themusicteacher
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 708
So, I get this e-mail at my school account from someone (not sure if he's a teacher or not; lists as in our district but I can't find a location for him):
As a philosopher of science and as an individual interested in the education of our children, there is an issue that needs to be considered carefully. Is the single big bang/single expanding universe/finite cosmos model a scientific model? I may be from the "old" school, but I was taught that in science, something comes from something. There are no exceptions.
I have proposed that big bangs come from black holes that have grown too large to hold their energy, never include the entire cosmos, represent natures's largest cycle, and evidences itself by the large voids we see in 3D cosmic maps. My model may not be correct, but at least it is scientific. If I must accept on faith that something can come from nothing, then I must consider it a religion or magic. Remember, fundamental Christians say that everything came from nothing 6,000 years ago, not 13,700,000,000 as the cosmologist would have us believe.
Additionally, there are several other factors that make the single big bang model, not only improbable, but logically impossible.
1. The Speed of Gravity Issue
Most physicist believe that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. Yet cosmologist must assume an infinite speed of gravity, as that is the only way distant objects and events could have any gravitational relationship to planet Earth and our Milky Way Galaxy. If there is any limit to the speed of gravity then there is a limit to how much material could be included in any one event.
2. The Cone of Knowledge Problem
The cone of knowledge concept makes us aware that we can only have knowledge of those physical systems and events whose light has had time to reach us. All other events and physical systems are therefore beyond our knowledge. The single big bang model assumes we can see everything that exists. If there is anything beyond what we can see, the single big bang model has no answer.
3. The Not Enough Time Issue
a. Not too far from here, along the Toltec and Cumbres railroad, there are granite deposits that are said to be 3.5 billion years old. If the entire cosmos is only 13.7 billion years old, then this rock represents one fourth of everything that has ever existed. Impossible.
b. Different elements are made in different star types and the higher elements must have traveled through multiple star systems to form. Since most stars have lifetimes measured in billions of years, there has not been enough time for all known natural elements to form.
c. When cosmologist say that a super galaxy cluster is X billion light years away, they never add the age of the structure to the time its light has taken to get to us. A super galaxy cluster surely must represent trillions of Earth years and is therefore "older" than the age of the "universe." The cosmos is infinite in both space and time even if universes come and go.
There are many other issues that I and others see as problems for the finite cosmos model currently so popular. But the real issue is what do we teach our children? Do we tell them they are born into a finite cosmos, with all of the limitations that concept implies? Or do we tell them they are spirits born into an infinite cosmos and the only limits are those limitations they allow within their own minds. I personally think it is critical to the survival of our species to see ourselves as infinite beings in an infinite cosmos. But what do we teach our children?
So, I replied thusly:
Why is 3a “impossible?” Also, in 3c, the time the light travels to get here is the time it takes to get here. Perhaps you could give a specific example of “X billions of light years” these generic cosmologists are giving and tell me how you are making the leap from billions to trillions. It is highly probable I am misunderstanding your points so I’d like some clarification.
Not sure what this guy is getting at. Any suggestions or thoughts? I think it's a hacker and/or rabble-rouser who knows even less about science than I do.
As a philosopher of science and as an individual interested in the education of our children, there is an issue that needs to be considered carefully. Is the single big bang/single expanding universe/finite cosmos model a scientific model? I may be from the "old" school, but I was taught that in science, something comes from something. There are no exceptions.
I have proposed that big bangs come from black holes that have grown too large to hold their energy, never include the entire cosmos, represent natures's largest cycle, and evidences itself by the large voids we see in 3D cosmic maps. My model may not be correct, but at least it is scientific. If I must accept on faith that something can come from nothing, then I must consider it a religion or magic. Remember, fundamental Christians say that everything came from nothing 6,000 years ago, not 13,700,000,000 as the cosmologist would have us believe.
Additionally, there are several other factors that make the single big bang model, not only improbable, but logically impossible.
1. The Speed of Gravity Issue
Most physicist believe that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. Yet cosmologist must assume an infinite speed of gravity, as that is the only way distant objects and events could have any gravitational relationship to planet Earth and our Milky Way Galaxy. If there is any limit to the speed of gravity then there is a limit to how much material could be included in any one event.
2. The Cone of Knowledge Problem
The cone of knowledge concept makes us aware that we can only have knowledge of those physical systems and events whose light has had time to reach us. All other events and physical systems are therefore beyond our knowledge. The single big bang model assumes we can see everything that exists. If there is anything beyond what we can see, the single big bang model has no answer.
3. The Not Enough Time Issue
a. Not too far from here, along the Toltec and Cumbres railroad, there are granite deposits that are said to be 3.5 billion years old. If the entire cosmos is only 13.7 billion years old, then this rock represents one fourth of everything that has ever existed. Impossible.
b. Different elements are made in different star types and the higher elements must have traveled through multiple star systems to form. Since most stars have lifetimes measured in billions of years, there has not been enough time for all known natural elements to form.
c. When cosmologist say that a super galaxy cluster is X billion light years away, they never add the age of the structure to the time its light has taken to get to us. A super galaxy cluster surely must represent trillions of Earth years and is therefore "older" than the age of the "universe." The cosmos is infinite in both space and time even if universes come and go.
There are many other issues that I and others see as problems for the finite cosmos model currently so popular. But the real issue is what do we teach our children? Do we tell them they are born into a finite cosmos, with all of the limitations that concept implies? Or do we tell them they are spirits born into an infinite cosmos and the only limits are those limitations they allow within their own minds. I personally think it is critical to the survival of our species to see ourselves as infinite beings in an infinite cosmos. But what do we teach our children?
So, I replied thusly:
Why is 3a “impossible?” Also, in 3c, the time the light travels to get here is the time it takes to get here. Perhaps you could give a specific example of “X billions of light years” these generic cosmologists are giving and tell me how you are making the leap from billions to trillions. It is highly probable I am misunderstanding your points so I’d like some clarification.
Not sure what this guy is getting at. Any suggestions or thoughts? I think it's a hacker and/or rabble-rouser who knows even less about science than I do.
