Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Resource for Foreigners in Finland  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
worldwide creative inspiration
Ovi Language
George Kalatzis - A Family Story 1924-1967
The Breast Cancer Site
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Finite or Infinite Universe? Finite or Infinite Universe?
by Jack Wellman
2009-01-07 10:23:57
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
All that scientists have are theories in explaining the ancient universe. This is seen as a given to the vast majority of scientists, but not all modern secular (“big bang”) theorists have cosmologies that agree. Science is in the business of making arbitrary assumptions (theories) without having conclusive scientific evidence. One such belief is that the universe has no boundaries—no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.
 
But if the universe and matter are infinite and if the universe has boundaries, then there must necessarily be a net gravitational effect toward the center. One example would be that clocks at the edge of this outward boundary of the universe, would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth and those places toward the center. The North Star, which is a fixed (to us), unmoving point of reference (i.e., for sailors, expeditions, etc.) may be, for all we know, just beyond the boundary of the universe. If it is, the time at this outward boundary will differ from the time at the center, for time may be flying, exponentially, at the boundary, while in the center, at a much slower (relatively speaking).
 
It appears that the further the galaxies are from us, the faster they are moving away. An analogy would be when you hear a train whistle…as it passes, its frequency changes. The sound goes down in pitch, getting stretched out…stretching further and further as it travels away. We are not hearing the original sound that we heard when it was right in front of us. When it finally becomes very faint, it takes a few seconds for us to even hear it. What we hear at that moment, is seconds behind the original blast.
 
There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he “stretched out”. [1.] (other verses say “spread out”) the heavens. If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on gravitational relative to the center, means it had to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a “white hole”—a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of equilibrium. [2.]
 
As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way “feel different.” “Billions of years” would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.—while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.
 
In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and “seen” the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than a constant c. Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster. However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c. If the galaxy is spreading out (and it is), the outer parts would be moving out faster than the center part. A considerable amount of time on the outward fringes would be less than a nanosecond, not even a moment, toward the center.
 
This cosmology is based upon mathematics and physics which are totally accepted by cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). So the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use is the unbounded cosmos idea which states the universe has no end. What the experts don't tell you about the ‘big bang’ is that it violates the 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics (among others), and E=mc2, which demands a cause for every effect. Energy is getting used up as time goes by. But does time really exist without matter?
 
Part of the way in which the universe is dated is by the speed of light and the distant star light’s time to reach the earth. The distance that the light has to travel to earth is used to configure the years. Scientists, astronomers, etc., claim that since the stars are so many light years away, it had to take billions of years for the light to reach and be observed on earth. However, if the universe was created, would God not create the heavens without light already being visible from the earth? He said let there be light and bam! It was! Immediately one conceives. Reading Genesis, among others in the Old Testament, it is obvious that star light was already being seen on the earth. Thus, it would be logical to assume that the light was created at the same time as the universe…in full maturity! That is having already been being viewed by humans. Why would God create the universe, and then wait billions of years for the light to reach the earth?
 
He spoke and it existed! Instant fiat! The universe’s effect must have had a cause. This would explain it. Other scientific theories can not explain what caused matter to come from nothingness. These theories come with no conclusive proof. String Theory, Steady-State Theory, Big Bang Theory, etc. do not explain the cause of the effect (material universe). And when God created the heavens and the earth, it is clear that He created them in an already mature state. Just like Adam and Eve where created as adults. They were old enough to marry and bear children and old enough to “keep the garden“(Gen. 2:15). They didn’t have to wait for a harvest either since there was already fruit on the trees (Gen. 2:16).
 
By all readings, the creation was obviously already fully mature, animals included. Mountains, valleys, oceans, already in maturity. Adam named all the animals. He didn’t name baby calves, but Cattle, nor chick lings, but already flying fowl (Gen. 2:19-20).
 
This new cosmology seems to explain the observations that are used to support the “big bang,” like the progressive red-shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth. This new cosmology is not the creationist’s alternative to the “big bang” theory. It simply recognizes that the Theory of General Relativity does not permit time to exist without matter and that a fully mature creation was in the beginning. It acknowledges the fact that the speed of light has not remained constant over the last 150 years. And carbon-14 dating methods are made for once-living organic matter, not stone-dead rocks, asteroids, meteorites, or moon dust. Theories have been proven wrong before.
 
My oldest son had why-itis. Why is the sun yellow, why doesn’t it burn up, why did this happen, why does that happen….? Also as a child, neither was I content with a theoretical explanation that lacked conclusive proof. I was always digging, not satisfied with the status quo. Does one need to apologize when challenging textbook science, asking for conclusive evidence about scientific suppositions, and questioning conventional acceptance of theoretical suppositions? Thomas Edison is right. He said that “we don’t know one one-thousandth of one percent of all there is to know“. Finite carbon units (humans) ought to be humbled by just how much infinite knowledge there appears to be an infinite universe. Expanding the mind, questioning contemporary thought and asking a lot of questions. It’s okay. That is actually the part of science where the most progression is made.
 
1. Gensis 1:1; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 26:4; Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; and Hebrews 11:3, Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1.
 
2. D. Russel Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994). An on-line archive of the debate surrounding Dr. Humphreys' starlight research can be found off-site at: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.htm


   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(5)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2009-01-07 15:37:01
There is however a group of Christian thinkers who have argued that the universe could have existed from eternity. Among those one finds notables such as Siger of Brabant, Boethius of Dacia, Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Godfrey of Fontaines, William of Ockham, Henry of Harclay, Thomas of Wylton and Thomas of Strasbourg. Proponents of the possibility of a beginningless universe interpreted creation out of nothing as creation not out of anything, that is, not out of any independently existing matter. Creation was understood as a relation of causal dependence of creatures upon God, and in this interpretation the status of being a creature was not necessarily inconsistent with being beginningless. The argument that the universe depends for its existence upon a superior principle that is not prior in time but prior in the order of things can be found in Avicenna's Metaphysica, and was at the heart of Aquinas' rebuttal of Bonaventure's interpretation of creation from nothing (see Aquinas, T. §9; Ibn Sina §4).
Nothing new there. What is new is what Carl Sagan and other assorted atheists and agnostics do: they take the material cosmos and make it a god of sort eternally there. In effect the comos becomes their god. The Bible calls that idolatry. It is idolatry especially when it presents itself as a scientific theory devised by man which itself is narcissistically worshipped. Those so inclined need a good those of Berkeley who proves rationally that spirit and not matter is primary and that the universe continues in existence or is in existence eternally in the mind of God, and without being in the mind of God it could not exist.


Emanuel Paparella2009-01-07 16:05:37
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2716/Default.aspx

The above link will take the reader to an illuminating article on why there is no contradiction between creation and evolution and how does God related to the cosmos. It is by Robert Schneider and it is titled "Creation and Evolution."

This is how the article ends:

None of these models *explain* just how God interacts with the cosmos, but there is work in that area of theology also. Some theologians are suggesting that God interacts directly in the processes of nature on the quantum level. But whatever theological models emerge of God's relationship to and interaction with the Universe, they will be no different in one respect from ancient models such as God as Craftsman, or Monarch, or Molder of Clay; that is, they like the ancient models will be metaphorical. Because, metaphor is the only language we can use to speak of God. God in the final analysis is ineffable, beyond the power of words to capture God's nature and activities. God remains eternally shrouded in mystery, where, when all is said and done, we must encounter God. And that is biblical, too.

"This seems like a good place to end this set of reflections on God and Creation and the modern evolutionary world-picture. Your comments and questions are welcome. I shall be happy to pursue further any of the topics I've raised in this note with anyone, here on Faith and Learning, or privately."

Robert Schneider Classics and General Studies Berea College Berea, KY 40404


Bill2009-01-07 18:16:47
The only Big Bang I ever found was in a cave on a hill.


Jack2009-01-08 01:05:19

Emanuel, you are quite right. This is actually the end of a two year series in Apologetics and Evolution is enough. You and the readers may or may not be glad to know that I have been working on, in the last month, an unsolicited story of the North American Native Indian's Tribes or Nations; How these proud people once proliferated, then confederated, then confiscated, then expatriated,then anhiliated. No rose colored glasses allowed.

I am 1/8 Cherokee Indian, and it was deemed an honor and heartbreak to research these dispicably treated people. "Civilized" is a relative subject. It is in the eye of the beholder. Civility in fact is often more brutal than so called uncivilized nations.

Also, I have a degree in science, and I have always been fascinated with the new discoveries, such as White Holes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and the new data that continues to stream back to earth from various probes and craft. Especially when it confirms certain scientific theory, like E=mc2 for example.

And, as Sand is so well ept in poetry, I am not, and most assuredly not to his level...nonetheless, I have written some, ala, Jackson Pollard style. Not in a traditional format, but using actual experiences from various people from various walks of life and based upon real events in their life.

Do I suppose wrongly, that in a sense, all poetry tells some story or abstract principle anyway?


Emanuel Paparella2009-01-09 14:39:11
Jack, I look forward to reading and discussing with you your recounting of the story of the Native Americans vis a vis the contept of inalienable rights enshrined in the US Constitution. I dare say that most of what is truly learned in this wonderful magazine of ours comes more from those discussions, as spirited as they may be at times than from slaps in the back or high fives. Nothing much is learned in mutual admiration societies except perhaps that one can disagree completely with somebody and still remain polite and agreeable. When that principle is violated, I am afraid that even the sweet smell of poetry will not cover up the stench. Perhaps we can agree on that much?


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi