Is there a "Creationist" Cosmology?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by al onestone, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    I don't know much about cosmology, but I do know that they accept absurdities in their theories (ie Dark matter). Therefore I speculate that there should also be somewhere a cosmological model that explains the history of the universe in a creationist picture. I mean here that the history of the universe is one where it started from a small amount of energy/mass and "expanded" or "created itself" to become a large energy/mass.

    The absurdity that this model would have is obvious; it assumes that the laws of physics somehow allow creation in a way that we have yet to discover. But this absurdity is no worse than assuming that we cannot observe half of the universe, dark matter.

    Has anyone in the cosmological literature ever speculated such a theory and tested its claims against the empirical evidence/observations?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,138
    I seem to recall that the late Fred Hoyle, who subscribed to a steady state model, thought there was matter being continually created. Interestingly it seems he rejected the Big Bang (a term he actually was responsible for coining) as too suggestive of a Creator! At least that is what the Wiki article on him says.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,326
    Isn't that the model where... God done it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,596
    Creationism is not an alternative to science; it's an attack on science. It doesn't need models of its own; it only needs to attack the scientific models.

    Creationists do sometimes claim to have models but they don't feel obligated to be complete or consistent.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,138
    Agree, but I think Al is trying to reclaim the label for a broader meaning, viz, a model of the universe in which the amount of matter/energy is not constant but increases (is "created") with time. Hence my reference to Hoyle's Steady State ideas.
     
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,833
    Why do you think that is absurd? Do you know why scientist believe there is dark matter?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,239
    Absurdity?? Perhaps you need tt really look into cosmology.
    The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and that we are able to explain it the way we have is a credit to science.
    Perhaps you have an agenda? just asking.

    In the mean time for your perusal.....
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

    NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

    "This is the most energetic cosmic event, besides the Big Bang, which we know about," said team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Gravitational Lensing Explanation
    These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.

    "A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona at Tucson, and leader of the study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Animation of Cluster Collision
    In galaxy clusters, the normal matter, like the atoms that make up the stars, planets, and everything on Earth, is primarily in the form of hot gas and stars. The mass of the hot gas between the galaxies is far greater than the mass of the stars in all of the galaxies. This normal matter is bound in the cluster by the gravity of an even greater mass of dark matter. Without dark matter, which is invisible and can only be detected through its gravity, the fast-moving galaxies and the hot gas would quickly fly apart.

    The team was granted more than 100 hours on the Chandra telescope to observe the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56. The cluster is also known as the bullet cluster, because it contains a spectacular bullet-shaped cloud of hundred-million-degree gas. The X-ray image shows the bullet shape is due to a wind produced by the high-speed collision of a smaller cluster with a larger one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    4-Panel Illustrations of Cluster Collision
    In addition to the Chandra observation, the Hubble Space Telescope, the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope and the Magellan optical telescopes were used to determine the location of the mass in the clusters. This was done by measuring the effect of gravitational lensing, where gravity from the clusters distorts light from background galaxies as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

    The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Animation: Galaxy Cluster in Perspective
    "This is the type of result that future theories will have to take into account," said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the study. "As we move forward to understand the true nature of dark matter, this new result will be impossible to ignore."

    This result also gives scientists more confidence that the Newtonian gravity familiar on Earth and in the solar system also works on the huge scales of galaxy clusters.

    "We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said.

    These results are being published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra program for the agency's Science Mission Directorate. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory controls science and flight operations from the Chandra X-ray Center, Cambridge, Mass.
     
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    My main problem with Big Bang cosmology is the extrapolation back to a singularity.

    Singularities strongly tend to be suggestive of a flaw in a theory.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,239
    No, just that GR and the BB are classical theories and have limitations. We need a validated QGT to throw light on that first 10-43 seconds.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The answer is no.
    Read some literature associated with modern cosmology. That was everybody's problem with the classical Big Bang theory. Nobody believed the universe sprang from a singularity. It just took awhile to discover a model, or three, that could fix the 'bad' predictions associated with a universe that comes from a singularity. One bad prediction was the universe would have collapsed long before humans were around to wonder about it. At the same time the classical Big Bang theory describes so much of the evolution of the universe in detail. It never was a theoretical model of the origin of the universe. In the end it's the 'backbone' of the modern standard model of cosmology.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,685
    al onestone:

    What an interesting way to start.

    You don't know about dark matter, but you know it's absurd? How does that work, exactly?

    You'll find one version in Genesis, Chapter 1. There's another, different, version in Genesis, Chapter 2, as it happens.

    We have quite a good model of the big bang right now, and it's improving all the time.

    It's more than half.

    Also, the reason that the concept of dark matter is needed at all is precisely that it has observable effects.
     
  15. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    I just read his wiki page, and the steady state theory doesn't please me. If you're going to account for the expansion of the universe with a creation/free-energy model, you might as well do so by explaining that the parts of the universe, the galaxies, some how come up with the energy needed to give them motion and thus the expansion of the universe. Hoyle seems to explain that the galaxies move away from one another and that others appear in the spaces in between so that a "steady state" is reached.
     
  16. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    This is a science forum. Not a religion forum.
     
  17. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    I'm not coming from a religious angle. I'm coming from a free-energy angle. Free-energy is absurd. So is dark matter and singularity.

    So why doesn't anyone complete a free-energy based model of cosmology?
     
  18. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    All I know is that they/scientists/experimental-cosmologists only have evidence of the "effects" of dark matter. These effects could in principle be explained with other models. How about a free-energy model rather than a "dark matter" model.

    I consider dark energy to be an absurdity because it is not observable, only its effects are observable.

    Dark energy/matter is equally absurd to free-energy/matter.
     
  19. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    You might say that my "agenda" is free-energy.

    "Direct evidence"? I don't think so. If it was direct evidence of dark matter, then we wouldn't refer to it as dark now would we.
     
  20. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    I agree completely. Another absurdidy to the "big bang" model.
     
  21. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    OK, I didn't think that someone would have a free-energy model of cosmology. At least not a popular one.

    Ah ha, so the current big bang model is predominantly motivated by the observations. Physics doesn't change. The problem is that sometimes the results point in the direction of an absurdity, dark matter. Perhaps there is another explanation, like free-energy. Or at least I hope so. But I'm not in charge of where the observations lead.
     
  22. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    Matter is not dark. We can observe it. Dark matter is something which we can only see its consequences/effects. To believe in such a thing is clearly absurd. Why not just believe in the observable consequences?
     
  23. al onestone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    This is a science forum. Not a religion forum. I am not religious.
     

Share This Page