Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rob Sheldon: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Or IS it?


From ScienceDaily:

Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.

Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae — the spectacular thermonuclear explosion of dying stars — picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named ‘dark energy’ that drives this accelerating expansion.

Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set — a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size — the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion. Paper. (public access) – J. T. Nielsen, A. Guffanti, S. Sarkar. Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae. Scientific Reports, 2016; 6: 35596 DOI: 10.1038/srep35596More.

3-D impression of dark matter via Hubble

Puzzlingly, there is no evidence for the existence of either dark matter or dark energy, and the gap between “need” and “have” is becoming uncomfortable and embarrassing.

From physicist Rob Sheldon, our physics colour commentator:

Finally, a sensible voice in the clamor.

Five years ago, a Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of “dark energy” using Type Ia supernovae. Prof. Sarkar of Cambridge U, says that the database has now expanded tenfold to 740 events, and the significance dropped from 5 to 3 sigma, which is considered inconclusive in most fields of astronomy. Likewise “supporting observations” are all theory-laden, meaning that they have to assume the result they are supposedly confirming.

One more proof that physics is not immune from the same cultural forces that derailed biology or psychology.

‘So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model … a [more sophisticated model] may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum [dark] energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.’

One gets the sense that Prof Sarkar is trying not to step on toes as he explains why the Nobel should never have been awarded.

See also: Rob Sheldon: How do dark energy and dark matter relate to ID?


Rob Sheldon: Did Viking discover life on Mars forty years ago?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

The conventional view:

Vy@28, No one has figured that one out, yet. But, you just have to ask the question: What causes the flow of electrons? Answer: Charge imbalance. Combine this, with LOTS of readily available plasma, and you've got "electricity". Where did the initial imbalance come from? Me no know, but it would be my guess, that our Creator, done it... with a purpose! :) The Fact is, those in the Thunderbolts project ( https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ ), are never confused, and/or dumbfounded by new discoveries/observations. Unlike, your standard BB cosmologist, who ARE; and scramble to make new shit up, to somehow, make it fit the fairy tail that they've wrapped their careers around. No, those in Thunderbolts project, have either predicted or expected, and are totally unsurprised, by those discoveries/observations, that plug nicely into plasma cosmology. Through plasma cosmology/physics, you can go into a laboratory, here on planet earth, and confirm what you just observed, out there. As far as I'm concerned... it's a no-brainer. 55rebel
As I see it, there's a problem with having a lot of "crackpot" theories. It's even a bigger problem when a few of them eventually turn out to be the best explanation. The third problem is when some well-connected people in science squat on their favorite theories, and some new research can't get published. Unfortunately, nobody's found a better alternative to the current system. Or have they? -Q Querius
@55rebel, doesn't the electric universe have the same origin problems as the BB theory story? Where does the electricity come from? Vy
And please, stop believing in these nonsensical fairy tales, called: “the BIG bang”
... “Dark Energy/Matter”
... and “the ever accelerating, expanding universe”
... “Black Holes”
Trying to. :) Vy
Querius @ 24 "But since it’s not been Officially Blessed as THE explanation, most serious researchers avoid jeopardizing their careers by investigating it any further. It’s much easier to go along with the dark matter explanation." Yeah, sounds just like the subjects dealing with: ID vs Dumb luck; Nutrition/Herbs vs Pharmaceuticals; Strict Liability vs Limited Liability; Gold & Silver vs Federal Reserve Notes, and so on, to ad nauseam. It is indeed sad, that men tend to gravitate towards Stupidity/Absurdity....No? 55rebel
55rebel, Yes, I think the plasma theory is interesting and deserves more research. With this theory, matter forms from constrictions in the plasma, and solar systems form from outside in. But since it's not been Officially Blessed as THE explanation, most serious researchers avoid jeopardizing their careers by investigating it any further. It's much easier to go along with the dark matter explanation. Regarding the red shift, Halton Arp published a challenge to conventional distance estimates based on red shift in his highly controversial book, Seeing Red. IMHO, Arp was not a good writer, so his book is a little painful to grind through, but his observations were profound and convincing. However, he was apparently too convincing, resulting in Arp being banned from access to telescopes by the powers that be. He discovered what's called "the fingers of God" the phenomenon in which globular galaxies are lozenge-shaped and all seem to point toward the earth. The explanation of course is that the distance calibrations are off, that these galaxies are actually spherical. But the powers that be were not amused at being forced to choose between the fingers of God and Arp's being right, so they got rid of Arp . . . in the name of science, naturally. LOL -Q Querius
And as for the observed Red-Shift and CMBR, that have been mistakenly misinterpreted. The more likely, believable, 'basic' scenario... Photon meets electron (Think... Plasma--99.9% of visible universe), electron absorbs some of the photon's energy; said electron recoils from the encounter, emitting microwave radiation as a result of said recoil (laboratory observed physics, BTW); photon continues on its marry way, with a little less energy (Red Shifted). Hence, the greater number of individual photon/electron encounters, the greater the Red Shift of said photon. The observed CMBR, is just a byproduct of this encounter. Poo-Poo this if you want, but there is a 99.9% probability, of this being the basic scenario, for the observed Red Shift & CMBR. Given that there is said to be ~one electron per square meter of IG space, it's a save bet, that there would be VERY few, if ANY, photons that would make it all the way here, without encounter at least one electron, no mater how relatively short the distance. 55rebel
Querius @21, You could confidently, look at it this way... The "spiral structure of galaxies is a natural form of plasma instability in a universe energized by electrical power." "The scandalous truth is that there is a model of spiral galaxy formation that has long been demonstrated by laboratory experiment and “particle in cell” (PIC) simulations on a supercomputer. But instead of using stars, gas and dust as the particles, subject to Newton’s laws, the particles are charged and respond to the laws of electromagnetism. This seems like an obvious approach when we know that more than 99.9 percent of the visible universe is in the form of plasma. Plasma is a gas influenced by the presence of charged atoms and electrons. Plasma responds to electromagnetic forces that exceed the strength of gravity to the extent that gravity can usually be safely ignored. This simple fact alone suggests why gravitational models of galaxies must fail." "the computer simulations have been backed up by experiments in the highest energy density laboratory electrical discharges—the Z-pinch machine. The experiments verify each stage in development of the PIC simulations." "The simplest geometry for galaxy formation is two adjacent Birkeland currents of width 35 kiloparsecs separated by 80 kiloparsecs. The interaction region, and hence the thickness of a galaxy is 10 kpc. By scaling the current flows in astronomical objects by size, it is determined that the average flow in a galactic Birkeland current is approximately 1019 amperes; the Alfvén galactic current. The synchrotron radiated power is of the order of 1037 watts, that is, the power recorded from double radio galaxies." Source: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-galaxies/ "Dark energy/mater" Could this possibly be the 99.9% of the universe (plasma), that they keep referring to? 55rebel
Considering that dark matter may not even exist is a pretty good reason why they don't collapse into black holes. Supposedly dark matter interacts weakly with gravity so that might be another reason--but then maybe dark matter originally formed the massive black hole--or dark hole (tm)--at the center of our galaxy. The angular momentum of the hypothesized dark matter might be another reason. But since I don't really know how spirals form or maintain themselves, how the bars in barred galaxies form, or how and why dark matter distributes itself in galaxies or moves at the same speed as the spirals, I guess I'm with those people who aren't sure. -Q Querius
10% of freshmen get it, up to ~50% of seniors. 85% of grad students get it. AhmedKiaan
Right now my favorite thing to discuss with undergrads is, I ask them why all the Dark Matter can't collapse into black holes, even though it interacts with the gravitational field. I don't let them use their phones for 10 minutes, to see how many guess correctly. AhmedKiaan
Luke @6, Thank you for the links. I'll take a look at your book. Robert @8, Focusing on your objection to the fine tuning argument, let's assume that there is indeed some underlying law, causalities, or relationships that make the various values interdependent. What does that indicate about the nature of the underlying reality as it came into existence? Doesn't it simply exchange one improbability for another? In other words, doesn't the underlying law simple bundle the various values? Just asking. -Q Querius
If you want to understand our universe, and what it is that we are actually observing out there, you first have to come down to earth, and understand something about electricity and plasma physics, because "everything" that we observe out there, is predicated upon those two physical properties. And please, stop believing in these nonsensical fairy tales, called: "the BIG bang", "Black Holes", "Dark Energy/Matter", and "the ever accelerating, expanding universe", because, cognitively speaking, these make about as much sense, as dirt getting bored one day, and deciding to self assemble itself, into this technological wonder of the universe, we call "Life". If you would like to get a better grip on reality, as far as cosmology is concerned, may I suggest: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA / https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ Not that I espouse to everything they put forth, but they are not dumbfounded and/or confused, by new observations and discoveries being had on a regular basis--concerning Cosmology, but rather... expecting them, or predicting them ahead of time; unlike, your conventional/mainstream cosmologist, who ARE dumbfounded and/or confused, whenever they encounter new observations/discoveries. -- "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the council of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind." 55rebel
If the universe is expanding then aren't there two possibilities: an expansive force - dark energy - pushing the universe apart yet getting stronger, not weaker, with distance or an attractive force like gravity all around us but beyond our observational horizon pulling everything out towards it? Seversky
mw, since you do not ever argue the science, but only argue scripture, I suggest you stop trolling me with you YEC interpretation of scripture when you refuse to consider any interpretation other than your own YEC interpretation as valid. At least Vy tries to defend the scientific legitimacy of his YEC claim. Although I personally find his scientific defense of YEC wanting at least he tries to go beyond his personal opinion and establish it by reference to the real world. With you there is none of that. We only have you declaring, in pope-like fashion, that only your YEC interpretation is infallible and everybody else is wrong. Frankly, I find your one sided method of debate to be ridiculous. Perhaps a site that is more centered on Theology would be more to your liking. Moreover mw, you claimed that "BA77 uses scripture (as per quotation marks) to justify the big bang theory". That claim is false. In that particular post, I used scripture in relation to the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within the Naturalistic worldview and also I used scripture, in one instance, in relation to quantum mechanics. It is hard to take you seriously when you don't even take the time to understand what I actually wrote. Like I said, perhaps a site more centered on Theology would be more to your liking. As far as science is concerned, you are clearly out of your depth here. bornagain77
BA77 uses scripture (as per quotation marks) to justify the big bang theory. Fine, I accept that. However, consider the implications scripturally: - 2 Corinthians 10:5: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” We do not bring into captivity in obedience to Christ by believing in big bang mechanics. Jesus, in terms of the Holy Trinity, said he created in six days at Sinai, one with Yahweh. He said those who distorted divine law were hypocrites. He alone was obedience to the Father’s commands. We cannot even begin to imagine how a miracle could create in six days, nor understand its effects. 2 Peter 1:16: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” The big bang theory and Darwinism are surely human creation myths coated with impressionable science which eclipses divine law. No created soul was witness to the Almighty creating as he said verbatim before the Israelites and in stone before Moses. 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “but test everything; hold fast what is good.” At Sinai, the Holy Trinity gave a bad law! The big bang theory is good. Hebrews 1:3: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” He cannot uphold his own divine law according to the big bang theory: he cannot uphold the cosmos in six days as he said! He sins, as six-day creation is an impure truth according to the big bang theory! John 1:1-5: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” On origins, the big bang theory is better than clear divine law, in which God asked us to remember his worshipful glorious almighty miracle every seven days for our own good! In the beginning and through him, made were all things untrustworthy by saying he created in six days. If one word of God is wrong, the rest will become useless. Job 38:19-20: “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?” The big bang theory is the way to believing God and the way to the Creation, and not by the unalterable way of divine law, which Jesus fulfilled, otherwise, Jesus fulfilled a lie, and stretched out the truth of divine law. Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.” By faith in the big bang theory and not divine word verbatim we understand how God formed the cosmos. Job 9:8: “He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” The big bang theory stretches out truth into unrecognisable divine law. Condemned is Yahweh a murder for personally requiring the death of a man for disobeying the Genesis-sabbath divine law: (Num 15:32:36). Consider the following scripture: - “I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips.” (Psalm 89:34) “A faithful witness does not lie . . .” (Prov 14:5) According to any plain reading of scripture, the bang theory and Darwinism are barking up the wrong tree. Whereas, made are Christians barking mad by fellow Christians for sticking unreservedly to the divine law in the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Jesus. We live in confused and dangerous times; we know better than God’s divine law, swapping it for a proud theory. Inflate scripture, deflate divine law; weaken the faith. mw
One more proof that physics is not immune from the same cultural forces that derailed biology or psychology. http://pakistan.jobz.pk/category/technology/ Imran520
Of supplemental note, Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of modern science, besides being born out of the Christian worldview, is very much dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, i.e. methodological naturalism, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination. It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be. Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
Simply put, in his denial of his own mind and the necessity of the Mind of God to uphold the universe, the atheist winds up in a world of fantasy and illusion that would make Alice in Wonderland seem tame by comparison. Verses, Videos and Music:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4 Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U
As to trying to establish that the infinite Mind of God must be behind the universe, I think a more direct avenue for the Theist is open for establishing that fact. An avenue, IMHO, that is more promising than the fine-tuning argument, (as powerful as the fine-tuning argument is for the Theist). First off, in any attempted explanation of reality, quantum mechanics takes primary consideration over the space-time of general relativity.
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
And when looking at the 'fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics' of quantum mechanics, we find, much to Einstein's chagrin, that the world does not exist if we are not looking at it:
“We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” - Abraham Pais - Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863–914 (1979), p. 907 “We have become participators in the existence of the universe. We have no right to say that the past exists independent of the act of observation.” – John Wheeler New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html “Reality is in the observations, not in the electron.” – Paul Davies “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation - Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Moreover, a ‘uncollapsed’ photon is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Moreover, this 'infinite information' quantum qubit is also mathematically defined as being in an 'infinite dimensional' state:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space
Thus every time we observe/measure, (i.e. collapse a quantum qubit of), a single photon we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the infinite consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information that was known only by the infinite Mind of omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, God!
Job 38:19-20 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?” Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.
Here is a bit more elaboration on the 'knock down proof'
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater
In my personal opinion, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God not only created but sustains this universe in its continual existence.,,, Verses:
Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Job tells us “He alone stretches out the heavens”. That is some darn good Bronze Age cosmology:)
True but tents/curtains, as the universe is described in the Bible, don't stretch infinitely.
Modern evidence points to accelerating stretching/expansion
There's more fudge than evidence for expansion and the theory it is derived from.
but why would there be “biblical issue” with a constant stretching/expansion?
This might help. Vy
Job tells us "He alone stretches out the heavens". That is some darn good Bronze Age cosmology:) Modern evidence points to accelerating stretching/expansion - but why would there be "biblical issue" with a constant stretching/expansion? I'm confused. Would constant expansion give us a cosmological constant that appears less fine tuned or something? ppolish
a few notes: At the 8:15 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins is set straight by Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, on just how big the 'problem' of the 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant is:
Quote: “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - 1 in 10^120 - Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design - video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495 What is the cosmological constant paradox, and what is its significance? David H. Bailey – 1 Jan 2015 Excerpt: Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10^120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago [Susskind2005, pg. 80-82].,,, In short, the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe and the implied slightly positive value of the cosmological constant constitutes, in the words of physicist Leonard Susskind (who is an atheist), a “cataclysm,” a “stunning reversal of fortunes” [Susskind2005, pg., 22, 154]. It is literally shaking the entire field of theoretical physics, astronomy and cosmology to its foundations.,,, http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
Further notes:
Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) video 23:12 minute mark https://youtu.be/fTP01yi-SSU?t=1392 (Commenting on the 1 in 10^120 fine tuning of the expansion of the universe), "Hugh Ross states an analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of this cosmic balance [between too fast and too slow] would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - page 49
Here are the verses from the Bible which Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe, that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture http://gaowsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-29-at-5-09-50-pm-2.jpg
Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that was withdrawn because of mounting evidence for a Cosmological Constant, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant):
Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?” page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,” Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
Here are the 9 lines of evidence that Dr. Ross mentioned which came out shortly after the preceding paper was listed as a preprint on the Los Alamos’s website. Evidences which made Dyson, Kleban and Susskind pull their paper from consideration,,,
Accumulating Evidence for Dark Energy and Supernatural Design - 2011 Excerpt: I (Hugh Ross) often refer to nine different lines of observational evidence that establish dark energy’s reality and dominance in my talks. These nine are: 1.radial velocities of type Ia supernovae; 2.WMAP of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR); 3.ground-based measures of the CMBR; 4.Sloan Digital Sky Survey of galaxies and galaxy clusters; 5.Two-Degree Field Survey of galaxies; 6.gravitational lens measurements of distant galaxies and quasars; 7.distributions of radio galaxies; 8.galaxy velocity distributions; and 9.x-ray emissions from galaxy clusters. In the last several years, astronomers have added seven additional lines of observational evidence confirming the reality of the finely tuned cosmological constant, bringing the total to sixteen. These seven are: 10.Lyman-alpha forest measurements; 11.polarization measures of the cosmic microwave background radiation; 12.stellar ages; 13.cosmic inhomogeneities; 14.gamma-ray bursts; 15.evolution of galaxy clustering; and 16.galaxy cluster angular size measurements. http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-s-dark-energy-articles
Besides the evidence that Dr. Ross listed for the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the universe, this following paper clearly indicates that we do live in universe with a ‘true cosmological constant’. A cosmological constant that is not reducible to a materialistic basis. Thus, the atheistic astrophysicists are at a complete loss to explain why the universe expands in such a finely tuned way, whereas Theists are vindicated once again in their beliefs that the universal constants are truly transcendent of any possible materialistic explanation!
Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, (a 'true cosmological constant'), and that is exactly where Einstein stands.” http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
Verse and Picture:
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. picture - Magical Places You Won't Believe Actually Exist http://ap_images.s3.amazonaws.com/article_photos/000/010/588/14497567-01e1-443b-942f-6ce208393668_original.jpg
Luke, Thank you for the references! They were just what I needed. I had not realized there was further work in this area. At the moment I had rewritten the Parthenope BBN code and was dismayed that the "open community" code uses commercial NAG libraries to compile! So researching for free substitute libraries, I think I'll be using the Kawano code, even though it doesn't do neutrinos very well. Most of the reasons given for the R = c/H model underperforming are related to my thesis for what is missing in cosmology--namely the magnetic field. If the BB had a whopping big magnetic field, the BBN era ends in mostly CNO, both because the neutrino cross section depends on magnetic field strength, and because the magnetic moment forces everything into its ground state, eg. low entropy. This solves several problems at once: horizon problem, dark matter problem, dark energy problem, flatness, origin of life, and low entropy of BB. And, I would argue, does so much more elegantly than the recent contender SMASH. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05414v1.pdf But regardless of whether I can ever get the codes to work, what this indicates is precisely my point--dark energy is just one of many alternative scenarios for how the BB occurred. It solves some problems but creates others. Particle physicists, whom you apparently have little concern for, cannot fathom how Lamba ~ 1.0, when the naïve theory predicts 10^120. And with so many problems unsolved, and so many other (and more reasonable) alternatives available, why would the Nobel committee ever consider the dark energy theory proven? Some community lied to them, or they are motivated by something else. And yes, Luke, I do know who you are. It is one of the disadvantages of the internet, that we now have to have a virtual persona, and then defend it. Would that the seekers of truth were always anonymous, who put truth before reputation, before career. But I will be resigned to the fact you have publicly committed yourself to several positions I find erroneous, and cannot easily retract them because of the precious internet. Concerning your internet defence of fine tuning as evidence of intelligent design, I am a fan of ID as most on this site know. But unfortunately fine-tuning assumes the thing it attempts to prove, namely that there are contingencies to Creation that are unlikely. But if all Creation is law-driven, thus removing the contingencies, what is left of the fine-tuning argument? Simply saying that we know of no such law that converts contingencies into causalities is an attempt to prove the existence of a Creator from our own lack of knowledge. It is the old finite mind, infinite God argument repackaged. It proves nothing to those not already believing in a Creator. Ultimately all such appeals are subsets of Jesus' words in Mark 4 "to those outside everything is in parables". Robert Sheldon
Considering inflation theory: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’” (Acts 17:28); “And; he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Col 1:17) Perhaps we can understand the initial creation moment as when God cast the creation into the vaults of heaven, indicating a prior existing space and time in eternity? In the Judaeo-Christian belief system, the Spirit of Life generated spirits and matter from eternal time and space. Space must have always eternally existed, as with time, as we live and move and have our being in God, and all creation must surely rely on some perpetual energy. Halton Harp; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#The_Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies, considered inflation a wrong conclusion, http://creation.com/the-heavens-declare-a-different-story. There are too many anomalies with the Big Bang Theory to put our complete trust in theory above divine law: RSR Astronomy Segment http://kgov.com/which-came-first-stars-or-galaxies If identified is expansion of space in the bible, under unalterable divine law as Jesus said, the heavens will pass away before divine law (Matt 5:17-18), and his words will not pass away (Matt 24:35); Jesus teaches also the Ten Commandments unadulterated in obedience to the Father. Jesus must uphold divine law in relation to the six days of creation, because God; who Jesus is in part and in whole, told us himself at Sinai how long creation took in divine law, for his worship and our good, every seven days. If true the Big Bang Theory, God is asking for to remember false truth and hence give him false worship every seven days in terms of divine law. That cannot be, otherwise, God casts out God, truth, divine justice and divine law. However, where from this continuous perpetual energy to inflate, and inflating into what? Surely in some existing space. Does God get pushed further back by his own creation; hardly. Of course, that does not mean our material space/cosmos cannot inflate, deflate or fluctuate within limits. We should pay some attention to the theoretical boundaries of the cosmos, but we cannot identify it because we cannot identify God. Space cannot expand into nothing. Likewise, the theoretical space contained in the theoretical infinite hot and dense cosmic egg, must have been hard boiled somewhere in some space before something broke the cosmic shell and inflated somehow its contents to eternal blazes, all totally against any known physical laws and known laws of the speed of light. At the boundaries, it would seem galaxies present the same form as those near to us, indicating, no original evolution over ages and ages after the initial miracle, God created in six days, as He wrote down in divine law. Still, such a God clearly presents as anti-theory, yet we are clueless in the operational effects of miracles. Clueless, in the infinite power of the Almighty. We cannot even begin to replicate the theory of the Big Bang. Surely, pride, disbelief and beguilement inflates God given divine knowledge from Sinai? mw
Their paper does not cover the CMB and BAO data. They say that their non-accelerating cosmology "is not prima facie in conflict with observations of the angular scale of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background or of baryonic acoustic oscillations, although this does require further investigation." In fact, further investigation has been made: the Milne cosmology cannot account for big bang nucleosynthesis https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07460 , nor BAO: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.1664B . The theoretical basis is similarly suspect: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460L.119K Also, "theory-laden" does not mean "that they have to assume the result they are supposedly confirming". The observations are consistent with the given theory. That doesn't prove the theory, but it does mean that they do a lot better than theories that aren't consistent with the evidence. But allow me to introduce myself: www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610 https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 I know about fine-tuning. In fact, I'm rather a fan of it. lukebarnes
The Universe expanding at a constant rate would seem the most fine tuned? Neither accelerating or decelerating - a perfect cruise control? ppolish
Luke, Perhaps because "actual cosmologists" get paid to push the bollocks. You didn't read Prof Sarkars paper. He covers the Planck data, the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (but I repeat myself), and you know as well as I that the cosmic yardsticks for galaxy distances are notoriously poor. So it is exactly as Sarkar has said--the corroborating evidence is theory-laden. But since you are such a fan of dark energy, then give me a reason for dark energy in the Standard Model. And then explain the reason the cosmological constant isn't 10^120. Honestly, would any other field of physics cling to a constant is 120 orders of magnitude off? Robert Sheldon
Bollocks. Galaxy rotation curves, the analysis of galaxies interactions like the bullet cluster, and the cosmic microwave background are all evidence for (but not proof of) dark matter. Sarkar's paper only shows that the supernovae evidence *alone* is not, to some standard, conclusive evidence of dark energy. But look at the relevant plot of the paper, reproduced here: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/a-non-accelerating-universe/ A non-accelerating universe remains a possibility, but the almost every model consistent with the data represents an accelerating universe. Sarkar's work provides a useful analysis of the degree of consistency. But cosmologists have known this for some time, and have tried to test for the presence of dark energy (or equivalently, accelerating expansion) using other methods. And these have confirmed the presence of dark energy. The cosmic microwave background anisotropies (Planck), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.3435A), Galaxy redshift surveys, and galaxy cluster studies together rule out the possibility left open by the supernova data taken on its own. For example: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Frieman/Figures/figure8a.jpeg Why do you keep getting Sheldon to comment on cosmology? If he can't spot an obviously overhyped press release, then maybe you should ask an actual cosmologist. lukebarnes
Even if the universe is not accelerating it's expansion, it is not slowing down, as some predicted. So, it seems to me, there has to be still some kind of energy sustaining the steady expansion of it rather than the slowing down, which was faulty predicted by some scientists. Visnu
Everything makes sense in light of (well, rather in the shadow of) dark entropy driving dark evolution (you heard it here first). Charles

Leave a Reply