[_ Old Earth _] Vaccine?

[Barbarian]

I notice you posted a thread about "5th dimension" and "velocity" on the YE board. I stay off the YE board for obvious reasons, but I'd be interested in hearing your take on extra dimensions, and the idea that there is a privileged frame of reference for motion.

Could you tell us about it?

 

[Vaccine]

I'm still learning myself, but a 5th dimension does seem fascinating. In the article, it explains how galaxies are hard to explain with only Newtonian physics. That by centrifugal forces the outer rings of a galaxy should be flung off into space, but they are not. Here is an plotted acceleration curve, the expected results are (A), the observed results are (B):

Dark matter was proposed to explain this, but Carmelian physics by adding the 5th dimension of velocity can also explain it.

Dark matter comes close but Carmelian physics overlays the observed results. If I am interpreting this correctly, the space surrounding and occupied by galaxy is rotating along with the matter in the galaxy, which is why the outermost parts are not flung off.


As far as a "unique" position in the universe, Hubble offered spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity as an explanation. That from any viewpoint in the universe it would appear to be the center. If that were true, matter should be homogeneously distributed among the universe.

From the Sloan Digital Map Survey matter is not homogeneously distributed but literally follows a pattern of spherical shells spaced 100 million light years apart.
http://blueprintsforliving.com/starlight-time-the-fabric-of-space-and-the-new-physics-part-4/

 

[Barbarian]

The big flaw is that, if there is some kind of stuff that makes space, and there is a privileged frame of reference, then light should travel a different speeds in different directions. And the Morley-Michaelson experiment showed that was not true. And the Sloan digital survey showed that the level of gravitational lensing by galaxies reveals a great deal of mass that is not giving off light. Part of that is, there are a lot more "failed stars" than previously thought, but some of it is still not accounted for.

Hence, dark matter, which is consistent with all observations. Do you have a peer-reviewed source for the concentric shells?

 

[Claudya]

I won't claim that I can wrap my mind around all the physics...
But from an intuitive assessment it sounds like Carmeli absolutely *wanted* to prove that earth was the center of the big bang (or creation event) and thus redefined radial velocity to be a dimension of space time.

 

[Vaccine]

I won't claim that I can wrap my mind around all the physics...
But from an intuitive assessment it sounds like Carmeli absolutely *wanted* to prove that earth was the center of the big bang (or creation event) and thus redefined radial velocity to be a dimension of space time.

I didn't intend to misrepresent Moshe Carmeli, I have no idea if he was a young earth creationist or believed the Earth was the center of the universe.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Moshe_Carmeli

The thing is though, his model of the universe doesn't exclude that possibility.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Cosmological_special_relativity


Since you brought up intuitive assessment, I wonder what your thoughts are on Hubble, who discovered the red shift. The red shift is where the faster objects, such as stars or galaxies, travel, the more the shift in light toward the red end of the spectrum.
In every direction we look in space, there is a uniform increase in speed radiating from the Earth. It's as if we are at the center of an explosion looking out. The Earth is the center of this redshift map, the green is the slower moving stars and galaxies, the red toward the outer part is moving faster:

If we were not at the center (or near to it), we would not see a uniform shift from green to red, it would be lopsided. After Hubble (atheist) discovered this, here were his thoughts:

"There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions."

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."

"But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs."

"Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable"

"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature"

Intolerable? Horror of a unique position? To an atheist yes, but not to a theist.

 

[Vaccine]

The big flaw is that, if there is some kind of stuff that makes space, and there is a privileged frame of reference, then light should travel a different speeds in different directions. And the Morley-Michaelson experiment showed that was not true. And the Sloan digital survey showed that the level of gravitational lensing by galaxies reveals a great deal of mass that is not giving off light. Part of that is, there are a lot more "failed stars" than previously thought, but some of it is still not accounted for.

Hence, dark matter, which is consistent with all observations. Do you have a peer-reviewed source for the concentric shells?

I think there is a difference between the Earth is near the center of the universe, and the argument of a privileged frame of reference. I've heard of some YEC arguments about the speed of light varying, but I thought SN 1987a debunked the idea of a varying speed of light.
I don't know of a peer-reviewed source, but here's a map of the concentric shells:

To me it looks like there are 3 concentrated arches, one in the blue, one in the green to bluegreen, and one in the red to redish orange. Also, the uniform shift from blue to red denotes the uniform increase in speed stars and galaxies are traveling away from the Earth. I would think if the Earth wasn't the center (or near to it), the colors of that map would be random.

I really don't know much about "dark matter", is it only material from a failed star?
Can it be detected?

 

[Barbarian]

I won't claim that I can wrap my mind around all the physics...
But from an intuitive assessment it sounds like Carmeli absolutely *wanted* to prove that earth was the center of the big bang (or creation event) and thus redefined radial velocity to be a dimension of space time.

His is a more subtle attempt than that. His argument is that the "shells" he sees do not put the Earth at the center of the universe, but close to it. It's a defense against those shells being illusionary, as the Earth being at the center of the universe due to the red shift was illusionary.

The "concentric shells" are, of course, neither concentric, nor shells. In fact the second and third concentrations cross each other.

The red shift, in which every distant galaxy is receding from our galaxy, would show the same thing from any galaxy, for the same reason that a raisin in a cooking raisin muffin sees every other raisin receding from it.

 

[Claudya]

I didn't intend to misrepresent Moshe Carmeli, I have no idea if he was a young earth creationist or believed the Earth was the center of the universe.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Moshe_Carmeli

The thing is though, his model of the universe doesn't exclude that possibility.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Cosmological_special_relativity


Since you brought up intuitive assessment, I wonder what your thoughts are on Hubble, who discovered the red shift. The red shift is where the faster objects, such as stars or galaxies, travel, the more the shift in light toward the red end of the spectrum.
In every direction we look in space, there is a uniform increase in speed radiating from the Earth. It's as if we are at the center of an explosion looking out. The Earth is the center of this redshift map, the green is the slower moving stars and galaxies, the red toward the outer part is moving faster:

If we were not at the center (or near to it), we would not see a uniform shift from green to red, it would be lopsided. After Hubble (atheist) discovered this, here were his thoughts:

"There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions."

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."

"But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs."

"Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable"

"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature"

Intolerable? Horror of a unique position? To an atheist yes, but not to a theist.

If space gets inflated, comparable to the surface of a balloon, then every point of the balloons surface will move away from every other point. From every point on the balloon's surface it'd look as if it was the center that everything seems to flee from.
Sorry for this short and ineloquent answer, I sleepy.
But maybe you get my point though.

Edit: the raisin in the muffins example Barbarian brought up is the same argumentation as mine. Just more tasty.

 

[Claudya]

His is a more subtle attempt than that. His argument is that the "shells" he sees do not put the Earth at the center of the universe, but close to it. It's a defense against those shells being illusionary, as the Earth being at the center of the universe due to the red shift was illusionary.

The "concentric shells" are, of course, neither concentric, nor shells. In fact the second and third concentrations cross each other.

The red shift, in which every distant galaxy is receding from our galaxy, would show the same thing from any galaxy, for the same reason that a raisin in a cooking raisin muffin sees every other raisin receding from it.

I've heard about those "concentric circles of red shift" observation before somewhere and I thought it had been rebutted as a geometrical artifact of the large scale distribution structure of galaxies.
Sorry, can't seem to find a reference. I'll try it again tomorrow. Good night.

 

[Barbarian]

If space gets inflated, comparable to the surface of a balloon, then every point of the balloons surface will move away from every other point. From every point on the balloon's surface it'd look as if it was the center that everything seems to flee from.
Sorry for this short and ineloquent answer, I sleepy.
But maybe you get my point though.

I have used this analogy with students as young as 10. They get it. Mostly, because they can measure the changes, and see that it happens. Of course, it's only a 2-d analogue of the actual expansion, but it works. Every point on the balloon (made with markers) moves away from every other point.

 

[Claudya]

I have used this analogy with students as young as 10. They get it. Mostly, because they can measure the changes, and see that it happens. Of course, it's only a 2-d analogue of the actual expansion, but it works. Every point on the balloon (made with markers) moves away from every other point.

Yeah I guess it's the most well know analogy. It's hard (though not impossible) for humans to imagine the same thing happening with a three dimensional space. But it's a lot easier with a 2d analogy.
The raisin muffin example is a good 3d example though (although it's a different physical mechanism )

 

[Vaccine]

"Now at first sight, all the evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was [Russian physicist Alexander] Friedman's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it on the grounds of modesty; it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around all other points in the universe! "
Hawking, S.W., The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1996; pp. 56-57
emphasis added


It comes down to atheist presuppositions vs theistic presuppositions whether one believes the milky way is nearest the center of the universe:

"However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.
Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973. Their reference is to: Bondi, H., Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960.


Even people who lived during the same time as Hubble believed our galaxy was nearest the center of the universe:

"The galactocentric viewpoint developed by Harlow Shapley in 1917 represents a step forward in astronomical thinking and perception analogous to the introduction of the heliocentric viewpoint by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. The galactocentric viewpoint is now completely accepted and so taken for granted that it may be difficult for the younger astronomers to comprehend that it involved the overcoming of established systems and prejudices, and that this giant step forward was due not only to a substantial amount of observational work but above all to the insight, intuition, and courage of one individual, Harlow Shapley."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...32&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102815951603

I guess in 1917 it was the norm to accept our galaxy was nearest the center of the universe.
Here is a chart showing our current view (a), where galaxies are concentrated in concentric shells the farther from Earth one goes, and what it would look like if our viewpoint (b) was moved 2 million light-years :

 

[Barbarian]

Could you direct us to the peer-reviewed article from which those graphs were taken? Oddly, the graph doesn't seem to have any connection at all to the data displayed from the Sloan survey. What's up here?