This traps and begins to condense a volume of plasma between the orbiting currents, and this trapped plasma becomes nucleus of a new galaxy.

At the same time, the rotational movement of the filaments creates a secondary current flow axial to their motion, which pulls plasma from the surrounding area towards the nucleus. This plasma that is being pulled inward becomes the arms of the spiral galaxy. They end up looking like “water spiraling down a drain” because both the plasma and the water are rotating around a central point while at the same time being pulled toward the central point axially.


75 posted on 02/09/2017 12:52:52 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

So is the electromagnetic force of a galaxy affecting it’s shape more than the gravitational force?


76 posted on 02/09/2017 1:20:56 PM PST by Mr. K ( Trump kicked her ass 2-to-1 if you remove all the voter fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Strange as it sounds, science assumes there is no center of the universe.

My, my, my.... how convenient.

77 posted on 02/09/2017 3:05:09 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

You do realize my comment about the EM spectrum was sarcasm, don’t you ?


78 posted on 02/09/2017 3:06:36 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
So is the electromagnetic force of a galaxy affecting it’s shape more than the gravitational force?

What controls the shape of the orbits of electrons around the nucleus, and what force keeps them in orbit about the nucleus... gravity or EM force ?

79 posted on 02/09/2017 3:10:19 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So you hold to the Steady State model and that the Big Bang is unscientific?

That means that the Creation Ministries International article has a good point. Why are scientists pursuing any work that is not based on science?

By the way, if you have any evidence besides simple assertion that the Big Bang theory and cosmic inflation are invalid (what did you call it? “fudging the numbers”?), you can get a Nobel Prize in Physics. Just write it up and send it in. Like all math classes, though, they’ll ask you to show your work. Hope you did it.


80 posted on 02/10/2017 7:35:21 AM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson