nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 77:
Line 77: + + + + + + +
→Young earth?: Maths sources and bounded vs. unbounded
::::::: And then, as the matter began to thin out at the edges, a conventional space-time continuum came to be. Time began to flow at the edges--but not near the center. So that--by our own clocks--the universe beyond our galaxy simply endured accelerated aging. And on Day Four of [[creation]], the [[star]]s appeared for the first time--and set in recognizable patterns so that they could reliably give us seasons. By this model, many of those stars had existed (though most of them existed in our galaxy and are therefore much younger than are the quasars and so on in the far beyond), and the light from them would reach us shortly after time ''qua'' time came to be on earth.
::::::: And then, as the matter began to thin out at the edges, a conventional space-time continuum came to be. Time began to flow at the edges--but not near the center. So that--by our own clocks--the universe beyond our galaxy simply endured accelerated aging. And on Day Four of [[creation]], the [[star]]s appeared for the first time--and set in recognizable patterns so that they could reliably give us seasons. By this model, many of those stars had existed (though most of them existed in our galaxy and are therefore much younger than are the quasars and so on in the far beyond), and the light from them would reach us shortly after time ''qua'' time came to be on earth.
::::::: Many other arguments remain to show that ''this galaxy'' is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Many other arguments remain to show that ''this galaxy'' is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::: The article I linked to was written at layman's level. What makes you think that Russell Humphreys hasn't done the maths? See his book, ''[https://store.creationontheweb.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=374&osCsid=97d00c3c1efd8ccd44026c7d9d594372 Starlight and Time]'', and/or search for some of his published papers, such as in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/34/ Journal of Creation].
::::::: Bounded vs. unbounded is significant because an unbounded universe has gravity the same in all directions (local effects excepted) because there is no centre, whereas a bounded universe has the centre of gravity at the centre of the universe (assuming a roughly even spread of matter).
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:43, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?
That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?