Thoughts on the Universe

[Gregory Matthews]

I like to think of issues that may not have an answer---the big issues of life, reality, beginnings and endings, and much more.  As I have previously stated, I am currently taking a 48 hour, video self-study course, taught by Alex Filippenko, on cosmology.  In the following areas my thinking has been stimulated:

1)  The nature of the Universe is:

4 % normal matter:  This is everything that we see.  It is what we are.  It includes both the stars and the wood in the desk where I am sitting.

21% dark mater:  This is unseen and it is substantially unknown.   Yet it is believed that it must exist.  We just do not know much about it.

75% dark energy:   This is not matter.   It is energy that we know little about.   It is an energy that is negative, yet is pushing the universe to expand outward.  This will eventually force the universe to expand at an exponential rate, which it is not yet doing.

My main thought on this:  The magnitude of our ignorance as related to our limited knowledge.  

2)  The shape of the universe:   Limited by the fact that we can not see for an unlimited distance in space, the shape of the universe is flat.  It is not a sphere.  

My main thought on this:  I had always considered the shape of the universe to be a sphere.  I am uncertain as to what to make of  this.

3)  Limitations on our ability to see back to the Big Bang:    I have understood that light that we see coming from cosmic objects of exceedingly far distance show us what that cosmic object looked like exceedingly far back in time.  So, my question has always been as to what we might some day be able to see about the Big Bang itself.

Now I find that there is a limit as to how far back in time we will ever be able to see.  That limit is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.  We will never be able to see any closer than that.

 

Just something to consider.

 

[JoeMo]

23 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My main thought on this:  I had always considered the shape of the universe to be a sphere.  I am uncertain as to what to make of  this.

According to Steven Hawking, the universe appears to be a sphere because we can only see 13 billion light years out.  No matter what direction we point our telescopes, the universe looks the same - it appears to be uniform because we can only see the same distance (13 billion light years) in every direction. We have no clue (nor can we have a clue) about how far out the universe extends beyond 13 billion light-years - if it does go further than that.  Theoretically, no matter where you are in the universe - it would appear as a sphere with a radius of 13 billion light-years.  Relatively speaking, the earth is at the center of the universe.  So are the planets circling the farthest stars we can see.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joe Mo has posted an alternative view, which I made a very slight reference to.

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

According to Steven Hawking, the universe appears to be a sphere because we can only see 13 billion light years out.  No matter what direction we point our telescopes, the universe looks the same - it appears to be uniform because we can only see the same distance (13 billion light years) in every direction.

I sometimes wonder at the arrogance of astronomers and evolutionists who propose the "Big Bang" theory. Scientists are skeptical of what the Bible says and unbelievers in what God revealed in His word.

One thing that truly amazes me is that they can "pinpoint" the age of the universe down to ~14.5 billion years. But then Christians start feeling like they have a problem as with "short man syndrome" and a bit insecure about believing this earth to be "only" 6,000 years old. So, they start agreeing with these scientists and eventually even start disbelieving in creation. They have fallen into unbelief about the very words of God. Simply put, which fewer and fewer Christians seem to believe these days, is the saying, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Ellot Waggoner in his book "Lessons in Faith" took up this very topic and described those who do not believe what God says to be in unbelief. When He says something, it is done. He does not even have to add, "Make it so!"

As far as the "straight line theory" in all directions to the end of the universe, that is just one of the many theories proposed. Straight line light rays to the edge of a room from a candle may be good, but I am not sure that straight line thinking can be applied to the universe. Among many other theories complicating any understanding are open & closed universes, bending of space-time by gravity, wormholes, the role of black holes in the universe, and many other theories.

Complicating any real understanding of the universe is simply not enough information. But in my own limited understanding of the universe, I tend to believe the "big bang" people are the ones with the "short man" thinking. I tend to believe the universe to be old in terms of billions of billions of years old. Yeah, pick a number and add 18 zeros! But that is just a wild guess. Then remember that God was here forever before that.

Sometimes I do not believe that people really understand just how powerful God is. Given that at the second resurrection, estimates of up to 100 billion people will be resurrected, instantly brought back to life. So, which is harder for God to do - resurrect 100 billion people or create the world out of nothing? Don't forget the fourth day where He put up a star (our sun) which is nearly a million miles in diameter and then the planets including the giants like Jupiter and Saturn with their system of moons. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The age of the universe:  It is estimated to 13.7 billion years plus or minus 200 million years.  That  results in a range for 13.5 billion years to 13.9 billion years and is often rounded off in talk to 14 billion years.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

That is why you need to study cosmology.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

My point is that in cosmology you learn the science behind such and that such is not mere philosophy.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

NOTE:  My comments will be taken from:  Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to astronomy, 2nd edition, by Alex Filippenko.  It should be noted that my posts will reflect my understanding of what he wrote and may contain errors due to a failure on my part to  understand him, as this subject is complex and I have attempted to write his work in my own words.  So, much of what I wrote below are not his exact words, but are mine.

*  To begin let us review some constructs of geometry and the differences that exist between Euclidean (plain or flat) geometry and the geometry of either a sphere or of a saddle.  In Euclidean geometry two parallel beams of light will travel forever, never meeting.  In such a case, the visual size of an object viewed by those beams of light will be inversely proportional to the distance of the object from the of the light beams.  On a spherical surface, such as the Earth, two beams of light, both sent at 90 degrees tangent to the equator will meet at the North/South pole.  In addition, an object viewed by such beams of ight will appear to be larger than it actually is.  Two similar beams of light sent for a negatively (saddle) curved surface till travel further and further apart with distance and in such a case the size of the viewed object will appear smaller than it actually is.

