Categories
Creation Science

A YEC question about stars and time


Recently I cam across a question posted by a YEC regarding stars and older events in our universe. Here it is followed by my brief answer.

Now I am no astrophysicist, but I do know that science pretty well agrees on the big bang. Therefore the oldest event in the universe is everything originating at the same point.
It is said when we look deeper into space we see older events. Yet, how does that account for the older events happening closer together since the universe is in fact expanding with time? And the older you get the more compressed everything becomes. Is this not true for time as well?

Now I am no astrophysicist either but from what I know,  space time like a 3 dimensional grid (actually in theory it is 4 dimensional). FYI, the expansion is not at a consistent rate throughout history. Light as you know, the further it goes from the source, the more it scatters. But also remember that light is both wave and a particle. And that there is a lot of matter in the universe which affects light because of gravity.

Now, the expansion of the universe is happening, we know that. But why is it happening and what it really means to expand?

Consider a stick of gum and put four small objects on it, two objects on either ends, call them group L1 and group L2, mark their position and then stretch the gum. You will see that the distance between group L1 and L2 on either sides of the gum increased from each other but their location on the gum itself hasn’t changed at all, it is the same. The whole gum has expanded.

The same way, the universe expanded, and the expansion which is happening now is because of inertia of the Bigbang. But there is matter in the universe and there is gravity present so the bodies which get closer together, bond with gravity and thus they remain at the same distance at which they bonded. It is simply that their space, like in the gum example, is being stretched but because of their gravitation bond they are not expanding away from each other.

Meaning L1 and L2 moved apart but the two bodies in L2 remained bonded to each other while expanding away from L1 altogether.

Bodies which gravitate towards each other are released from the inertia effect of the big bang therefore they stay with each other because of the gravity in between them. This is the precise reason why the Andromeda galaxy is not moving away but in fact moving towards the milky way galaxy, because of the gravitational force present.

I have oversimplified it but that is the basic thing.

m31_ware
The Andromeda Galaxy. Andromeda is the nearest major galaxy to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Our Galaxy is thought to look much like Andromeda. Together these two galaxies dominate the Local Group of galaxies. The diffuse light from Andromeda is caused by the hundreds of billions of stars that compose it. The several distinct stars that surround Andromeda’s image are actually stars in our Galaxy that are well in front of the background object. Andromeda is frequently referred to as M31 since it is the 31st object on Messier’s list of diffuse sky objects. M31 is so distant it takes about two million years for light to reach us from there. Much about M31 remains unknown, including why the center contains two nuclei.
Categories
Science

The universe is a “Giant Brain”


The idea of the universe as a ‘giant brain’ has been proposed by scientists – and science fiction writers – for decades.

But now physicists say there may be some evidence that it’s actually true. In a sense.

According to a study published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, the universe may be growing in the same way as a giant brain – with the electrical firing between brain cells ‘mirrored’ by the shape of expanding galaxies.

The results of a computer simulation suggest that “natural growth dynamics” – the way that systems evolve – are the same for different kinds of networks – whether its the internet, the human brain or the universe as a whole.

A co-author of the study, Dmitri Krioukov from the University of California San Diego, said that while such systems appear very different, they have evolved in very similar ways.

The result, they argue, is that the universe really does grow like a brain.

The study raises profound questions about how the universe works, Krioukov said.

“For a physicist it’s an immediate signal that there is some missing understanding of how nature works,” he told Space.com.

The team’s simulation modelled the very early life of the universe, shortly after the big bang, by looking at how quantum units of space-time smaller than subatomic particles ‘networked’ with each other as the universe grew.

They found that the simulation mirrored that of other networks. Some links between similar nodes resulted in limited growth, while others acted as junctions for many different connections.

For instance, some connections are limited and similar – like a person who likes sports visiting many other sports websites – and some are major and connect to many other parts of the network, like Google and Yahoo.

No, it doesn’t quite mean that the universe is ‘thinking’ – but as has been previously pointed out online, it might just mean there’s more similarity between the very small and the very large than first appearances suggest.

