Mark _australia said...

Who says space is curved?
How can a finite field have no centre? (it has to!)

Imagine a straight line. If you were an ant running along the line, you could run as far as one end, count your steps to the other end, divide by two and find the centre.
This is a finite line, with a centre.

Now bend the line around, so that the ends are touching. If you are the the same ant, you would run around and around, but never find an end, so would never be able to find the centre. This is a finite line, with no centre*.

That's about the same conundrum as we're faced with...

If you ever come across a book called Flatland then check it out.

home.planet.nl/~akoele/Flatland.pdf



*assuming you're a 1 dimensional being stuck on that loop.

NotWal said...

Mark _australia said...

Main issue I have with all this is the BB thoery was conceived to explain away creation, so then suddenly it has to be expanding after the bang (not necessarily, read up about the measureable slowing down of the speed of light in the last century, which can explain differences in measurements by astronomers), then they postulate gravity waves which have never been seen but it is an accepted fact they must exist and so on.

It is just as easy to believe in creation, which requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more convoluted leaps of faith.

At any rate if there was a ball of infinitely dense matter which exploded ....... where did that area of matter come from?

The BB theory wasn't conceived to explain away creation. It was conceived to explain observed phenomena. The idea of a singularity is a difficulty not a convenience. It is a difficulty because there is an implication that it is beyond explanation. That leaves creation in the realm of mysticism where it always has been and beyond science.

Interesting.
All that is observed can be explained by creation too.
Both camps have theories that are easy to understand and make sense, and likewise both have some theories that are very convoluted.

I still contend that creation requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more difficult leaps of faith as does modern physics

Trouble is when "something comes up" that goes against current theories it is usually rubbished or ignored.

EG: how many people who believe in the big bang have been taught the mass was spinning when it exploded, thus leading to the plain observable fact that celestial bodies spin? That has been in the science books for years.
However, "conservation of angular momentum" requires that they would all spin the same way... and they dont.
Some planets have a few moons spinning one way and other moons spnning the other.

That is conveniently ignored.

Hey and also, what "ignited" the bang? The concentrated mass would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from exploding expanding outward unless there was a sudden input of energy to overcome the gravity. Where did that suddenly come from?

decrepit said...

Mark _australia said...



No, light is curved by gravity. All that proves is light has a wave nature, and a particle nature (photons), the same as electrons do.

Sorry Mark, you're right here, think my age is showing, now I'll have to think 3 times before I press the post button.

As decrepit said once they discovered that light always travels at the same speed things just got weird.

Yes, light does get bent by gravity, but so does space-time. In fact it has been measured by extremely accurate clocks just flying from one continent to another. the clock that flew is slightly ahead of one that didn't as it wasn't as affected by gravity while flying (ever so slightly).

So what is time by the way?

The big bang theory came about as an explanation to the observation that no matter which way you looked in the night sky distant objects were going away from us (red shift). It wasn't anything to do with explaining away God. Everything is moving away from us, why?

So back to the balloon analogy:
- you draw a few points on the balloon
- then you blow up or expand the balloon
- all the points move away from each other.

When you try to get into all of this further, honestly this is just the start of the rabbit hole. I'll probably never understand it. Newtonian physics only go so far.

That flatland book is great Nebbian, read a few years ago. Found it in the library and it hadn't been checked out in 25 years, except for the guy that checked it out the day before me (ooweeeoooh). Almost worth reading just to have a giggle at the Victorian attitude towards women.

evlPanda said...

decrepit said...

Mark _australia said...



No, light is curved by gravity. All that proves is light has a wave nature, and a particle nature (photons), the same as electrons do.

Sorry Mark, you're right here, think my age is showing, now I'll have to think 3 times before I press the post button.

As decrepit said once they discovered that light always travels at the same speed things just got weird.

Yes, light does get bent by gravity, but so does space-time. In fact it has been measured by extremely accurate clocks just flying from one continent to another. the clock that flew is slightly ahead of one that didn't as it wasn't as affected by gravity while flying (ever so slightly).

OK I'll give you that one then

The big bang theory came about as an explanation to the observation that no matter which way you looked in the night sky distant objects were going away from us (red shift). It wasn't anything to do with explaining away God. Everything is moving away from us, why?

I won't give you that one. Are they moving away?
Nobody really knows why red shift occurrs. The expanding universe theory is accepted because a big bang makes evolutionists feel good.
Red shift is assumed to be because objects are moving away but it could also be caused by:

(1) second order Doppler: light moving tangentially / perpendicular to us appears to be red shifted.... that is proven in experiments.....
actually i'll clarify that... i think it was other forms of radiation appear to increase in wavelength in experiments on second order Doppler effect but there is no reason to think light may not dot he same thing

(2) gravity. Light escaping a strong gravitational field will be slowed or stretched ....... gravity bends it, so why not also slow it? If the light was "pulled on" or streteched out, that means the wavelength is increased ....... ie red shifted.

You won't see these other, equally scientific and equally credible, theories in any school books though.

Now as to the speed of light....... well isn't it slowing down?
so all current theories need to be put on hold for a while...........?

Mark said...
I won't give you that one. Are they moving away?
Nobody really knows why red shift occurrs. The expanding universe theory is accepted because a big bang makes evolutionists feel good.

Eh? Wha? BB has nought to do with evolution. Nada. Two different streams of science.

Red shift is assumed to be because objects are moving away but it could also be caused by:

(1) second order Doppler: light moving tangentially / perpendicular to us appears to be red shifted.... that is proven in experiments.....
actually i'll clarify that...

Do that, because I don't understand how you'd ever see that light. Bit like feeling a car hit you as it moves perpindicular to you.

i think it was other forms of radiation appear to increase in wavelength in experiments on second order Doppler effect but there is no reason to think light may not dot he same thing

I don't know what second order doppled effect is. Look up later...

(2) gravity. Light escaping a strong gravitational field will be slowed or stretched ....... gravity bends it, so why not also slow it? If the light was "pulled on" or streteched out, that means the wavelength is increased ....... ie red shifted.

This actually sounds plausible to me. As waves come into shallower water, ie are affected by another object, they slow down. There are a lot of other objects to affect light as it travles across the universe.

But, I'm not sure radiation works the same way as matter, waves in the ocean. Einstein says light speed is a constant, and never changes. I'm going to go with Einstein on this one, if you don't mind.

You won't see these other, equally scientific and equally credible, theories in any school books though.

Now as to the speed of light....... well isn't it slowing down?
so all current theories need to be put on hold for a while...........?

Slowing down? Never heard that one? Why would it be slowing down?

Einstein again "Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source."

It's the constant in the famous equation E=MC2, where C is the speed of light.

Again, I'm just quoting and barely understanding, although that statement isn't too hard (the rest though... sheesh). It's conversations like this though, where you get to attempt to explain it where you begin to understand more yourself though. Interesting.

Also: Wavelength and speed aren't the same thing.

evlPanda said...


What freaks me out though is that when you look very, very closely at an object it is mostly, by far, empty space. As in the space between the electrons. When two object touch do they really touch? <puts reefer down>

What are objects? Is matter really matter, or just energy in a different state?

Mark _australia said...

NotWal said...

Mark _australia said...

Main issue I have with all this is the BB thoery was conceived to explain away creation, so then suddenly it has to be expanding after the bang (not necessarily, read up about the measureable slowing down of the speed of light in the last century, which can explain differences in measurements by astronomers), then they postulate gravity waves which have never been seen but it is an accepted fact they must exist and so on.

It is just as easy to believe in creation, which requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more convoluted leaps of faith.

At any rate if there was a ball of infinitely dense matter which exploded ....... where did that area of matter come from?

The BB theory wasn't conceived to explain away creation. It was conceived to explain observed phenomena. The idea of a singularity is a difficulty not a convenience. It is a difficulty because there is an implication that it is beyond explanation. That leaves creation in the realm of mysticism where it always has been and beyond science.

Interesting.
All that is observed can be explained by creation too.
Both camps have theories that are easy to understand and make sense, and likewise both have some theories that are very convoluted.

I still contend that creation requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more difficult leaps of faith as does modern physics

Leap of faith? That does not belong in science. You have hit the nail on the head vis a vis the difference between Creationism and Science. Creationism is purely faith. It's rooted in myth. Science is rigorous and follows from observation.

Setterfield believes that the speed of light was initially about 10 to the 10th power faster than it is today. After the creation of the universe, light speed declined following a curve approximating the curve of the cosecant squared. He believes that light speed reached a point where it is asymptotic since the mid 1960s.

That's very cute.

You know, though, if you were travelling at the speed of light, as you came past earth it would appear to be flat, and about 6,000 years old.

speaking of which,

when jesus fished
did he catch holly mackeral
or was it a monk fish?

sausage said...

Gestalt said...

speaking of which,

when jesus fished
did he catch holly mackeral
or was it a monk fish?

Nun - he was a vegetarian (boom boom)

"Another one of those hopeful topics that die with".... Laurie locking the thread

i hear nuns like jew fish

i cannot confirm being part of any lockouts but i can confirm being crucified once or twice. [}:)]

sausage said...



"Another one of those hopeful topics that die with".... Laurie locking the thread

Or GreenPat locking the topic. Don't forget rule number 9.

NotWal said...

snippity snip....Mark ...

NotWal ...

Leap of faith? That does not belong in science. You have hit the nail on the head vis a vis the difference between Creationism and Science. Creationism is purely faith. It's rooted in myth. Science is rigorous and follows from observation.

In that case, virtually none of what has been discussed here is science.....all this astrophysics and quantum stuff is theory and as I said before many experiments / observation by scientists disprove elements of BB theory.
It is requires faith to believe in all of modern physics and the BB theory etc.

The BB theory is tentative. It is strongly pointed to by careful observation and the rigorous objective application of logic.

I don't think anything you've said disproves it. The reference to light slowing down just an unsubstantiated idea. Gravitational red shift of light is part and parcel of General Relativity. That doesn't mean the universe isn't expanding.

The assumption that red shift is caused by light sources moving away from us is also an unsubstatiated idea!!! that's my point.

As to what I said that may tend to disprove BB: did you miss the conservation of angular Momentum disproves the mass was spinning before it exploded? The current theory ignores this rule, and as result BB proponents can't explain why celestial bodies spin, or why they spin in opposite directions.

I must admit that young earth evidence is much stronger than anything to do with space-time / young universe origins as they are always going to be real headfv^ks to understand.

Mark _australia said...


So phhllgggghhhh to moderators

Well I've just removed the tongue stud I've been wearing for the last six years, so I can now phhllgggghhhh right back.

GreenPat thanks for the mental picture of you taking out an oral piercing just for me