*  The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has studied the structure of  Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and determined that the Universe is essentially flat  However, this does not rule out the position suggested by Hawking that the curvature of the Universe  is such that it only looks flat over the limited distance that we can see. l This is an alternative view t hat is held by some who posit that the universe is a sphere.

*  The idea that the Universe is not only expanding, but accelerating is derived in part from the fact that photons emitted from supernova are blueshifted.

*  The WMAP in 2003 and in 2006 established a Hubble Constant which established an age for the Universe of some 13.7, billion years, plus or minus 200 million years.  So, with a range for 13.5 to 13.9 billion years, it is often rounded up to 14 billion years.

NOTE:  In the above, I have only touched on a small part of the science behind the conclusions that have been made as to the age and structure of the Universe.  In actual fact, some of this is a very simple understanding on my part.  I do not have the background in math that underlies much of this, to understand it at any depth.  So, I have not gotten into any of the math.  My point is: Disagree with the standard conclusions as to the age and structure of the Universe if you wish.  You may be correct.   However, do not dismiss such as mere philosophy that is not grounded in science.   It is grounded in a science that is based upon the idea that the past can be understood and it can be understood by processes that exist today.  If that is rejected, one is off in meta-physics and philosophy.  This is the   essential reason why science does not speculate as to the nature of the actual Big Bang.   

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

23 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

a bit insecure about believing this earth to be "only" 6,000 years old.

I don't see in the Bible where it says the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Maybe "the earth as we know it" is only 6,000 years old.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Gen. 1:1-3)

When I read these verses, it appears that the earth existed prior to the first day.  Who knows for how long? I can't believe that God would create something chaotic and void; so I infer that something catastrophic had happened to the "prior" earth; and it was necessary for God to reshape it and create an environment that would be conducive to life.

I find it interesting that radioactive dating of human remains goes back a million years. For 99.9% of that time, men were simply hunter-gatherers.  And then, 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, civilization springs up all over the planet.  Could God have created a man after his own image - a man capable of creative thought, logic, and deductive reasoning - a man to whom he could eventually trust to manage the planet; thus introducing civilization and technology to this enlightened, advanced humanoid at that time?

I am an avowed creationist; but that doesn't mean I have to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.  I ain't sayin' it isn't 6,000 years old; but I ain't sayin' it is, either.

Take a look at the following article:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I don't see in the Bible where it says the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Maybe "the earth as we know it" is only 6,000 years old.

That is why we were created with the capability of mathematical reasoning. Looking at the life spans of the various individuals of the Bible and doing the math we can come up with a reasonable close to 6000 year period of time since the earth was created. To me, anything else is simply to be in unbelief. (Unbelief being doubting the very word of God.) Perhaps a few hundred more years if you really want to stretch it, but do keep in mind that according to the Jewish calendar, we are in year 5779 which is even shorter than 6000 years. Year of creation - 3761 B.C.E

Noted briefly your article, but when they disagree with the Bible, I discard them as not having any validity. I realize scientists are looking at interesting data, however, it is their conclusions that I find erroneous. So, who do I follow? The scientists or God?

[Gregory Matthews]

Sometimes we are forced to admit that the Bible is NOT wrong, due to the fact that the bible did not teach what we claimed it taught.

 

[phkrause]

On 11/24/2018 at 8:41 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Noted briefly your article, but when they disagree with the Bible, I discard them as not having any validity. I realize scientists are looking at interesting data, however, it is their conclusions that I find erroneous. So, who do I follow? The scientists or God?

Exactly!!!

 

On 11/24/2018 at 8:41 PM, B/W Photodude said:

That is why we were created with the capability of mathematical reasoning. Looking at the life spans of the various individuals of the Bible and doing the math we can come up with a reasonable close to 6000 year period of time since the earth was created. To me, anything else is simply to be in unbelief. (Unbelief being doubting the very word of God.) Perhaps a few hundred more years if you really want to stretch it, but do keep in mind that according to the Jewish calendar, we are in year 5779 which is even shorter than 6000 years. Year of creation - 3761 B.C.E

We had a minster from Brazil come to the SNE campmeeting one year, who actually did calculate the age of the earth by checking out the life spam of all the people in the Bible. I had saved the literature from his meetings, but have no idea what I did with it. Will try to find it and if I can post it, I will!! It was a very interesting few days!

[JoeMo]

On 11/24/2018 at 6:41 PM, B/W Photodude said:

That is why we were created with the capability of mathematical reasoning. Looking at the life spans of the various individuals of the Bible and doing the math we can come up with a reasonable close to 6000 year period of time since the earth was created.

Call me picky, but one comes up with 6,000 years since the earth was made habitable for life (including humans) to thrive.  I believe that Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the earth existed prior to what we call creation.  I find it hard to believe that God would have created a planet full of chaos and disorder.  The chaos and disorder came from a prior catastrophic event - possibly a war in the spiritual realm or a huge meteor strike.

Regardless of whether the universe in 6,000 years old or 13.7 billion years old is immaterial to me.  What IS important is that God had, continues to have, and will always have a direct hand in anything that is created.  To me, the "Big Bang" theory screams of a creator God.  Stuff doesn't spontaneously "begin" that never existed before.  If the universe "began" (i.e, has an age that can be calculated), "Something" that never had a beginning had to initiate the process and guide it along.  That "Something" is God.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, Genesis clearly indicates that when God began Creation week, He began with something that already existed.   

Those who use the genealogical tables of Genesis to calculate a date for creation use them in a manner that those ancient Hebrews would not have used them.