Original article at here

Categories
Atheism Bible Christian Creation Inspirational Science

Thank God for Charles Darwin


I know some people might frown upon the title just to begin but if you did frown, I suggest you try a face-palm too, because you might be doing that anyway by the time this post ends.

Most of the highly conservative Christian sect has so far taken science out of their lives that a mere mention of the word brings people to look at you like you went crazy or something.  The idea that science can be right is frowned upon and heavily debated among many YEC groups. To be fair though those people are not against science, they are against it only when the validity of their exegesis is in question. Evolution, ID, creationism, multiverse and all that.

Categories
Atheism Bible Christian Inspirational

Musings of a theoretical physicist: questions about faith


I wonder whether atheists think deeply about the various issues. When I was an atheist, I did not pay that much attention to Christian thinking. I was brought up in an atheistic family where I was told to read the Bible but with keeping some distance from it, not to be sucked in to it. I also thought that Christians were not wise people and I did not explore Christian thinkers which was mistake. Maybe there are many atheists out there who are like I used to be, not exploring things.

I am a theoretical physicist and can talk about physics and its relation to faith. I do not find any of it disturbing my faith. Even my university physics professors never said anything disturbing about faith in their lectures. One thing I remember very well: One of my physics teachers wondered that the world is describable. There are quite few laws describing vast amount of things and one really wonders about this. And one can wonder further, where do these laws come from? What is their origin? One of my atheist friend does not wonder about this at all, because he says that when he thought about it, he could also wonder about the origin of God.
Categories
Atheism Bible Christian Creation

If the universe did not have a beginning…


It was some years ago when I was reading Stephen Hawking’s “A brief history of time”, a great book to understand somethings about our universe in plain English. I was always fascinated by space travel and I still love to read about the universe and how it operates. My single greatest curiosity is still, “whats out there 5 billion light years away?”, and it was the same when I was a child. I still wish I could one day travel into space (highly unlikely), I never was good with maths so despite my love of physics I am not a very technical guy when it comes to calculations and I hear that the guys who go up there have to be very intelligent, oh well, never mind.

What I was reading was that, how Einstein’s general relativity theory predicted the behavior of our universe, and in there hawking also wrote that if the universe had a beginning then an outside agency must be involved, which for the sake of our convenience we may call God. But he also wrote that if quantum physics and general theory of relativity are combined, a universe may have been formed literally out of dense matter, at quantum levels. The math is dense but his point being, that this way the creation of the universe would not need a creator, as time would not matter, his famous line being, the start of the universe is like the south pole, whats south of the south pole? it does not really matter. This way the creation of the universe would be governed by the laws of science.

Categories
Atheism: A Logical Analysis Quotes

Quote of the Day-4


Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.

Peter Kreeft

Categories
Atheism: A Logical Analysis Quotes

Quote of the Day-1


My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.–C.S. Lewis

Categories
Atheism: A Logical Analysis

Creation: Do we need a God?


My recent time was spent reading books on the idea that we would not need a God to have this awesome, beautiful and breath taking Nature and the Universe. While the list is not that long. Mr. Hawking’s “The Grand Design” and Mr. Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” were at the top of the lists.

I personally think of Mr. Hawking as a brilliant human being and that he has earned due respect with his contribution to the field of science. He is no doubt one of the great scientists of our present age.

Where I admire greatly the passion showed by the author in “The Grand Design” and the depth of rationale and knowledge that it summarizes, I found myself asking more questions about what most people bring to the table when they need to argue.

On the topic of “God”, he is quite subtle saying in his previous book, “A Brief History of Time”.

“There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed, It would just BE.”

and further

“However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it
started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

So the question is thrown back at the reader. It implies that we do not need God to understand this universe and given the appropriate pointers a simple conclusion would agree with what has been proposed.

He practically deduces that if there would only be gravity present and nothing else the universe would create itself, expand and shape up as we see around us. This is based on the premise that if there is a God, we can not know for sure, hence God is not needed

Come on, have you ever seen something really astounding birthed by gravity. Can gravity create a sprawling universe? where did it get the matter, and when did matter developed consciousness or preferences, since almost all of living things inherit one or other of these traits, even plants have preferences.

And while I disagreed on the above, I had to laugh a few times on some of the things I read in the “Grand Design”.

Read this…

“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? “

And after some lines…

“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency7 that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”

Here I could not but fathom reading science fiction. Anyways, you may as well decide if the laws of physics govern, rape murder and necrophilia? But given the implication it might as well conclude that if we are doing what we are programmed to do. no matter what and how deep the level of arbitration and complexity we might see, it would be an automated response, complex, so complex that it is impossible to be calculated, yet instilled in us. And here is where I part ways with this statement.

All life and all the complex beauty of the universe is so diverse that we still haven’t seen much of it. we hope to, in our search of enlightenment but “God” does not seem modern in terms of our quest to understand all that surrounds us. Yet his deduction from the creation hypothesis seems to leave large gaps.

First and foremost as I mentioned in my previous post, what was time zero? and If God was at time zero? there is no way scientifically to disapprove that. What science merely gives as an alternative that we would not need God, but then they do not have all the answers as well.

Quantum Physics, Gravity and M-theory (which is not even universally accepted or completed for that matter) proves a lot of things but parts of them are still to be tested, e.g Quantum Gravity is one thing where a lot of research is still needed, often barred by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and to top that, what these theories (while not wrong) can not redo is the actual event of creation it self. That it has never been duplicated or redone. Why? that is one question which science takes the liberty at telling us that creation or collapse/annihilation is millions and millions of years ahead.

Of course in the event of a black hole or a star exploding we see annihilation but that in itself is not conclusive. what we see in such events is matter transforming in an other form or shape. In simple words, we see transformation not creation since matter can not be produced by nothing. If our universe was born like this than it happened from previous existing matter.

My question still stands.

Where did matter originate? Where did magnetic fields and polarities originated? How do they always follow the same principles and laws of physics and not change or evolve. If they change why is not the change constant? If they do not change than it implies a set of rules programmed. who programmed them?

If I say God, it is thought to be ridiculed. However if someone says, “lets presume the universe was always like this”…bang, we just substituted the argument, nothing else.

I can assure you that if you sit on a beach and hope to cross the ocean with nothing and you wait for 5 billion years, the trees on the beach will not automatically turn or should I say evolve into a boat without a carpenter. Evolution without God, creation without God would be shapeless and chaotic, it would be random and prone to change. Even at grand scales why do we find uniformity?

Matter would be present but not in shape and structure that is organized and follows a pattern. As the stapler on your desk does not become a photocopier even if it is left to do that for a million years, likewise a stunning and complex system cannot be founded without at least someone starting the process. I can even think that God might have started our universe and then never interrupted natural process.

I do not go against scientific findings they are there because they are proven (not talking about hunches and assumptions and theories that can not be tested) but if you are trying to find God through science that is like finding Alexander the great in your mommy’s cook book.

The reason I quote Mr. Stephen Hawking is that he is one of the lead scientists of our day and that many Atheist views spring out of such incomplete theories. I am not against anybody but I must point out the obvious gaps presented in such data, not to be offensive but simply to counter act the fact that such theories and ideas are mostly thrown at people who choose to believe while they do not know that even qualified analysis, must make some assumptions. The same flaw that Theists are accused of making up.

A word or two on Mr. Dawkins is due (soon).

Categories
Atheism against Religion Atheism: A Logical Analysis Christian

The Creation Argument: How the atheist’s view creates a logical problem


One of the most hotly debated argument when it comes to proving or dis-approving God is “How The Universe was Created?”

Let me begin by saying that I do not think God made this universe in six days and I also conclude that it might have taken billions of years for evolution to take control of our planet.

Thus saying do I concur with science? yes I do.

Do I negate the Biblical story, no. I can only assume that thousands of years ago, man did not have the unblinking, revealing nature and reality of the cosmos.

Do I think that it is an error? certainly not. All discovery is limited by our own perceptions. The Bible is filled with poetry and metaphorical language and though I am sure that there is no hidden pattern or clues hidden in it for a higher truth than the knowledge of science about our universe. I am sure that most of the biblical language is not be taken and interpreted literally, it should be within its context, translated and understood.